TIIE PERCEPTION 0F WILDERNESS
RECREATION CARRYING CAPACITY:
A. GEOGRAPHIC STUDY IN
NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF P.H.D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
GEORGE HENRY STANKEY

1971

 

 
   
     

W rleERARY
L’ Evin; £2 g3!) State

[Inmvcrflmy'

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE PERCEPTION OF WILDERNESS
RECREATION CARRYING CAPACITY:
A GEOGRAPHIC STUDY IN
_ NATURAL RESOURCES

.MANAGEMENT I '
presented by - -

George Henry Stankey

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D; degree in Geography

Jan/LAM

Major professor

 

Date 72 37¢ -7/

0-7639

 

 

 

I

PLACE IN ammta mum-mm . (Scam.
TO AVOID HHESMMorbdmddo dun. '

‘ DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE K
.t ‘3 E . w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Initiation
GWWH-l

, Ill-L v —=——— wry.—

MB
/07
3/;

 

 

 

Auto -

Ik’nlwt .F .H‘y
_ i f
.P. t» .

 

. . . O I I 9.. .ITHIIWHLATIAIw
I .. .I .. .uIn. ..rH. ”RIM. «I

 

 

 

1 CM

  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
   

but “rm-v.

n L .n ‘,.
nth Aw: -.
“A” b] (mu;

\ '3er

I‘ll. GOKrnL I

5% f‘ ." ,z

“I in f"' ' .'-.-"l.

Im- in” '-v 1: _- ,. ._ .9 "_ ‘ l.._
w Warm ‘- .. ~ ,.-.~, . x .g 3 fire:
PIWfi) U! lfiracs «3 AM we"; 5-.» . _ t; ,r ‘5;
_m: ILL-ism to "n: ma.- :2, .13, .- g ,_
Elm Milo» :1 2.38312" to at.” C'lv

fi “W's, uni! mu». .0 Ira-w t- mam»:

 

irrational use
31:15:12.5 as pr:
3151:3195. Zn 1::

"71:3. Of 5:13.: am:

Kama“ Etity by 0:.

'fi l
“.3

'3’ 5‘5 rim s‘u

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE PERCEPTION OF WILDERNESS

RECREATION CARRYING CAPACITY:
.W A GEOGRAPHIC STUDY IN

NATURAL museums MANAGEMENT

By
George Henry Stankey

Recreational use of Federally designated wilderness areas in
the United States has probably been increasing nearly 10 per cent per
mm since 19‘i6. In this same period, administrative and legislative
designation of such areas has expanded the acreage of this type of
recreational entity by only 3 per cent. At many locations, the inten-
sity of use has risen sharply, threatening wilderness preservation and
esthetic objectives. The crucial question of wilderness carrying
capacity forms the focus of this study.

Recreational use in four National Forest wildernesses was
ennined--the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana, the Bridger Wilderness
in Wyoming, the High Uintas Primitive Area in Utah, and the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) in Minnesota. The study sought to define
that parameters visitors utilized to define capacity, what spatial
variations existed in the perception of capacity, the geographic
“t of crowding in each wilderness, and what measures to increase
capacity existed.

Truly SOC visit
It}! extent they :2
mm 2:231: nod ':
a... i: Luci: at tit

HI

3:514:23; am
:‘e 313‘! par-caption
2250 related to d
22:41 “pats, la?
39".: 0! ”Spandex:

Euler publis‘ne

:53“! "to confine

 

S L»
Lo
I“Nor bolt
34,
.’ ””31 h '0?

 

 

 

Stankey

 

Nearly 500 visitors were sampled. Respondents were classified
as to the extent they held "purist" attitudes about the wilderness, a
precedure accomplished by use of an attitude scale. Those most
ole-ending in their attitudes toward wilderness were labeled "strong
purists."

Substantial areal variations were found among the study areas
in the user's perception of carrying capacity. These variations were
found to be related to differences in resource characteristics,
situational aspects, level and type of present use, and cultural
background of respondents.

Earlier published findings on the differential perception of
wilderness were confirmed. Considerable discrepancy still cadets
between institutional goals and visitor objectives. Only 140 per cent
ef the salpled visitors were found to be seeldng an experience coinci-
dent with institutional objectives.

Four aspects of carrying capacity were investigated: level of
use encountered; type of use encountered; the location of the encounter;
and depreciative behavior of users.

npe of use encountered was a more crucial aspect of capacity
than level. Hater boats in the BWCA caused a sharp drop in satis-
faction, especially for strong purists. Horseback use in the West
adversely affected backpackers' and strong purists' satisfaction, but
not to the extent Ictcrs affected canoeists in the BWCA. Large parties
were an extraordinarily significant source of decreased quality for
visitors in all areas.

runs: tolsruze
mu! m i: the 111:0
:33“; mi It tr. 3
stars.

5: no control as
15111:: mm as t:
21:33:. sore than c
Isflnstmtm Um
I m mid be an
Win; waists mi

3:91: ill areas
mass were {curd to
”'14 ”minted Clo:
53111315235 and 1

be «tuition o

.I ‘ I,
'- P953113 Great:
in. .

"t ‘39 3130? STOKE

1:3...
'4' up?” 1111?. of

'Hirthgi, Cfizpc

 

I

J. P038“.

‘Uae

he

tr
' :I' 5“ ”fling

 

 

 

Stankery

Greater tolerance was shown for encounters near the wilderness
boundary than in the interior. Strong distinctions between encounters
on the trail and at the campsite were made, with most favoring trail
encounters.

No use control method was acceptable to a majority. A mail.
reservation system was the most acceptable and strong purists supported
such a systen more than others. Modifications in access or wilder-
ness infrastructure were seen as more desirable means of controlling
use. Zoning would be an important managerial step in the BWCA,
separating caneeists and motor boats.

Use in all areas was poorly distributed and some zones in each
wilderness were found to be used in excess of capacity. These
generally correlated closely with ease of access and attractions,
especially fishing, and in the BHCA, with motor use areas.

he definition of an area as crowded was linked to the average
miner of persons encountered both on the trail. and at the campsite.
Resting two other groups on the trail or waterway generally appears
to he the upper limit of use for a quality experience. Most favor no
ethers near their campsite.

Twelve possible management techniques are suggested to increase
capacity. The outline for a probabilistic model for estimating capa- ,
city is given, based upon the trade-off between allowing more visitors
into an area and the impact of this on aggregate satisfaction. Through
cempater simulation, the use mixture that would naxinise utility could
be identified.

 

“0"

he O

.m‘

x . r'\~‘

I
0.4.,

' ‘ ' x xi“:

 

O
,.
C
., 4 ,
K
C
. . s I '\
I g ,n
‘ G
O
f
.
.
e s ,
, t .
s L
. e O
|
I v s
' k
v
‘a'
in "
It I . ,. ‘ ' C K " ‘
L“ a
O
\
p \
. - , 4
.
, . .
r. , ' ‘ o. . U
. v I‘
h ‘ Q A
_ , .
o .
. , l
a
.

 

 

fit“ (a futon e.

 

 

'1

.,,£‘

 

 

 

. - ‘V V
m:‘3L‘Iw-P "‘3 ‘ I”

Is iii: all disssr'
m usistuco. '3.
1:9, Famed, Levi! i
in: :3ar consider
1‘54} pomnml.

Field 3ch m (:1
E1, L111 Earning,
It. 31:": Andersen
It,
* 4:4 n: 0533931134,-

L ‘
3.3M? mutino use:

I ‘ ‘
e- e'
\,. '

“an“.

R. .
MQSkl‘euz-i T «

PH '
43:4 ‘
.Abu’wlm' dBSer

 

 

 

 

 

As with all dissertations, a number of persons have provided

invaluable assistance. The staff and administrators of the Ashley,
Bridger, Flathead, Levis and Clark, Superior, and Wasatch National
Ferests provided considerable assistance in information and facilities
fer field personnel.

Field work was ably carried out by Pamela Devereaux, Dan
lanes, Willie. Manning, and Sandra borne.

Mr. Dick Anderson of the School of Business at the University
of Montana was especially helpful in the analysis stage. He developed
the computer routine used in the study and helped iron out numerous
difficulties.

he secretarial staff of the Forestry Sciences Laboratory at
Missoula, Montana, deserves mention for its assistance. Miss Elizabeth
Tocsek was particularly helpful, typing the review draft.

Mr. Dan Meier prepared the naps. Mrs. Susan Egan typed the
final manuscript.

m wife, Jackie, handled the difficult Job of translating my
Writing into the initial rough draft. She also provided me with

numerous counts and criticisms that helped considerably in revision.

 

Mi'"'.._...__ _, '
‘ -, -
I. f! ‘ (new. a‘

399an mm 5;:
min am ms;-
an: m also metre
m 50:13: Etta-c.

Inst £130 artery
1‘12! 23‘. to cosglete
‘55“, L15 stz‘tiy ‘u'c

hilly, U deep :I
:5 5'" P‘f‘COptivenos

‘1‘: 3” “Pitt's i" ' ."

 

Special thanks go to Ian Motley and Michael Chubb for their

constructive advice throughout the dissertation. Constructive review

 

counts were also received from Charles Cicchetti and John Krutilla of
Resources for the hture.

I Inst also extend w thanks to the nearly 500 persons who
' took time out to complete the questionnaire. Without their voluntary
assistance, this study would not have been possible.

Finally, In deep appreciation goes to Robert Lucas, whose
insight and pereeptiveness has greatly benefited my understanding and
regard for America's wilderness.

iii

mm-..”

. '34"? " , 1 (I!
d u- .M. $ ‘

I

O
p
In

25 SPATIAL EIE

V.
-

. u
l. .. e
”93:13.10: , ,

 

 

likeness; A 5;
51' meant {c
h 597‘ ‘4‘, In!
“fixative :H
K . , . C Q
4 themes:

., " “110ml '33 e

‘ ‘u‘ .
O

m Mm .
“t ' M ,
51m Wtfictiv.

“‘31” Git-line

‘e 4L \-

v ._ _, _
smu::§ C: -
he '0‘

5"“ of 1

Car-r, A, ~
SB‘ 4 2‘3
' Va
‘4'.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I. THE DEVELOPED” OF THE WILDERNESS CONCEPT AND
In sp‘m mmslou O O . O I C O I O O I I O O O

Intmuction O O O O O O I C O O O I I O O O O C I .

Wilderness: A Study in the Definition of Resource .

me Hovement for Preservation . . . . .
The Move to Institutionalize Wilderness
Legislative Protection for Wilderness .
'meUildernessAct...........

Recreational Use of Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . .

The Wilderness Resourcu-Its Spatial Dimensions
M “tun I D O O O O C I O C I O C O O O O O C .

stWObJ.et1'.seoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Chlptormtlinc.............o....

II. THEODNCEPTS 0F DWIRONMENTANDCARMING CAPACITY:
TEEWIIDERNESCONTEXT...............

nellatureofhuironnent .............

meConceptofCarryingCapacity. . . . . . . . . .
Carrying Capacity Definitions in Man-Land Studies
Sustained Yield and Carrying Capacity . . . . . .

Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity . . . . . .
‘nle Concept of Wildemess Recreation

GamingClpacity...o...........

An Operational Definition of Wilderness Recreation
c‘m “pcity I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I

iv

Page

21
30
31

33
35

#2

1+2
1+7

57

 

:2.-

2 5'3 L735 LIED 31?

512i: Am Select

35: Inneteris
ieszzm Cunt
31211113511 3:1

30 tutiormin

1'30 1km kit
the 'P‘JiSI" S:
k»""‘stntisn

h; St. NH,

r . . ‘¢ .\
Mannie: :

‘ ‘F
in... «'11? 3...!

 

 

Page

    
  
  
  
 
   

«l-L'mmnnsmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 63

stw m Selmim . . . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . . 63
m. M‘cteri‘tics e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 64’
3.80m. mot.mt1°. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 6?
Situational Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
”I. Mtimm e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 82
m uh” ‘ttitm. sod. . O I . . . . . . . . . . . 82
m ”Purim" 30.3.. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 8‘"
Administration of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 88
sgnpmgprooodmsmdproblm........'.... 92

Trail Stratification Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Determination of the Sampling Schedule . . . . . . . . 94
SelpleCharacteristics................ 95

I“ WON 0F WERNES RECREATION CARHIING

w‘uu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C . . . O . . 99
m. D101 M I“ Effect on “Feisty e e e e e e e e e e 99
m min of $011th . . . . C . . . . . . C . C 100
m Ilplot of meountor, e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 102
bpe of Use and Its Effect on Capacity . . . . . . . . . 11?

moum'Mheeeeee eeee eeeee 117
Perceived Appropriateness of Modes of Travel . . . . . 120
Visitor Preferences for other Modes of Travel . . . . 125
The Effects of Large Parties on the Perception

of m mwcity O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 129

m. m “ti'f‘ction O O O O O I O O I O I O I O I 0 O O 136

Spltill Upon“ 0f c‘P‘city e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 11’s
mt ”sumh . C . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Mphorll v.rsn8 IntCflor mcountOr' e e e e e e e e 1"‘9
meaapsiteaafl‘erritory"............. 152
Mauv- Behavior Aspects of Capacity . . . . . . . 166
‘ i Wit. “Cm. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 168
“tum e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 171
”mam: Mk8 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 175
~. V‘Hfllbmll Quality e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 17?

 

f.. ‘1‘ -r. .-

r—r-r

 

 

'l '1‘

J-

_ =~ rev-N Q- '

e I. "

.. -- 22.7mm .2 ~
ef'Ow'Y" 2?.2‘

delove. '5. :w". .

‘ .e-
Vie \”"':5 .

new...

hr. :vestigati:
37-12"; Use Reg.

‘.,.;

e ' .
heiowr a. 'e:.;v

he Eer:e;°.ior. cf

Specific Cantr:
retract." L'se
biifiutior.
Patipulatio'

12:13,

O O I
'1"! Size 2.2:;

L1 [2:31:16

Morena: 1';

7“..°‘ ‘.“.!4 .

“a”; v: REJLCJ
h 1335 Gnu-1;.
Here 3:335 In:
“"9 Ear» m:
.1?” 352953635-
Elena” p”
:193111ug IUICEZ
M11 DOW: a
313.. fit Ic;
£340 hoods:

 

 
 
   

Us.
anion”; Ev:

 

 

Page

   
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
    
  
  
   

r' m “INTERIOR OF QUALITI: PERCEPTION 01" RE-
' STRICTIVE,‘ REISEIBUTIVE, AND MANAGWT
mm WW I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 180

Past Investigations of Visitor Attitudes m
Mm Us. Reguhtion I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 181

Visitor Perception of a "Carrying Capacity" . . . . . . 185

n. Perception of Us. Raguhtj-on e e e e e e e e e o e e 191 ‘

-. .' W. Control “sures e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 192 1
"Y. "meet" U59 contmls e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 199
, ;_ Modification of Wilderness "Infrastructure" . . . . 200
%. »HanipulationofAccess............... 203

km I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 205

3"... PMySizeIMitations................o 208
Preferences for Party Size Limits . . . . . . . . . . 210

 

rx‘_h.PIrc°Pt1°n°fCMd1nEeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 23“

T An Acceptable Number of Horses . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
3' Future Controls: Necessary or Not? . . . . . . . . . . 214
.71555- ‘ Visitor Attitudes Toward Managerial Inputs and
' heir Relation to Carrying Capacity . . . . . . . . . 218
m“ High MW mils I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 220
MoreSignsIndicatingPlacestoCamp......... 222
More Maps and Information Pamphlets . . . . . . . . . 224
W Er. Nita, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 225
":7 WImIBI Wars I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 226
"i" Himmom‘ndcomeeeee eee eeee 22?
" ‘ Snell Docks at Portage Landing and Canoe Rests . . . . 228
SW. Pit Toilets I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m
MIWOOdInBrj-dgeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 23°
nenagerial Inputs and Carrying Capacity: Sone
mthmmkseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 231
E." PAWS OF RECREATIONAL USE IN RELAHON TO THE
‘ WWOFWGC‘PACITI..........¢. 23"
1

 

:2

3.9 Effezts of
he Effects of
of Stay . .

inn” and 2:
Muse and 31
379.150 and C":
39:50 ad 3‘

3119:2935 15:1 5

h ., . .
- 11-3-4: re 3;;
I . Q. “NF‘.

‘ - . e \
~° 3-3.! of {1-2

5‘9 3'31!th :
3" 31539311“:

 

 

 

 

he Effects of Crowding on Visitor Satisfaction . .
he Effects of Crowding on Route and Length
Of Sm I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

ThIArOllECbentofOVeruso....o.ous....

OveruseandCrowdingintheBWCA . . . . . . . .
Overuse and Crowding in the Bob Marshall . . . .
Overuse and Crowding in the Bridger Wilderness .
overuse and Crowding in the High Uintas . . . . .

Wilderness and Overuse: Some Concluding Comments . .

VII. MANAGERIAL AND CONCEPTUAL SOLUTIONS TO THE CARRIING
WACIH PROM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

n:- Role of Values in Resource Decision-Making . . .

The Relevant User Value System . . . . . . . . . .

he Objectives of a Wilderness Recreation
CapacityPolicy ...... .....

“me Consequences of Carrying Capacity . . . . . . .

HeasurestoInoreaseCapacity............

antral P‘rty Size I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Elimination and Control of Littering . . . . . .
Provide wilderness Users a Greater Basis for Choice
mininatenotorCraftintheBWCA. . . . . . . . .
Critically Examine the Extent and Quality of
Access at the Wilderness Boundary . . . . . . . .
mininationofStructures. . .. .. . . . . . . .
Continuation of the Wilderness Ranger Program . . .
Cooperation with State Fish and Game Agencies in
the Establishment of Harvest Regulations .

Encourage "Off-Season" Use of Wilderness . . . . 2
he ClosureofDamaged Campsites . . . . . . . . .

Strive to Comicate the Objectives of the
“0111.58 ”at” I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

TheMisiontoROStrictUao eeeeeeeeeeee

A Probabilistic Model for the Calculation of
WCIPIOityeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

”Ind“.eeeeggeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Vii

Page

233
239

214-3

245
251

261
266

269

269
273

271.}
275

278

 

 

:12er *3?me 37

‘l""‘

1.

q...
{Lnfiuooee e I

' . . n . . .ETLmess 2°.

. . J , ~
.. £155.: 0. . i. Q
; ‘ -~ 1 he: mi Pollux

' 3‘ 39°31; Fail Quest:

 

I . I I
I p ‘ a
' ‘ e t ‘ e
. .

“4U 0‘ Lonnie:
‘..
LI. I . . . . .
\
e v \ ‘
‘ s
I
y ‘
I . I I . I I I
H
C I.
. ..

 

‘LW‘I.eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
, , J M e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
W e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
I. I’m e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
'5‘ ".I‘
"it‘ll mention-airs Delpmse . . .
«H V. ' ‘- mm e e e e e e e e e
.7”- forest
r. ’ ‘W to Ion-Respondents
[H' “W. e e e e e e e e e e e

  
 
 
 
   

‘r

.s..s

'QIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
yr'

., tn; .

. 1mm

303
303
310
323

339
333
335

336

 

 

l -

5-.

o

\
a

3!" '2: in '11: its
has it Five ';

likens: Rest-e;
Fem: Senice
In: 21th
:emz‘ago of Si;
”953116 Iran

has: Pmmti: '

:31“: 0f 38 LE“,

 

9:133“ "axizil

ILL-135.035 Prel
“5301:1313 3'

4' Tractor-is:

5’6 “5111.3“ t
l’i-Ser'mss 5;";

hfkmbilir
I ' ' e e
u ”memes:

 

 

 

 

‘ WI
1.
1'
1| 2.
z I.
e._ 3.
.‘. to.
.z‘ .
‘l x. 5.
. I}.
\ 6o
7.

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

8.
9.

10.

11.

LIST OFTABLES

Page

Growth in Visits to Wilderness and Primitive
Areas at Five Year Intervals, 1946-1966 . . . . . . . 18

Wilderness Recreation Use as a Percentage of
Forest Service Auto Csnpground Use at Five
ImhtIflm,1y‘6-1966eeeeeoeaeeeeee 19

Percentage of Sample Possessing Certain Socio-
econaic Characteristics in Selected Wilder.
nessBecreationUseStudies............. 22
Growth of Designated Wilderness, 1930-1969 . . . . . . 21+
Estimated Maxim Potential limits to the National
Wilderness Preservation System (Within the 1&8
mumoust‘m)eeeeeeeoeeeoeeee 26
Use Characteristics of Study Areas . . . . . . . . . . 66

Administratively Defined Carrying Capacity of
stw m8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 67

Distribution of Purist Groups Among Study Areas . . . . 89

m Desirability of Solitude as an Element of the
WIm”s Emmont’ By Study ”II. a e e e e e e e 101

he Desirability of Solitude as an moment of
the Wilderness mvironnent by Purisn Score . . . . . 103

he Effect of Node of travel in the BWCA on Response
to I'It is Reasonable to Expect that One Should be
Able to Visit a Wilderness Area and See Few,
if m, Pmpl." I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1%

Purist Attitudes Toward Meeting other Parties
a th. mil I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 107

ix

 

 

'1‘ ..

 

 

 

 

v

33$an to “.t’s
is: mane it.

s

1.-

Effect of lee
It: a: tip 3::

39:3:qu of Fe.“

‘- a
a

3131:)! of '.'i;:
mi Heston: 3‘“~

3".

h 33:63: or £55

2

335.3335" ‘0 "You
‘5 in the 'n’il:
Ian: :‘at of Y;

{-5
.

Purgiion of ‘1 .
k Io ‘. .. .'
«I... by “CK

h’“ by Pu;-
1x you, .3th

;. infifi he h
km“ in the
t- 7g;

 

 

.a)‘: “QC!
ties \
a u 3f

 

 

 

Response to "It's Host Enjoyable When You Don't
Beet Anyone in the Wilderness," By Study Area . . . .

no Effect of Meeting No Other Parties During the
Day on Trip Satisfaction, By Study Area . . . . . . .

Percentage of Persons on First Wilderness Trip . . . .

bequency of Wilderness Visitation in the BWCA
m wut’m Stw has I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

he Effect of the Erequency of Wilderness Visitation
on Visitor Reaction 'to Meeting No Other Parties . . .

Response to "You Should See at Least One Group A
Day in the Wilderness to Get the Host Enjoy.
mtOu‘tonoanrip,"ByStudyAreu. e e e e e e e

Perception of Appropriateness of Foot and Horse
Travel by Backpackers, Horsemen, and Hikers
with stock I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Perception of Appropriateness of Manual and Motor
Travel by Paddling Canoeists, Motor Canoeists,
M ”tor BOItIrs I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Expressed Preferences for Seeing Other Modes of
Travel in the BWCA, by Respondent's Mode of
mvol I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Expressed Preferences for Seeing Other nodes of Travel
intheWesternStudyAreas, ByStudyArea . . . . . .

User Preference for Large Parties or a Variable
NuberofSnallParties, ByStudyArea . . . . . . .

Expressed Preference for Encounters on Wilderness Peri.

phery or in Interior Locations, By Study Area . . . .

Reactions to other Campers by Members of Wilderness
Organisations and by Members of Other Conservation
“mfioor RocnItion Clubs e e e e o e e e o o e e

Visitor Reaction to Camping Near Several Other

Parties, By Study Area

I

Page

109

110
112

112

113

116

121

122

126

128

133

150

156

 

 

"5'.

.8

1M

1'

r?!

.‘I

i

I

I“

{1‘

o : . q
A moment auc‘.

teiffec‘. of Si:
isctian to CL"

’ .
fiancee for «a

:m: 312:6 ' 53
3y 3m; bu

H.‘ .‘e "
1.5.x; auction

dense. P5 at
N , I

on now hm Ive

1:: liver. Time I

firmed Level
hits: than ".-

3793:- Visitcr

41-" ‘
7:»? :sacticr
4‘ .
“U, :5] St;

0! final 3y
o

 

unable Vis‘t,
5? bind] h. E

e I
z?
(D

't.’

f

 

  
  
   
   
    
   
  
   
   
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
  

'nn Effect of Single Activity Orientation Upon User
Reaction to Camping Near Several other Parties . . .

23. Preference for Carp Location, By StucLy Region . . . .

29o Other Calps Desirable Within Sight or Hearing,
By Sm m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

30. Visitor Reaction to Camping at a. Place Worn fron
meme,mstudyhueeeeeeeeeeeeeee

31. Reapendent Reaction to "here Should be Restrictions
on How Many People Can be in a Wilderness at
awGivenTine,"ByStudyArea. . . . . . . . . . .

‘ Q 32. Expressed Level of Agreement with Accepting Crowding
-' Rather than Use Controls, By BWCA Mode of Travel . .

.1 '33. Overall Visitor Reaction to Use Control Measures . . .

3h. Visitor Reaction to Reducing Number of Signs and
W,Bylstfiymeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

35. Visitor Agreement with Zoning on Basis of Mode
°tmv°1,Bystudy‘rII-eeeeeeeeeeeeee

366 Western Respondent Attitudes Toward a Party Size Limit

37. Backpacker and Horseback Rider Responses to
MaximNnnberofPersons PerParty . . . . . . . .

'= 38. lhxim meter of Stock Animals Per Party, By
"I'm stw ‘1'... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

39. Visiter Reaction to Allowing Use to Continue . . . . .

p In. hvorable Visitor Response to Managerial Inputs,
Bystudy‘rumstmngmntseeeeeeeeee

L I ,

g} #1. m Perception of Crowding, By mm Visitors . . . . .
.* #1. n. Perception of Crowding, By Western Visitors . . .
‘ heReactiontoCroudingByPuristGroups ......

Page

158

161

16hr

169

186

190
193

206
209

211

213
216

219
236
237
212

 

 

ins;

 

H. be Prhtianshi;
{sci-“ere “-

I‘ve;

.' be iehticn'ri;
u‘ :39 ‘

q".

:srce;

,fii

Pattern of Pest-o:

 

 

     

We” efAetnaerehceunteredte
:MuiIfmhmM”eeeeee

Wu; efOtherPartiee Galpedlearby
hflwmIf Whmm‘reeee

“W.“MWItime ee ee ee
w»

I l"‘ .
. , V . a
. MW a so ~ ~
‘ .I - .
”at?" '4
.AT'K‘ " “
r“ A

\ ‘ , J.
' .‘.
”3:441?

fact" -. r-u‘V

258

259
329

 

 

1

ex...

-*~

exp.
.

. i“ .. .
4" gum, in

3133.7 Am Lou:
3c: P335311 3"...

Lad hr: m,-
6'. w- .. . __
we when: T

F R I

«D. rarest Sr

‘9 "I: e, - ~
"' “-3050 nan
' 5°31 Point
Forest Set-vie.

“A I a
urge? R‘gcew‘

~‘ ‘e,
{imbue 131‘
”‘34:: ' ‘

n J.
50:71“ Phci:

 

 

 

LIST 01" FIGURE

Page

   
   
  
    
  
   
   
  
   
  

Stuiyh‘olecttionS.................. 6“
mbmmmdemosa‘rueeeeeeeeeeeeee 70
‘ Broad Partially Open Valley Along the South Fork of
the Flathead River in the Bob Marshall Wilderness.
13.8. FImt semco Photo e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 71
he Chinese Wall in the Bob Marshall Wilderness,
a Focal Point of Visitor Attention. U.S.
FomtSImcePhotOeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 71
MIrWiMemOSBArOI..............o. 73
Island Lake in the Bridger Wilderness, Surrounded
by a mgged Glaciated Landscape. U.S. Forest
Me. Photo I . . I I I I I . I I I I I I . I I . . 7b
Ht. ““811 in the High Uintll Prinitive Area
Stands Above one of the High Alpine Meadows.
9.3. Forest SCI-Vic. he“ a e e e e e e e e e e e e e 7“
m mus Wtiv. h“ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 76
“MWItIrSCI-noemeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 77
lunerous Lakes, Intersporsed with Tree Covered
blends Characterisos the Landscape of the
m. UeSe F0381: some. Photo a e e e e e e e e e e 78
‘1 Roch Outcrops Along the Shore of Lac La Croix Provide
‘ Canoeists a Unique Esthetic Landscape. U.S. Forest
MOImtoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 78
inmhtflfactioncnfiol..o............. 139

BebMarshallSatisfactionCui-ves...... ...... 11K)

 

VIC.

 

i,

‘ .

.A {7.1 . .
rub-1W. :1. w. J. ‘—

fir

 

 

'b_ V!
'.

oh

1‘

Best”: Study 1

3H 3‘0ch :1:

lanes of
33:95 cf
3:20: of

lanes of

 

 

 

     
 
   
 
 
  

“I.
I! '
i
Page
SatisfaetieaOurm 1&1 o,‘
m h|il “
film “ti-{mm m e e e e e e e e e e e 0 1‘1
'2? g' -,_ M Area strong Pariste Satisfaction Curr. . 1142
.‘v V, Pm‘mt “than“. m e e e e e e e o 143

if ‘Itmmmltheeeeeeeeeee 2H6 ,

[q

..

-AD
.W.

3W0fmmthhibnmm. a e e e e e 252 3.1.”. “
”dwmmnmwg.r,.......o 257 h,

' ‘I max, ‘ . I“ I
-L0tcuun¢wnunmn¢hmtu 262 ‘3'.-
‘ .el‘i fifth-"1‘9 R'fi V .

.1127

i ' A; - f .
agaiwavh r,:
n‘ v.

“ V‘-

77L

\‘J,

1 E ;» ~
‘

 

 

. a..."

9- . '1
.3Ll“ v:-

\v-.~ q

lJ‘

39 past ten yea

.Ifg'zul‘.‘ ' I Q‘ ’
" ' ' . 1
- arm's L11 u»..6.

“an. e.‘

““3". bait arc:
”flan. co

.n‘,I.U 226mm h’:

‘ r .In
Limb tc tour“:-

«1‘! ..§. ‘
'4- Mt ‘ ’95:“: <
'J‘

1‘ u
‘fie. 3;" C‘ '9‘

halo acts. Ca.

(“3.51% (em
3.1. “a:

h‘m» ,Uu .
{N E 54 “c“-

-J

 

 

 

CHAPI‘ERI

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WILDERNESS CONCEPT

AND ITS SPATIAL EXPRESSION

Introduction

The past ten years have seen an increasing number of studies,
by geographers and other social scientists, of reacurce management and
conservation, built around the broad methodologies of environmental
perception, concerned with the behavior of man in relation to resource,
and striving to contribute to the utility of prediction. Much of this
iork has been a result of the recognition of resources as cultural-

economic constructs, capable of change in space and time, rather than

 

 

as fixed physical elements of the environment. As Bowman noted over
30 years ago:
he geographical elements of the environment are fixed
only in the narrow and special sense of the word. The nonent
we give them human associations they are as changef‘ul as
hulanity 1t..1r.1
he classic statement regarding the variable nature of resources

in light of cultural-economic considerations is by Zimmerman. Expanding

 

‘ ilsaiah Bowman. Geo a in Relation to the Social Sciences
‘ hwrt of the Commission on he «1.1m,— PaTV (New YorE:
Carlos Scribner's Sons, 1930,11. 37.

 

e N A..-
. f
:"‘ " :5 m: v-v-M-

0'
I,e
u-I

tux-i 'rsscurr
.. ' e A"
1:24;: out .4: a

o’-

Irpe...n or to an

l'PCV‘“ "‘W ‘p
~e-d .oe-...v . \s..”

5‘

9 . ' e
14138521.“: "‘ ,‘e

32:11:: 1 usu- Va
”3.. ‘3 s “
' o 01" V
e
War a
-u

., .
{Vi-.1,“ ,
fl
- m- Deli;+ M-
a I

":4“ “01311 sun;

J

.a’.
‘ a, a" '
u... yum-93:.

 

 

 

 

   
   
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
    
 
  
   
  
  

a
e
' $

on his famous and oft-cited "Resources are not, they become,"1 he
consents:

he word 'resource' does not refer to a thing or a

substance but to a function which a thing or a substance

may perform or to an operation in which it may take part.2
Consequently, the recognition of some element of the environ-
sent as a resource hinges on its perceived functional utility: what
use can it meet or what desires can it satisfy. As noted above, this
recognition is highly variable, fluctuating between cultures,3 as well
as over time. Nomally, however, the evolution of some environmental
eluent to a resource is accompanied by economic or technological
changes which permit utilization of the element within the cultural
Vitus. A co-lon example of this has been the taconite iron resource
of northern Minnesota. Long forsaken because of its low-grade iron
content, taconite has now become an important source of iron, due
largely to technological advances which permit economical recovery.

In the case of the wilderness resource, the role of economic
Ind technological advance is not as clear nor apparently relevant. 'flle

perceived utility of this resource is not measured in the normal sense

 

1Erich Zimmerman. World Resources an_d Industries (New York:
hrper and Brothers, 1933), p. 15.

zij-de, Po 70

3For two sources on the role of culture in perception, see
“fielder Spoehr, "Cultural Differences in the Interpretation of Natural
Mourns," in Man's Role 2 Clungi_ng t_hg Face of 21: Earth ed. by
William lilo-as Taro-ago: University of Chicago Press, {9555, pp. 93—102
Q11 fireball B. Segall, Donald T. Campbell, and Melville J. Herskovits,
,.;ll,_o__1nnnonce o_r_ Culture ,o_n_ Visual Perception (New York: Bobbs Merrill

 

 

“new, 1%).

is: :mrlity output.
3251303951: to

dilieness does a
rite unite re cur:
£2321: a: I resource
armtizl period of 4
55—33-3251 tCh'apd 3'
393195 5C 011.1131".

“e .. ’I J i
e... W R F.
‘ £933.”

3": fessl‘ce 38711.: c

r
" *9 OBSQt of

mtg; 3f . .

“Games:

 

 

  

     

of some co-edity output. Rather, the cultural recognition of social
and personal benefits to be derived from it is the key element.
Wilderness does share some common characteristics, however,
with the taconite resource or any other resource for that matter. Its
definition as a resource is, relatively Speaking, a recent event. For
a substantial period of American history, it has been an element of
the environment toward which man directed a substantial proportion of
his energies to eliminate. file evolution of wilderness from this
situation to its present status as a legislatively endorsed and pro-

tested resource merits further comment.

Wilderness: A St in the Definition of Resource

At the onset of European exploration of the New World, a
continent of wilderness existed. The unexplored lands to the west
held unknoim dangers as well as unimagined wealth. Basically, the
View of wilderness of the Jamestown settlers and their 16th and 17th
century counterparts was one of abhorrence, an attitude that found
Mification from the hike—Christian traditions on which their society
and life style were conceived.1 u
here were strong religious connotations to the use of the term ‘

Wilderness." Nash notes that a concordance of the Bible lists 280 !

 

1&0 most detailed historical analysis of wilderness is found in
Merick Mash, Wilderness and the Ame_r_i__can Mind (New Haven: Yale
him-city Pres—s '1fl75'.‘ Trio Tcholarly __€r3'e—tment traces in some detail
; “0 etymological origins of the term ”wilderness, " utilizing in.depth

1 Myses of historical literature. ' Y

amt ’9 2,9 30:1.

....a .40

'3'3' :59 3f .icet'mi
l' '53:; 33:: bite:

A

. 4
1’. us nst. L’

I'd

. " s Q
.: I am “gum

e - .

"f“ e nae-u v-‘s nv

“e0. VJ“- -U‘...
Q

'n- ,.. ' :-
-' I“ ‘ :33. earn C .
. ‘ ."A a, . .
;J'ove’s it :36 3‘
'e ‘. I . a l

£E.'es. J 'eLL-c’
'Q“- crg'. .
ens-nu. m'f~“_ '

he. . . I q. _.
. <6 pulse: .35;

‘c
-s, tree s‘vv -

V. was:

 

 

 

  

     

entries for the term.1 The Wildland Research Center in analyzing
Biblical use of "wilderness," noted three essential qualities: (1) it
was virtually uninhabited; (2) it was desolate, occasionally savage;
and (3) it was vast.2 Again quoting Nash:
In a more figurative sense, wilderness represented the
Christian conception of the situation man faced on earth.
It was a compound of his natural inclination to sin, the
temptation of the material world, and the forces of evil
themselves. In this worldly chaos he wandered lost and
forlorn, grasping at Christianity in the hope of del very
to the promised land that now was located in heaven.
bus, the strong Puritan Ethic which pervaded much of pre-
nineteenth century America carried it with a moral imperative to remove
fineness.» There was, of course, a significant difference in the
wilderness that faced the pioneer and the wilderness which they read

shout in the Bible. Rather than being lands of desolation and emptiness,

 

11131.1. , p. 13.

ZWildland Research Center, Wilderness 9‘22 Recreation—.5 Re art
2 Resources, Values, fl Problems, Outdoor Recreation Resources Rev—few
Conission, Vol. 3 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 17.

“For an informative comentary on the perception of wilderness

by the Puritans and the consequent effects upon their society, see
Pete:- N. Carroll, Puritanism and the Wilderness: The Intellectual

.sgcance 2; arm? “Hammer, 1 -1ZOWN—ew_E—Yor : —Columbia
Enversi y Prose, 19397, %3 . It sho pointed out, however, ‘ i

t the exploitive attitude of the Puritan toward nature was not unique.
3m” attitudes existed within other religious and cultural ideologies
as well. See René Jules Dubos, l_h_e_ Genius of t_he_ Place, The Horace M.

t Conservation Lectureship, Vol. X (Berkeley: University of
tillifornia School of Forestry and Conservation, 1970), p. 3.

 

. "
:3 3:88 30 5:59 we
. . . f,
83.2. 326 acne”
. a" . A ‘-
2‘: 22.3.4. . c.-

meant, a act's:-

i‘Lt': the 1590 car.

I es. ‘2. ..

lune but

:5 "*o"‘ ' s
“vibam '5...

“£43.; of 1

’f‘

5' suing,

1
"I
In?“

. , .
«~11 3.1:

O“ ;
“‘2 5415' as a
‘!c-4

“‘1'“ mm 11:.

mm

L
.18 Err-'-
or“

Y!
Jams past cc:

"4‘?“ I
‘., I n
r 55 9. vi."

 

 

 

 

the area to the west hold some of the most productive lands in the

world. The benefits to be gained could be had simply for the taking.
in. recognition of this fact greatly accelerated the rate of westward
movement, a movement that culminated with the "closure" of the frontier
with the 1890 census.

While the 19th century represented the accelerated decline of
the unsettled and unmodified lands of America it also represented the
beginning of a period in which nature, in its broadest sense, took on
new meaning.

Huthi has suggested this change in the perception of nature
from simply as a source of man's livelihood to one in which its
inspirational and aesthetic qualities came to be valued may be attri-
buted to the growth in scientific interest about the new nation. And,
whereas past commentators had written on the repulsiveness and inherent
evilness of wilderness, there began to exist an appreciation of the
association between the Deity and wilderness.

As scientists revealed a universe that was at once vast,

complex, and harmonious, they strengthened the belief that
this majestic and marvelous creation had a divine source.

The nail development of this change in attitude has been

attributed to the latter part of the 1700's and the early 1800's, the

 

1anus Ruth, Nature and 212 American (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 19575, p.175.

.. .. I e‘ e,
ha» .2” .28 5-1":
I

v-..‘ 0.. ‘ Q,
hue-3-; bale hue

‘- ~«1'; ...,..' ,
~ “In.“ gov-a..--

0'-

a :. ".iar. of a

e¢=O.-,

---u and its 3..

‘fl' ' ; I! ‘
‘4‘ 2.2.9 crara':

e“ n

i.‘
‘ 0 Q
“‘1”

you. be.“e in I“:

6
:15 h“: w
eae' u .rment
'

3339 cf ’_

'I‘“: %
In.
‘gnvehess m". e’ ‘-
e V «
‘r‘ua... l
w‘votless are}: 7' —
‘er
‘e :8 0‘ F
“ Vatiz 6
9-
1 I
‘
”‘4 ‘
c-g.

 

 

 

 

 

Age of Romanticism. The literature of this period was primarily

European, but the appreciative attitudes expressed toward nature and
away from the works of man were quickly caught up in America. Nash
cements that the fact of independence gave impetus not only to efforts
to build a flourishing economy and a stable government, but also to
the creation of a distinctive culture.1 The shortness of the nation's
history and its minor literary and artistic accomplishments were
severe handicaps in light of this goal. There was one distinctive
and unique characteristic, however, of the American landscape to which
there was no counterpart in all of Europe: wilderness. ’Ihere was
still. pride in removing it, but its utility as a valuable element of
the environment, in and of itself, was on the increase.2

Some of the principal literary discussions of the value of
wilderness may be traced to the 1800's.3 In both fiction and fact
wilderness and nature became the themes of New World culture, symbols
of the freedom that characterized Americans.“

 

1Ibir:l., p. 67.

2For a discussion of an opposite view, see David Lowenthal,
"Not Every Prospect Pleases: What is Our Criterion for Scenic Beauty?"
Landau? (Winter, 1962-63), p. 19-23. Also by the same author, see
"Is W erness 'Paradise Enow'? Images of Nature in America," Columbia
University Forum, 7 (Spring, 1961+), pp. 310-40.

Brine works of Nash, Wilderness and the; American Mind and Ruth,
Nature and; the American are replete witfiommenfiry of the "literature
We perm. Both contain excellent bibliographies.

l"l'he most detailed discussion of this theme is in William R.
Burch, "Nature as Symbol and Expression in American Life: A Sociological
kploration," (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota,
1

1'25 '11:;
ugfiiafi the gr
flattered nature
1531, he prcpcsec
13.711350 values .-
Luisa, but of r”
3* Fri-Creed the

a, w i
. ' «‘- Statement

9

C
.6.“ ,2 no
"o‘.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The articulate, poetic writings of Thoreau probably best
exemplified the growing literary recognition of the benefits of
unfettered nature to man. In a lecture before the Concord Lyceum in
1851, he proposed that in the wildness of the Western United States
lay those values most necessary in the moulding of, not only the
American, but of men throughout the world. Concluding his address,
he propounded the underlying thesis of his philosophy in the now
famous statement, ". . . in wildness is the preservation of the
world. "1

Thoreau's statement signaled the introduction of a movement
to remove wilderness from the realm of pure sentiment and philosophic
attachment to one where its benefits were more discernible. The steady
progression of western settlement had slowly given rise to the idea
that certain areas, vignettes of the primitive landscape, should be
set aside, not only to protect the resources within, but to insure
that future generations would also have the opportunity to experience

this rich heritage.

The Movement for Preservation

Credit for the first public recognition for the need of
preserving part of the American wilderness is usually given to

 

1Henry David Thoreau, "Walking, " in The Ame_r_ican Ehvironment:
sin the Histo o_f Conservation, ed. by Roderic—Tc Nash (Readin,
Maseac us'e'tts: son-W—esley Publishing Company, 1968), p. 12.

‘.
a

O

 

 

’
+'..,
5..
“EVE

0

00

F

' a

5-:
2:, and
A. a se

“ e
O
‘-
n.4,. e
’0 ‘b.
0

er's‘e‘

o -d.

5e
:2
“.8

v
”e

a:
vii e
is

I

e t. H. ... . . eel .51 ‘IJ .
. C re a; s
v rho '. a ‘ s . a
pan “9 a: .v. S a f new tw ‘9 his! ii. a 4‘ a
My ~ ~ . D" .8“. a m c v Wu: nu Vue .3. e 0 O. a. w ‘5
h K. a 0‘ 0a 0. . a u a .\J .h... “V e‘ h.a
0 .J. .«h‘ V I .e 3cm. 3. r M M“. Y in“. a.“ a.” .3 am. as a 2.. Wet Hes
#» :1 3 O “o. n“ we. nu A». e k. a he lea mu :3. a H.
3 a .3 use .- ed 2 ..I he 4‘ he in Au
s. .. 11”.... .a . . e f» Elm...
"k..a£ .-% a “n I“ w. e .e-u ease I .11“ m . a 1 new. new | E4 . .
e e... e. e no. he . .ek A. a... a e.# .1 ‘1‘ a. .3.
use 0.... arm h a. new v.3. 5....» .. "a h“ KL

. ass... a

 

 

 

1

George Catlin, a 19th century lawyer, painter, and student of American
Indians. Fbllowing a series of trips throughout the Northern Great
Plains, Catlin concluded that the rapid slaughter of the buffalo, the
deterioration of the Indian culture as they came in contact with the
white man, and the general disappearance of the primitive landscape,
represented a serious loss that American culture could ill afford.
In order to prevent such a loss, he envisioned:

. . . a magnificent park, where the world could see for

ages to come, the native Indian in his classic attire,

galloping his wild horse. . . . What a beautiful and

specimen fbr America to preserve and hold up

to the view of her refined citizens and the world, in

future ages! A nation's Park, containing man and

beast, in all the wild and freshness of their nature's

beauty!2

As profound and revolutionary as the suggestion was, it received

little attention. Twenty-five years later, Thoreau renewed the call
fbr the need to preserve portions of the land from settlement and
development:

. . . why should we not . . . have our national preserves . . .

in which the bear and panther, and some even of the hunter
race, may still exist, and not be civilized off the face of

 

1Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, p. 100, Nash, The
American Environment, p. 5— WHu th, Natu we and the American,

.13:- 135.

zGeorge Catlin North American Indians: Being Letters Ea;
Notes on their manners, Customs, and Conditions, written _durégg §%§ht
Icars' Travel amcggs at the Wildest_ Tribes in North_ America 2.1 9
Voi' I (Philad-_elphia: TzubbT—rd Broth—_ers 1'1'5""p."‘_ 295. A brief
excerpt of these volumes, including the above quote is in Nash, The
American Environment, pp. 5-9.

 

nee ’

:3! 913:; 0v ‘-

. . .
It”. "’ FC"V
.JJV ave ",’"

‘. ‘::"1:

.05 .v/U v
. g I . ~ 9‘
0a a. o0.‘ 5' g-
I A... “Va. A... ‘

6. ”9 u.:,,:,-c

fl V-I E-ua‘nl-v
we 2:. 1:6 Ass:

“‘9“ 0“

c..“..e 21:3 55:-

0.: ’ . ‘
Jr .ecerai In:

‘ w-n‘ £

'

'e' , .
m .19 estan-- E
I. 4 ‘
a . 6

S».
e. ’ "i5". . t
11%: “a 5‘ ‘ A
h ~§ae 5‘“ H K
a; 1
4:3; vent'e‘
* .‘ CPR“ ‘
".?e~‘ '. on ‘
‘ “‘6‘?“ ‘\ ;
"Ia ‘ ‘e
7. s H. -
. ‘ nr"
5‘ r ‘~~ :
‘ 1 R

 

 

 

the earth--our forests . . . not for idle sport or food,
but for inspiration and our own true recreation?1

The 1850's may, in a real sense, be viewed as the period in
tine in which wilderness moved from basically a philosophic concept
to the beginnings of a movement that would insure it a permanent
place in the American landscape. There were several actions which
brought this about, but probably the two most significant were the
186“ federal grant of Yosemite Valley to California "to hold . . .
for public use, resort and recreation, inalienable for all time"2
and the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872. While
it is almost certain that neither area was established for wilderness
purposes, it did provide the precedent for the role of the Federal
Government in setting aside lands for nonexploitive purposes. Yellow-
stone, in particular, set the stage for a series of governmental actions
that would eventually create a park system copied the world around.3

The move to set aside lands Specifically for their wilderness

qualities, however, still lacked a figure to organize and initiate

2John Ise, Our National P_§_rk Poli : A Critical Historz
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 9 1 , p. 53.

3Numerous books and articles deal with the significance of the
reservation of Yellowstone to the development of our National Park
Policy. See, for example, Ise, 9_ur_ National Par___k Poli ,pp. 13.50,
642, Nash, Wilderness and t__he American m, pp. —1 Wildland
Research Gena-hr, p. 18— Conrad Wirth, "Na =Eional Parks" in First W___orld
conference on National Parks, ed. by Alexander B. Adams (Washington:
Government Printing Office, —1962), pp. 17-21, and Freeman Tilden, The
National Parks: What Th Mean t__o You and M_e (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, I9355, pp. I5, {IO-113.

 

 

ee‘. D F
Lax“ j 'i’aS a.-

ira". a 31.1 to or

n A‘,
w.- a
:5 53....31'3 3-9:"

patent as a p:-

a...‘ “f b‘AW-Vu‘
vbodd .V‘-.v ..~‘

{55:15.29 edits:-

6'.

A. .
.\

‘1‘ 'O '
"~. 'd 13“ I

.
" e B I\ §

“' -a‘, e- .

baa
U

‘wé

a
r-v6., 'i f‘

 

‘15
' § co~‘
"{a
"U 4
2..
A: e
«g‘q
\. '
1
+= ’7’.
.‘P. ‘s‘
1"‘32: v, e 1";
I'e“:~ *«ich
We; sn~ c
(r ‘SS L
he.“ ‘D ’ ’1 L,
g «0". \ .
. a f. ._‘
544. a. __
'- SV‘~- Ldr

 

 

 

action. Eb was not long in coming, however. In 1881, John Muir helped

draft a bill to create a national park in the Kings River region of
the southern Sierra, urging that its "fresh unspoiled wilderness" be
protected as a public park.1 Although the bill died in comittee, the
action brought Muir into contact with Robert Underwood Johnson, an
associate editor of the national magazine Cantu. From this associa-
tion arose the proposal to establish Yosemite Valley as a national
park. With Muir providing articles on the area for Centurz and
Johnson acting as a lobbyist, Congress in 1890 passed legislation
setting aside the area. The major significance of this action, however,
is the fact that Yosemite was the first area set aside consciously to
protect wilderness.2 Additionally, it established Muir as the figure
upon whom further actions to preserve parts of America would center.3
Concerned that even with legislative protection, areas like
Yosemite were not safe from intrusion, Muir helped establish an
organization which would take a watch-dog role in protecting the parks.

This was, of course, the Sierra Club, founded in 1892. It was, however,

1

2mid. , p. 132.

3111. role of the individual in initiating a formal structure
through which certain goals my be attained is discussed in Eugene F.
Jennings, A_n_ Anatog g; Leadershi : Princes, Heroes, g Su men
(New York: Harper and Bros., 1930), esp. pp. m. He cements
that such individuals often have "a deep and disturbing sense of
nission for which tremendous social power is necessary," p. 105.

 

. - - '4- e
Ia-O-a' :26 .usb .
U.

.I-e’l

fa'rct'eé themes 3

’ 4‘1.

1
a Of...

211 grow

tainted the gr:

‘ a:
1:: Jane- :5 of .

‘ b

e. .' ,- ‘ .
tree: ’¢ ‘9‘.

'-
“b- .""

1'10 3 par:

‘v‘. a‘:~"
‘eShy4‘ ‘8 t:
.‘ \Ve Vij‘
“41¢ ‘- ‘R J7
.’ ¢eve ‘
3‘11? in , e on,

's
'5‘.\ b ‘
117155

 

 

 

11

neither the first, nor only organization formed in this period that
fhvored wilderness: Ise notes nearly 20 others created between 1862
and 1911.1

This growth of organizations at the onset of the 20th century
reflected the growing crystallization of public attitudes concerning
the benefits of the natural environment. Governmental action had
been instituted at both the state2 and the Federal level to designate
areas for preservation.

The spawning of wilderness and outdoor recreation organizations
concurrent with governmental recognition of obligations to set aside
areas for present and future generations were two components of a
process over 200 years old in the making. Tied to these two elements
was the broadening interest in the arts and sciences fbr the natural
environment. McCloskey has noted that:

Two conditions seem to be necessary for a concensus that

wilderness is a public good that warrants preservation: (1) a

society with highlyeeducated leaders and economic surpluses;
and (2) an increasing scarcity of wilderness areas.

 

1Ise, 93; National Park Poligy, p. 641.

2While the Federal grant to California of a portion of the
Yosemite Villey was probably the first instance of preservation at the
state level, the decision by the New York state legislature in 1885 to
maintain "forever wild" over 700,000 acres of state forest land is the
lost significant preservation action to date taken by a state government.
See Roger C. Thompson, "Politics in the Wilderness: New York's Adiron-
dack Forest Preserve," Forest Histogy, 6 (Winter, 1963), pp. 1h-23. Nash
comments that while preservation was the aim, its end was to halt

3Michael MbCloskey, "The Wilderness Act of 1964: Its Back.
ground and Meaning," Oregon _Lfi Review, 45 (July, 1966), p. 288.

. I
" e. nv'
’0 b“ V’ ‘

. ‘ s-
i: 5.....‘0-‘0: Cf V ‘

2:72:36. its res-C
:15 31‘ 121133.
3 121353.33: def;
at“ ‘ R“.“ .
4.‘x0 Du._l 4‘

2:95 res-9‘3? ,
. I

M-‘A '
'1.“ x Preser:

137m,

 

 

/(
f?

Ir

 

 

 

12

In the brief history of America, wilderness had evolved from
an element of the environment that evoked attitudes of alarm and
provoked its removal to one in which it was perceived as a positive
good. In economic terms, it has moved from a state of disutility to
one of utility. ’nle conditions cited as necessary for such perceptions
by McCloskey definitely characterized America as the 20th century
dawned. Still lacking, however, were appropriate institutional tech.
niques whereby a system of representative samples of primitive America
could be preserved. It was to this fact that increasing attention was

devoted.

The Move to Institutionalise Wilderness

Despite the widespread interest in wilderness at the turn of
the century, it was over 20 years before formal steps were taken to
set aside areas Specifically for wilderness purposes.1 The initial
proposal came in 1921 when Aldo Leopold of the 0.3. Forest Service
called for the setting aside of a 500,000 acre wilderness in the
Gila National Forest of New Mexico.2 In 1924, it was so designated

 

1'lngislative recognition of the National Parks had been granted
in 1916. However, as Ise notes, although the early parks were certainly
wilderness in many ways, the management purposes were not conceived
with wilderness preservation as a salient intent. See, 03 National

Park Policy, p. 6&2.

2Aldo Leopold, "The Wilderness and Its Place in Forest Recrea-
tion Policy," Journal 21... Forestg, 19 (November, 1921), p. 720.

 

he...

:...1 1' ‘ "
toiek .Cmb. ..

(D

3'.
4...»... .3" vog'ileSS
~|wuVVeJ O ‘ ~

ms in size. “'5

.ea.

0'" e q. 3
.:s. west Service
de agency establism

ll‘iao

'g‘v .

... 1 series 0:
hthin which to
his be maintain:

.‘ ' I
sanspumtzcn ‘
. I

1.“. ‘
«we tnere '

media}. W
“‘9 Gus. lo.“| star.

‘. . H
“We um 3:11

P .
«fl. 55 the convict
in

corn .
ercial ax: .-
3331'

um. on mph-71?..g

39138911 191‘
J

“’9 des' e ~
@mm

31“.
3:43.
ed by i new

tale , -
fie '15 ldr‘o‘
5's?

H 1
‘~ he 1?

”Est c

 

 

-g-_

13

thus becoming the first area set aside as wilderness under an institu—
tional format. Tito years later, the Forest Service conducted an
inventory of roadless areas of National Forest land, at least 230,000
acres in size. This inventory provided the framewark within which the
first Forest Service wide preservation program was conducted. In 1929,
the agency established Regulation L-20 which provided authority to set
aside:
. . . a series of areas to be known as primitive areas, and
within which to the extent of the De artment's authorit
will b. mmnmfirmeveomrmmrl’
transportation, habitation, and subsistence.1
While there was an emphasis on the maintenance of primitive
conditions, low standard roads, simple shelters, and limited timber
harvesting were still permitted. These activities were justified, in
part, by the conviction that the areas were not perpetually withdrawn
from comercial exploitation: the primitive status was viewed as a
control on unplanned development.2
Between 1931 and 1939, 73 areas comprising 14 million acres,
were designated under Regulation L-20. In 1939, the Regulation was
supplanted by a new set of regulations: U-1, U-2, and U-3(a). This
change was largely a result of the influence of Robert Marshall, Chief
of the Forest Service Division of Recreation and Lands and a cofounder

of the Wilderness Society in 1935.

 

1Quoted in Wildland Research Center, Wilderness fl Recreation,
P. 20c

2M" p. 21.

 

 

Tae new r0953“

.-_;r W 1) ”w?
W. t.

riieness, corrposed C

‘ . QAR ARR
as: "5-... acres;

gs

cflesst'm 1'“ W a

eU‘v,\.uv
A. a, m” 'e'- ‘4 " ‘
“it. v.11....'.au-0.4-

I; .‘ e.‘ f 6'.
5.1.5.3-1CE . 5.358

fl‘

.- I
.395 .C“

‘ ' e.
.. 3.] 98"..-12m
I

 

v.- °~‘ ‘ . ‘ .
-°5...“.; nu me c.

‘J:.' ~ -
Linden; "

“J
1.4:: ‘74 ’ ‘I . .
see. t..e :2- ~

5- “are ‘ ‘ ‘.
.e. .:e are 1

‘ PPS-3885 was 1:18:

a . 1 .
a a ‘5‘”; o ‘ we .
' I " r“: ‘V

o

m: ‘- 4‘
‘ 3993 P8213:

3‘: W

q
§
are“, .~

-e0 '
‘ .
dv‘ve Protects ,-

 

 

14

The new regulations effected some broad and dramatic changes.1
In brief, it (1) differentiated two types of areas, based on size:
wilderness, composed of National Forest lands in single tracts of at
least 100,000 acres; and wild areas, tracts of National Forest land
of less than 100,000 acres, but not less than 5,000 acres; (2) designated
clear organizational lines for the establishment, modification, or
elimination of these areas; and (3) specifically restricted various
uses formerly permitted under Regulation L—ZO (for example, timber
harvesting and road construction).
Additionally, the Forest Service was required to review all
areas under the Primitive designation and to reclassify these areas
so they met the more restrictive criteria Specified in the U-Regulations.
This process was interrupted at the start by the outbreak of World War II
and, by 1946, only 14 areas comprising slightly less than two million

‘cres had been reclassified.

Iggislative Protection for Wilderness

Both the L. and U—Regulations were administrative designations.
Decisions to designate new areas as wilderness or to modify existing
We were still. largely a fimction of agency or departmental discretion.

“101'. was concern, however, this arrangement would not provide for a

\—-

in. best outline of the specific points in both Regulation L.20
m the U-Regulations is in Wildland Research Center, Wilderness £51.

3°\°l‘eation, pp. 20-23.

 

 

L.“

 

me :5 riierness a.
I

:. ‘: 4.. {run
0‘9:EQ'£ mvd ‘ U

‘ .J , 4* a
3:31: 53.3.5. 1 .3»,
that oezzre mtg:

; I ‘ ' 3 ‘
$21.23.. 51-19

9’ *
0. o . ;;‘ vnerl

:5 ' ‘I o
3:31.315 0. we re.

' 4' 3 o ‘
39.2. .t is .03 J

he report a"

‘0
A

“n: ‘ ' b ' ‘
m we 0:.a1r. stain:

”N: ‘ ‘
Mes saw mar-ease:
:czfiim such a ‘3‘”
41.433sz dissertati

1'41“. + ~ - .
:Nsen. [L'L'nStI‘

1 Series 0'

’88, re:

P.
J

 

 

15

 

system of wilderness areas that would meet public need. This feeling

received impetus from a number of sources, but two in particular are

worth noting. A 1949 report to a congressional subcommittee noted
that before long:
Original wilderness . . . will have disappeared entirely

If then there is reason for preserving substantial
it must be decided upon

portions of’the remaining wilderness,
before it is too late.

The report prompted moves by the various wilderness organiza-
tions to obtain statutory recognition of wilderness and the early
fifties saw increased activity toward gaining Congressional interest
in drafting such a bill. These moves were bolstered by the results of

Gilligan's dissertationz in 1953 which concluded, among other things
that present administrative arrangement for establishing and protecting
8 Series of large, representative samples of primitive America were
infidequate, given the principles of multiple use management and the
Wide degree of interpretation given the administrative regulations

:- .Banding wilderness.

\—
House Committee on Merchant Marine and

1U.S. Congress
The Preservation g__f Wilderness Areas by C. Frank Keyser

F‘ighories
snb°onittee on Conservation— of Wildlife Resources Report No. 19

{w‘ahington D.C.: Legislative Reference Service Library of Congress,

), p. 9.

01’ 2James P. Gilligan "The Development of Policy and Administration
(m Forest Service Primitive and Wilderness Areas in the United States"

“published Ph. D. dissertation University of Michigan 1953). Some of

a“ hajor points and conclusions are summarized by the author in "The
htl‘adiction of Wilderness Preservation in a Democracy " Proceedi_1fgs
19—

gz't-he Society o_f_ American Foresters (Milwaukee Wis. 19

 

‘e flatness Let
W

:2.
.e .-.

. Q
\(J
’1
(T
(f
.V

a-
lzzgess. :1th years
$25231 .-:.:.1c Lav ::-j
312-13 page" a iaticr.
3‘3 19 tan full cir -
tinged its desa— .3
these: and pretectec
he let first

.. hate: that Wilder-me

 

' ° 0 5:13;; be Ii“
'49 ‘39:". can p95}:
3mm fCl' 4‘ t
un‘ 50 as pow:
L9 meationr

~56 gamut: 8rd

(.91. “SO and er. ;,

16% up;
0 o . an area '.' e
are mid-me & C

«0 does
{a not rem

 

 

The Wilderness Act

In 1956 the first Wilderness Bill was introduced before the
Congress. Eight years later, on September 3, 1964, President Johnson
signed Public Law 88-577, establishing "for the permanent good of the
whole people" a National Wilderness Preservation System.1 Wilderness
had come the m1 circle, from a period when Congressional action had
encouraged its destruction to one where Congressional action now
endorsed and protected it.

The Act first provides a statement of purpose and objective.
It notes that wilderness areas:

. . . shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of
the American people in such a manner as will leave them
unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness,
and so as to provide for the protection of these areas,
the preservation of their wilderness character, and for
the gathering and dhsemination of information regarding
their use and enjoyment as wilderness. . . .2

Secondly, it provides a definition of wilderness:

- . . an area where the earth and its community of life
are untrameled by man, where man himself is a visitor
who does not remain . . . wilderness is further defined
to mean . . . an area of undeveloped Federal land re-
taining its primeval character and influence, without
permanent improvement or human habitation, which is

‘“——n-

11.1.3., Congress, Senate, An Act to Establish a National
W1ldtrness Preservation System em_f_or t_h: Permanent G_o_oa' ems—Whole
W for 0thre ses, S. 1788 Cong., 1st Seem-193;, .1.

Te-xt—of the Ac is in Appendix A. For two excellent analyses
°f tmdth. legislative history of the Wilderness Act, see Nash, Wilderness
T the American Mind, pp. 220-225, and McCloskey, "The Wilderness Act

1W," pp. 257-3501.

2E Wilderness fl, 1). 1.

 

anteatad and mars..-
ceeiiticrs and uh‘.’
:3: mi primarily
iztrint of man's b"
(2; has outs‘ edit;
native and um:
1‘. least five tncu.
size as to sue pr.
'3 2.3km can:

‘ g " ‘
‘31:“. 3“”- “Vita

 

u'd-\.

‘N ‘: -‘ ,
minnow. S 3831‘.

1'36 dildemess
‘5 x the ‘3‘” 0f are
u to he W99 uni Lev

'c “We or 5,..- m.

"U-J .

0

& “‘5 fl. a

‘v ‘ a. \w
o“ 6“. km «tiara

v

‘e “'
5"." r- 6‘

““1“. '36 ““5“
saws cf

4
‘5 V 1 ‘ Part ‘4-
513. “'9
:--+ went-

 

 

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 five thousand 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 eco-
logical, geological, or other features of scientific,
educational, scenic, or historical value.

 

‘ The Wilderness Act serves as a legislatively defined constraint

‘ 8.8 to the types of areas which may be classified as wilderness as well

‘ £8 to the type and level of recreational use such areas should attempt
to provide or satisfy. Both of these elements are dynamic and changing;
the present and future use of wilderness and the opportunity for ex-

Finding the supply of wilderness need to be examined.

i Recreational Use of Wilderness

Since 1946, the recreational use of wilderness and primitive
‘mg in the United States has steadily increased. Table 1 shows that
the growth of visits2 in the 20 year post-war period increased nearly
a 10 fold.

\—

11mm, pp. 1-2.

2A "visi‘U' is defined as the entry of any person upon a
n‘tional Forest site or area of land or water generally recognized
‘, ‘3 '11 element in the recreation population. Further details are
n°t°d in Forest Service Manual, Recreation Information Handbook,
Chan..- 1mfia‘n— '—

   

_45‘

 

 

 

 

he PCDular-i‘"
Z11$ fit 9 ~

‘ B C. 3350139,
9, _ a
a. bf .Cl'est rec), :

3‘3.
““3185

5 recreaticn

ti? ' 'e
““51“ to them

he ‘ .
reaqu pa"

 

 

 

TABLEl

GROWTH IN VISITS T0 WERNESS AND PRIMITIVE
AREAS, AT FIVE YEAR INTERVALS, 1946-1966a

 

 

 

Visits (1,000'3) Percentage Growth
1946 1M ..
1951 312 117
1956 M48 an,
1961 757 69
1966 1,392 81+

 

8‘Taken from official Forest Service recreation
reports.

The popularity of wilderness recreation is reflected not only
in its rate of absolute growth, but in its growth relative to other
forms of forest recreation as well. Table 2 compares the growth in
wilderness recreation use with Forest Service auto campground use.
This is a particularly useful comparison, since the length of recrea—
tion visits to these areas is comparable.

Increased public interest in wilderness recreation may also
5. noted in the proliferation of mail order businesses Specializing
in the sale of backpacking equipment, the growing number of books

m Illegazines dealing with wilderness areas and recreation and by
th. extensive public participation in Congressional hearings on the

°13381fioation of wilderness areas.

 

. Yel-

 

rev-
I I
6"“

 

 

 

 

‘- I L
l? '1
1‘9
1:31 1‘ 7
Jgh
C I .
Ch

.,.1 757

 

 

(Visitet

 

~M
19* “.791
\-

 

I‘aL-cer. fr;

b
‘ ‘ m.da:'v
{9388mm use z-o
(‘9 '5 1' ‘ ..
"cm 9:" one D

c.

. m 195
recreation use
“it is den
parsgn for

5.

51
fixed a
12 he:

Progections C:

t...“ ‘e
““M .
. Que

‘
h.‘

“‘M‘ja

'zi‘GCieg

to the

in Past

 

19

TABLE 2

WILDERNESS RECREATION USE AS A PERCENTAGE OF
FOREST SERVICE AUTO CAMPGROUND USE u
FIVE YEAR INTERVALS, 1946.1966a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Man-days (1,000's)b Wilderness as
Percentage of
Wilderness Campground Campground
1946 144 3,055 La?
1951 312 4,141 .
1956 we 7,205 6.2
1961 757 11,835 6.4
(Visitor Days, 1,ooo's)°
1966 I 4,791 32,664 13.3

 

 

8'Taken from official Forest Service recreation reports.

bA man-day, a term now discontinued in Forest Service
recreation use reporting, was defined as a stay of from 7 to
21+ hours by one person.

cIn 1965, the Forest Service commenced reporting
recreation use statistics in terms of visitor days. This
unit is defined as an aggregate stay of 12 hours; e.g., one
persan for 12 hours, 2 persans for 6 hours, etc.

Projections of wilderness recreation use need to be assessed
critically, due to the low base from which they are initiated and to

inadequacies in past use measurement techniques.1 At the same time,

M

1An additional concern here is the confusion between measures
of use and measures of demnd. The terms are not synonymous, though
‘33“! treated as though they were. Use figures simply reflect rates of
part'oicipation given a particular opportunity condition. Demand, on the
”the? hand, is a measure of the amount of a goods or service that will
:Leonsumed in a given period of time and at a specified price. For

e“Baions on this point, see Marion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch
o

filfl of Outdoor Recreation (Baltimore: Johns Hopldns Press, '1966) ,

-99,_End Knetsch, "Assessing the Demand for Outdoor Recreation,"
& g Leisure Research, 1 (Winter, 1969), pp. 85.87.

 

 

 

 

. I D ' ' “
n0. .‘ ., 5‘00."‘ #9"
VI‘CDI‘ .ve 6’ n ‘.‘ w

y.’ ‘V

- e R "~“-l' I.
.11.,- .. ".1. ....-.:~1~

1
. f . r-v- 5. HQ'": ”-
Mme. “he 8 Dee ' #"';
a... .- 0.2" 6' ‘1
1--»5 J. .y:j‘; 1.... u.

s‘
e-

‘n' u ‘
u. -..:ez'r.ess areas

«.12: of the cent:

 

20

 

dbl“! clear that wilderness recreation use will increase, and at a

menu-ll rate. What is not clear is the exact magnitude of the
increase.

In 1959 the Wildland Research Center, in their report to the

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) , projected a
m]; 10 fold increase in visits to wilderness areas by the year
2000.1 Forest Service use statistics recorded 562,000 wilderness
“Rite in 1959; the Wildland Research Center projection would indicate
that wilderness areas would experience nearly six million visits by
‘QIQ tum of the century. This rate of growth would occur at a com-
M interest rate of 6 percent. w 1967, however, just over two
m visits to wilderness were recorded, or a four-fold increase in
2m? 8 years. “his reflects a 10 percent growth rate, and if it were
to be maintained until the turn of the century, would yield over

~5 fillies: visits. his is, of course, unlikely, but it does suggest
‘13. general rate in which wilderness use appears to be growing.
“ " " - two factors should be noted at this point that bear on the
intimacy of an projection of wilderness use. First, since 19%,
Wrasse visits have grown at an average annual rate of 10 percent.
mi“ rite of consistent growth suggests that use projections are not
3331”“ to an great extent by the presence of one or two
w, ugh values in the use records. Secondly, almost without

“'1‘.-

    
 

prlnltu-n :1
“aydccdfilflasfl Research Center, Wilderness _agd ”oration. P- 236-

 

 

 

 

 

,:,..- bad: 5 fg
Haydn, S... -6 O

152:5 are 1:53: 33.10::
22:32:: :uracteristlc

- . In ‘ ‘
.M. ? “1'13..an OC‘JCI

.
)0»; n
O

...... oczupatioml

use: of wider-mess s‘

Prcjectians by
35'3“: 1'- lll of tines

fl‘“'e.; ' ‘
.1.-«um. we ngm'

‘
'e
-A!

b

4" zliner income, e

.4' ._

.. ,9 " " M.
'0). “Ration

ms ‘

1339?, it Seems

21

exception, studies of wilderness users have indicated that wilderness
users are disproportionately overrepresented in terms of such socio-
economic characteristics as high income ($10,000 and over), college

level. or graduate education, urban residence, and the professional-

1
4
‘ .4241. e... ‘. 5W ‘ ' '

technical occupational categories. Table 3 shows the results of a
number of wilderness studies in regard to these characteristics.
Projections by the Bureau of the Census indicate a general
11pr in all of these socioeconomic characteristics for the U.S.
Population; we normally assume our children will be better educated,
have higher incomes, etc., than our present generation. As the segment
Of the 0.5. P°pulation from which most wilderness users are now found

grows larger, it seems reasonable to expect a growth in the number of

 

Porsche seeking the wilderness environment.1

The Wilderness Re50urce--Its Spatial Dimensions and Future
While recreational use of wilderness has steadily grown, the
silt-us of the resource base upon which this use occurs has not. The
U-s- Forest Service administratively designated 14 million acres for

wilderness purposes between 1929 and 1939 under Regulation L—20.

\—

1For an expansion of this idea, see Burch and Wenger, 2h: Social

chlil‘ncteristies of Partici ts in Three St les of m Cam in
139° 19-25. fie Ethors also point- out that persEs who, arcfilfien,
mnioipated in automobile camping, are more likely to become remote or
ckcountry campers as adults. They note "If such a pattern holds,
11"! recreational planners may wish to insure that there are always

pthiVe and near—primitive camping areas available for the former
°“Y-acoess camper," p. 18.

 

k__y_A

 

 

 

Cm. —r :7. _ 3.3. ~ «Ix N Cite ~

 

C0fid'fl3003 4'0 «EOOH 0050.: 00: CO« d USS—.3 000 .3 ~ fl «HOOOSUCOU

. . IQ RUN—gm.
IA ICCa-uHOH Counm CIDL: eels-HdCU L0>3 OECOCH L N

 

 

«ml-dd Ad‘s.” ”Vannsa Zed NHN gaunfivfl naswv~343 33753”; H.341.“ 24:
nuofiefl.nuvah.nv5h<uau NU nz..vz.vnvuena.e~o\ue we... z~(uk.-.¢v~nb Puz~aflwu~dw~nnfllevf~ Uflwkafiin onlfiu EO‘vflfiuzuflfifi

I a- .i nun ‘vfl.

1! I IIIE‘SI 4

 

 

.csehn one: moanson scans Scam scaveflsdom on» ca moosohommav on can .ohsmlmHepehsmou nonmaa ad sous noes

 

new open one .nsoanohm use mosHe> .noohsomom so

pummom «Insofipseuoom use unannouad3 Scum HHe one used

 

condo msopez huenssom on» new seesaw swam on» .zohuz assoz pom mousMfih one .mn«IHMa .mm ..anHs

 

NH

Id.“

we

0N

mowa

huowoveo o>apoomoem ad scaveHsmom

 

 

a accedpsz mo omeaQOOMOm
S on 3 3 8% mbemoedo ofipoodeom fi 833.com
Hdcoapez no swapseouom
S S mm on $2“ cooodem
R .1: R 3 $3 oases: one sweeten
& mm mm mm mm «02 snooze: o5 gobs
R “8.: mm on 8-83 oeeoS
mm 3 R on 83 sedate:
on no 2. o: 83 «3.: 8:8 tone: ransom
we 3 mm 3 82 eeheam swam
on 8 am mm 83 eased: page:
GOHfldflflOOO HdOfifioon. oocovfinom GOflahou—a 000.0Hfi gang—goo 5.35%
Idecowenehoum deny: omoHHoo ue>o osoosH knew

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

manpym Mmp 20Haqmmoflm mmuszdAHz anyomuum 2H
sausages“. E20838» case $382 E3 is Saga

m .32

firw.-....Loo.u tCT..—CC. .rult-Iid-
. Zia-1.2.1 CC'DLIu +I1|Ii -

HnGZth CZ on

Ca n~Cfi

lino-u-..- Cn 0L. EOiIJCOOLOAN s03.
ECLGCIIZ COd>L0m. HIOLO-L uuoD

...Ce

ti II - II a v...-

I e-fien

«CruLflm LC vUnur

Helm III:SCQHH Jaw «RUM-,wv- H~ICLE~

.....nLCvLILQIL AI—CCeu 05L

 
 

 

---l ...:. ..eouccz .2 >635...- Us... 3:. £0.22: .m E5 3::
u

ek4§0 hunHOOCHO NCHHUUSQ 0” 00gb
Quad-#015.“ uhDLD..~ heed-wan 0X1 ~H§3N ounv mula hon!“

‘II‘ 1|- 1

.& .Aenkmh .EOAss-er. a: .
HICOHOQO-HUQ: .h‘OflsH :0 “£020:
0

.isshi'fi LCaLoe-HZQICOHOCSQ 050 «HO 0th

 

 

 

‘ \. I s I 0 x |
.A t .— .1.-1H... .Z-kkihHeILlw-ese - e I..—-3 alts-ELN fin.“ CZ. EudWH 33' CWfi-e'umu JZOEWLIQKJ COddIsr-HQIMVWN .mnvn
use-wean..." l'sisd - .h'lu < Ovhns ege‘ulfiL-z to rwztfdehsv~21~ U Vwafi‘

 

 

 

lee-leIU-LP TL “'L.‘ 'lstesvhle- .— ‘3 ~ ~ Ian-II uni M-ut ew AVE. v 5%!

 

 

 

"l4," 1 VIN!J:MLI11HJI.\.‘I..”\I.. . 1 NL.-l1l:«

 

.v‘ “fw1

.oaeeaee>e eozH

.mme .d .eweesne<.aeoeeeeeeom one so convene
meow on» seed ooeeeeew eds eoeweooomumwm-wesmam one .mmm smm .md Anode ooeooo seasoned pdoadtosoo
..o.n dopmdeeoozv meme nosepm copes: one so poeoeoed Hooesoesesm ooeoaaoo no sandstones .m.pn

 

 

 

.amm .mem .aom-.a~ .dd .Nmesaom ooeoem sevens .H .Ho> .Aooaooo addendum oaoaduo>oo
"nouwfihaezv owma "sonpeasmom .«o msmsoo .osnnou on» .Ho seonsm .oouosaoo .wo pagoda .mSw

 

.9. .m .8me .sodpopm psomuog omssm 3E
pmosnahoPIo-flaoem "@3205 £13an some." nwmw-oMmm oofruom awoken .mSI. Hoosoeomonm pause end: use
.3ng .uoavndaopoononu naofinlpnosnvnoz canoe.“ on» 5 29.5 moofioflufiz ..Ho po .oonnom .o salon.fl

 

 

 

 

23

I- .mwumm .nE .wmwpnlfpomoqfix mo hpaouobfisa .Epoohoh mo Hoonom “gem 3.3
.392 «59:02 oohfl. 5 you: mnofiouflz one .3085 .m phenom one ..a. .383: .o 35.5vo

 

 

.no>o was 80.3 ounces.“ :35

2.8989 sounded.“ bowopoo osoofi so.“ 2de .nNINN .om 3.: AS .3me .soflovm paging owlqom nsd poohoh

poor: oz 0 us I" Emomw @45an nomad Amanda oegom poouoh .mS hummus-em Hulda Ho noHHpm ocean.
Hoses.” he nofipmusevooufio deacon one ...HH. .5953 .9 modes use ..uh. £93m .m 3a?

 

   

 

.bnso nuances-o wedged 3 35
Issue.» 5 one newssoouom .9: .m .A m .53 m psoEoFtu-nmlPo-ohoh neuepm 0x3 «doom .....3 mug hemum

noneouem ooEom wagon .m.D .35 no.2 anions—"peso on» .«o cop Banning .233 .o genome

 

 

.melme

.3“ .Ad .8 3 . so: no 3335.5 ”acne": N dank-Menorahs so."
posse...” snow 53;; gene: Molm umm MW. man- 05 used ..m ...wweum 9:05.38 “suntan—So a
a.uaeea .o oeuohaegd

 

 

‘ ' '0... ' 9"- v u
LBL'J-Jr. ”V has 5
‘ 3 ...-
izese refutcns pr“
"“311 activity oe'.
int?» as ice rec-as
" ”"5 ' ¢ ',..
.. A... areas. ....
.' , - .. .3- ‘
1;;34224 “2....-.

I ' ‘ '1 . ‘-
" Sufi.._‘
.au‘e Q anvlu'

 

a , ‘ ' ‘
2? .ez.s.it1ve a~;9hpr

H-nv.

...v‘ c Q n I l
.1.: perm of 1:94:

n

-J a pralcrged per-ix

‘R‘ l. I"' » a.
Jr! ‘v‘ " b
~' .“ VA
‘

Ember of

 

/:n ("1, (t’\) \) \J \J ‘7‘.

 

 

Regulation L—ZO was superceded in 1939 by the U-Regulations. While

these regulations provided authority for establishing new areas, the

principal activity between 1939 and the passage of the Wilderness Act F

in 1964 was the reclassification of Primitive areas into Wilderness ;

or Wild areas. In this 25 year period, total acreage increased

approximately 900,000 acres, or only about 3.5 percent.1 ‘
Table 4 shows the growth of areas under either administrative

1mm

 

or legislative authority between 1930 and 1969. As can be seen, the
rapid period of initial growth during the thirties has been followed

by a prolonged period of relatively slow growth.

TABLE 4

 

GROWTH OF DESIGNATED WILDERNESS 1930—1969a

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Areas Acreage Percggtiggegzzwth

193° 3 360 444

1935 66 10, 228 ,314 2,738

19‘“) 73 14 ,:217 173 39

19% 75 13,821,627 _3

195° 77 13. 915, ’262 0,7

1955 79 13,795,075 -0.8

1950 83 14 ,,675 358 6 ‘

1964b 88 14’ ,617, 461 .0.4 :

1969 93 14’ ,,293 056 -2 .1 _
1 a

aAcreage figures for 1930-1969 taken from U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Outdoor Recreation in the National Forests p. 99.
The figure for 1969 is from U.S. Congress, House, The Siith Annual '
3522:; on the Status of the National Wilderness Preservation §ystem, E
No. 9 ,

 

-372, Part 1, 9ist Cong., 2nd Sess., 1970, pp. 7-21. Includes
all areas classified as wilderness, wild, primitive, or canoe.

bExtent of designated wilderness at the passage of the Wilder-
nose Act.

 

1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fbrest Service, Outdoor
Recreation in the National Forests, Agricultural Information Bulletin
as -ton, D.C.: Gove ment Printing Office, 1965), p. 99.

 

1 q , . . . . .

undead "6'.“ tn
30”." helm-Ann ..e F‘
O

. ‘ a 4 6
secesanly resync.

u. ' "0' 0' 6‘
ling. 31va ...”.e 0.71“
‘

.I‘ t..." I. no I.
l “1" I f
‘Mv at.“ v 6. _. 0-; ‘ -

0

~ 2112.21 acreage ;

1" un' .6 .
I915i13r. as ““36” :

ea.

3 0 7‘. .‘I
‘:e ‘3“J.Iur,

33:13 N ..

“€“rese :16

“”5 presenz‘ c‘

 

n 1:. ‘

’5‘ “7 :0
1‘ N
‘4 7.17.4

n. L."*'33's

 

25 .‘

Rejections as to the potential size of the National Wilder-
ness Preservation System vary widely, from a low of about 30 million
acres to a high estimate of over 50 million acres.1 Definitions
provided within the Wilderness Act serve as constraints that will 1
necessarily restrict the maximum size of the system. This fact, a
coupled with the other land management objectives of the administer-

ing agencies need to be taken into account in attempting to estimate

 

the future growth of wilderness. Table 5 is an attempt to estimate
the maximum acreage potentially available in the ’48 states for consi-
deration as wilderness by the various involved Federal agencies.

The fbllowing calculations have been used to arrive at these
maximum figures. The Forest Service total includes the 9.9 million

acres presently classified and included in the Wilderness System,

 

4.4 million acres presently classified as primitive, and 7 million
acres of (_13 facto wilderness.2 This last figure is hard to estimate. T, 1:

As part of their nationwide inventory of wilderness in 1960, the 7‘ ,

1In Robert C. Lucas, "The Contribution of Environmental
Research to Wilderness Policy Decisions, " Journal of Social Issues,
1:11 (October, 1966), p. 117, the author es stimates— a leveling of? of '
official wilderness at about 30-35 million acres. McCloskey and '
Zahniser and Nadel have published estimates of 1+8 and 55 million ’
acres, respectively. See ucCloskey, "The Wilderness Act of 1964, n 3
p. 289 and Howard Zahnizer and Michael Nadel, "Parks and Wilderness, " :1
in America's Natural Resources, ed. by Charles H. Callison (New York: 1 ,
memes Company, 19 67 7), p. 166.

 

E facto wilderness is defined as roadless and otherwise
unmodified land that presently lacks administrative or legislative
recognition as wilderness.

 

...cN - q ‘ a r
I. . am :358arca “e.

1 q 1 ‘
... u u H : p. w
L'. .3“ no .Ur‘es‘ :

‘19:“ *
......evcrtxg errat-

:. ‘ ..
4:22:41 1 “ea. 52:.

“"“1.‘1**‘
ate-Jaw

I' w.' "‘0
‘\A‘-ve‘k‘
(""“1”

(4....
N

Fragment keno.

‘ SQTVN
4““ ‘l *
‘3‘.“ Sam-ts =~
in: «"3" a
3: , 9

£111 .
yK1:

26

Wildland Research Center1 reported the existence of approximately

7 million acres of unreserved National Forest Land. Some of this

unreserved wilderness has been develOped since that time, of course,

and would no longer qualify as wilderness. Assuming there were some

underreporting errors in the 1960 estimate, the 7 million acre figure

is probably a reasonable estimate of present dglfacto acreage.

TABLE 5

ESTIMATED MAXIMUM POTENTIAL LIMITS TO THE
NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM
(WITHIN THE 48 CONTERMINOUS STATES)

 

.___________________._____.__T.__________________________,,___________.

 

Acreage Classified Or Percentage
Management Agency Suitable for Wilderness of 0.8.
Classification (Million) (’48 States)
Forest Service 21.3 1.1
National Park Service 19.8 1.0
Bureau of Sports Fisheries
and Wildlife 4.2 .2
Bureau of Land Management8 2.2 .1
Total 97.5 2.4

 

 

 

8'While the Bureau of Land Management is not required by the

'Wilderness Act to evaluate and classify areas as wilderness,

it may

designate suitable areas for wilderness preservation under terms of
the Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1969, Public Law 88-607.

 

1Wildland Research Center, p. 5.

he Rational 2
121111; Park System z
.1 . ,
k. Aggregate acre-
dou not an into a:
not set the standard
duelognents, etc.) c

ti” "ild taper the

Miami hrk Senice

 

"‘52“ only about

V a

‘59 $131111 (:1
"“5 («alum of A
lilion 3

‘CNS. ‘5 'I
never, it is ,, ”lo
Memos: Classific,
at: of r“ Bureau's
«1553131110,, that

q: ‘ ~
kMtion,

 

 

27

The National Park Service has designated 5# units of the
National Park System as qualifying for study under the Wilderness

Act.1

Aggregate acreage of these areas is 19.8 million acres. This
does not take into account the fhct that some of this acreage will
not meet the standards of the Wilderness Act (because of prior
developments, etc.) or that in some instances, wilderness classifica-
tion would hamper the primary'management objectives. Tb date,
National Park Service proposals for wilderness classification have
averaged only about 5k per cent of aggregate acreage studied.2
The Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife is reviewing 76
areas (exclusive of.Alaska). Total acreage of these units is 4.2
million acres.3 As was the case with the National Park System holdings,
however, it is unlikely that all of this acreage would qualify for
wilderness classification. The management objectives associated with
much of the Bureau's holdings would be seriously hampered by a
classification that prohibits roads and other forms of environmental

manipulation.

 

1National Park Service, "Areas of the National Park System
Included in the Wilderness Study Prognme," Wishington, D.C., 1970,
Pp. 1-2e (“Ogr‘phde )

2U.S. Congress, Sixth Annual Remrt on the Status 93 the
National'Wilderness Preservation gzgten, p. T5.

3U.s., Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
"Second Annual Status Report on Wilderness Reviews Within the National
Wilderness Preservation System," washington, D.C., 1970, pp. 1-2.
(Mineographed.)

 

. .a‘" +3,“
fir‘MJ. bud

a - .... ‘
Lu Lion 13785 J“.

I Q q

1511:: patentufiv s;

‘(1 I\\‘

,a. acres have bee

!

'. u s . . ‘, ‘
'I‘ ‘ A HA 7‘
L1 I-V' “Fan-u.s “‘

iez‘L-ea' by the ‘Ailie
:. ,1-

‘v . ‘, ‘ :
a .. .115 3153155-

nys‘vufi?‘ 'e ""
0.7:”. IMaKI‘es . Vr . C

‘R .
F ‘ A
“‘e rat.“ :3
'1...” ‘I “‘F"; '
" b‘.e N‘ v I -5
g .
;: ‘A. . ‘
.- 8.; N a" ._ '
0 mn-. I: 1'

{“h- c: t '
“Mules 0

¢ ‘
- us a
3313““

i.“

when 7:935:

5",, ..‘u‘

-. I‘ a .
”“19 Vila.

28

Finally, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has identified
2.2 million acres in the conterminous United States as having character-
istics potentially suitable fOr designation as wilderness.1 At present,
31,000 acres have been set aside in Arizona. Although BLM acreages
are not included in the National Wilderness Preservation System as
defined by the Wilderness Act, they are included here since it is the
aim of this discussion to define the maximum parameters within which
opportunities fOr wilderness recreation may be provided.

The rapid growth rate of wilderness recreation use has far
exceeded the provision of official wilderness acreage. This situation
is not particularly unique; virtually all forms of outdoor recreation
are characterized today by growth rates considerably higher than the
rate at which recreation areas are being provided. The increasing
intensities of use on wilderness areas, however, become of particular
concern when viewed in the context of management objectives set forth
by the Wilderness Act.

While wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act, can be
reduced in supply, it is, given the constraints of time, impossible

to expand. At the same time, use2 will continue to rise, particularly

 

10.3. Congress, Sixth Annual Report 213 313 Status 23 t_hg
National Wilderness Preservation System, p. 22.

 

2For the purposes of this study, references to "use" deal with
the recreational aspects of the term. While recognizing that other
types of uses are recognized in the Wilderness Act, recreational use
is the major type.

ZE
‘.
e-
«Q‘s!
elbow

a

3 mar.
’

reuse a

M

o'-
50f taose e:

:e:t as v

{17311
I
R
.45
Q“
r U
ear-e

o HU AU r. “ e e“
S .e on 3 Wm. ”4. ~
.1 n t

”.1“ n 0.- A“ on “U.

m. m .... .... e n -4

n .. . n. ...

y A as a a t 1 a.
... “w an” I e e

...“ .x. 2. .. «L m 3

as... 3.. it? _ a

R
\s

S

aims

I

‘\

'3? the
‘Use a
he ‘ ~
39’ we“. 8
“Easier; 1r
1

d
a

29

given the maintenance of the present practice of treating wilderness

as a free good. The consequence of such a situation will be eventual
loss of those environments wilderness classification is designed to
protect as well as the loss of unique recreational opportunities to

a steadily increasing proportion of our pOpulation. An alternative
course of action exists, however; this involves an effort to allocate
the benefits of the wilderness resource in such a manner so as to
optimize net benefits fer users while at the same time insuring
preservation of the irreproducible assets of the resource.1 The
resolution of this problem lies in an in-depth understanding of

(1) the inherent physical capabilities of the resource to withstand
use, in place as well as over time, and (2) the effects of recreational
use, in all its parameters, on the quality of the wilderness experience
for the user. The former topic involves principally an analysis of
biological and pedological factors while the latter centers on the

role of'a user's attitudes and perceptions in defining his level of
satisfaction in light of some parameter of use. The study outlined
here, while fully cognizant of the role of the biological-pedological
dimension in defining capacity, will focus upon these user attitudes
and perceptions and their role in wilderness recreation carrying

capacity.

 

1The obvious economic nature of this problem is discussed in

Garrett Hardin, "The Economics of‘Wilderness," Natural History, 78
(June-July, 1969), pp. 20-27.

 

Isis stuzy i
hugs-ant Research
heri'sent Station.
mvuious 55:: l a
of research is ainet

sin; : 0 " '
«damage-n cf 1..-

nc substantiate ‘ .

b.-
563 were

Se
{N‘N * ' ‘ .
" '-~53~ to meat:

p

mm the ”lam,

mu

"tug“ of carmfir
.3... ‘

01.9.5 Of ”creat‘.’

..
‘3 a.
q
d- . "five

u ‘ \
Ira-em. a

#3?

12:1, 0&3,- (qy S
0

near t'e “Cats

Sign
‘ "95 were 1
i graK‘
'4 a
as OWOSK
5.: .
.471”. 8.3
.'

30

Study Objectives

This study is one of a series to be undertaken by the Wilderness
Management Research Project of’the Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. The primary focus of this research project is on
the various social aspects of wilderness recreation. The orientation
of research is aimed at providing land managers charged with the
administration of National Forest lands with empirical data to enhance
and substantiate their decisionmaking relative to wilderness management.

There were four'principal objectives to this study. Initially
it sought to identify the relevant parameters of wilderness recreation
use and the relation of these parameters to user attitudes and per-
captions of carrying capacity. Four parameters were examined: (1) the
levels of recreational use encountered; (2) the types of recreational
use encountered, e.g., backpackers or horseback riders, solitary
individuals or large organizational parties, canoes or motor powered
craft, etc.: (3) Spatial variations in use, i.e., did encounters at
or near the access point to the wilderness differ in their affect on
user satisfaction as compared to a point well inside the area, what
differences were there in encountering others while traveling along
a trail as opposed to seeing them while in camp; and (4) depreciative
behavior, e.g., did adverse human activity (e.g., littering) signifi-
cantly affect the perception of wilderness quality.

Second, the study sought to identify how the perception of

carrying capacity varied among the study areas as well as among other

“ I' "'."E .‘QIL‘

12‘

Q
. W '. o
”51"". $1.5 0. .

ease-es as mode 0

a.
it

.eg. as rudeness

I.-.-'.ofl ‘5’6m
avvlvdces

3...:-
C

513? areas where

"..N'NIu; 1
“ '(E‘ ‘9“‘c ”ea -‘
‘

emails as we;
3L.

2
t
fixed ,
*Cfi“:
§59;‘\
~I‘sqn ‘04‘
“*1 c:
O
.01- L

31

relevant units of analysis. These units of analysis included such
measures as mode of travel, level of general outdoor experience as
well as wilderness eXperience, and the degree to which users held
"purist" attitudes about the wilderness resource.

A.third objective involved mapping those zones within the
study areas where use exceeded the perceived carrying capacity. This
cartographic analysis then permitted the identification of "problem"
areas within each study area where some type of use control may prove
desirable as well as those areas where use now is below capacity and
which, through various redistributive techniques, could sustain higher
levels of use with no adverse impact on recreational quality.

Finally, the study sought to probe user attitudes toward
various management inputs that could control or otherwise influence
use. This included institutional arrangements, such as permits, as
well as physical modifications designed to increase capacity, such

as more trails.

Chapter Outline

Chapter II involves a discussion of the use of the term
"carrying capacity" in geography and in several studies in resource
management. From this broad analysis of the term, attention is then
turned to fecus Specifically on its use in wildland recreation. This
section will conclude with a statement of how the term is defined

fer the purposes of this study.

 

:smer'Al-cen in 1'

«n
()
m

a: of a aux-ism

rereatzon cart-3'13;

-—

'0‘

.... Ilezents users
varies betae 2*. user:

1:132:95 and per 3e:

0"“ ‘.
I I i V
“a fine“ con 2 ‘Xic a

q'o
‘ I.
at. H Q .
“Extent, 3‘ ~~

t, ,
if: .N'
U $5341 cor-Ce.
It

32

A.discussion of the study areas, methodologies, and strategies
is undertaken in Chapter III. Included is a discussion of the develoP-
ment of a purism scale. In Chapter IV, the perception of wilderness
recreation carrying capacity will be discussed, including the rele-
vant elements users rely upon to define it and the manner in which it
varies between users and study areas. Chapter V exPlores user
attitudes and perceptions relative to the various management alter-
natives of controlling or influencing use. From this prescriptive
level discussion, Chapter VI will examine how users actually behaved
in relation to use and the relationship between "what people say they
will do" and "what people actually do" will be developed. Chapter VII
will then conclude with an analysis of the findings in terms of both
its management significance and its relation to present and developing

theoretical concepts.

(v- ,-
a.-

. 1
I"

w'fl f‘ \'N
Lao-J Uwo‘v

CAI—A

‘

no nlatim

292:; to l variety

5m how am re)
9:73:

:zent have cc:

151:9 increased re;

' .z.

'3’“ °f Study invol

$73310 1'“ ~ 7 ' .
U E.Ual. CLt‘

. V: - .
“E «as radium

 

CHAPTER II

THE CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENT AND CARRYING

CAPACITY: THE WILDERNESS CONTEXT

The relationship of man to his environment has been a theme
common to a variety of‘methodological and theoretical orientations
within geography. In recent years, significant advances in under-
standing how man relates to, utilizes, and distributes himself in
environment have occurred. Much of this growth must be attributed
to the increased realization by geographers that "environment" as a
topic of study involves not only physical realities, but social,
psychological, cultural, economic, and institutional a5pects as well.
From.this realization has arisen a burgeoning number of studies that
seek to explain man's use and occupance of Space in terms of how he
sees it, rather than in terms of physical reality. The key concept
here is "perception": that is, the recognition "that the objective
reality of'natural or artificial environments may be less significant
in geographic research than the perception of such environments by
groups or individuals."1

Perception has become of’major significance to many geographic

studies in reaponse to geography's growing concern with understanding

 

1M'arvinW.Mikesell, "The Borderlands of Geography as a Social

Science, " in Interdisci lina Relationshi s in the Social Sciences,
ed. by Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn'w. Sherif L(Chicago: Aldine WEI lish.
ing Company, 1969), p. 237.

 

33

13;. 1.... “amt-"4

A

negxcesses of :11:
..Les has been.“ *‘ "
fist-91ml ur." rp‘.
these studies invc‘.
Mach to resourc
l con-3n t
is .2 ”20"11102'

\

Jose
1": §
{1.33.28}: '1 9‘.
Laces-sent. ofs

lira
Ip'es'F'aviVe an
1325..-:111 Ln u :
ififz‘JP‘P-l' ho ‘
f"""‘.nen, t...
:3“ “went 0“ J8;

«QQTPap q a.
his ‘5 p5 _y L7:

 

the processes of human behavior in Space.1 Research along these
lines has been highly interdisciplinary in its methodological and
theoretical underpinnings and has enjoyed particular fruition in
those studies involving man's adjustment to natural hazards2 and his
approach to resource conservation and utilization.3

A common thread to the geographic work involving perception

is the recognition that the cognitive environment of the individual

 

1Joseph Sonnenfeld, "Geography, Perception, and the Behavioral
Environment" (paper presented at the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Dallas, Texas, Dec. 27, 1968), p. 2.

2A large number of studies exist that could be cited.
Representative examples include Robert W. Kates, Ha__z___ard and Choice
Perception in Flood Plain Management Department of Geography Re-
search Paper —No. 73 (Chi hicago: Department of Geography, 1962); Thomas
F. Saarinen, Perception 22 the Drogght Hazard on the Great Plains,
Department of Geography Research Paper, No. ICE-(Chicago: Department
Coastal Occupgce__ and Human Adjustment tE:F1___ood Hazfid. Publications
in Climatology, Vol. XVIII -——,(Elmer New Jersey: C. W. Thornthwaite
Associates, 1965), pp. 185-603; and Ian Burton, Robert W. Kates, and
Gilbert F. White, The Human Ecolog_ of Extreme Geophysical Eyents,
Natural Hazard Research Working Paper —No. 1(Toronto: new of
Geography, University of Toronto, 1968).

 

 

3Examples include J. Blaut, 33 5;. "A Study of Cultural
Determinants of Soil Erosion and Conservation in the Blue Mountains
of Jamaica, " So__g___ial and Economic Studies, VIII (1959), pp. 402.1420;
L. Schuyler Fonaroff, "Conservation and Stock Reduction on the Navajo
Tribal Range, " Geographical____ Review, LII (April, 1963), pp. 200-223;
Julian Wolpert, "The Decision Pmcess in Spatial Context, " Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, 5“ (December, 19,65)
pp.-_§7-558: DSan N. —Quinney, "Small Private Forest Landownership
in the United States-“Individual and Social Perception, " Natural
Resources Journal, 3 (October, 1964), pp. 379-393: and Robe E C. Lucas,
"Wilderness Perception and Use: The Example of the Boundary Waters
fiance Area, " N__a____tural Resources _J_____ournal, 3(October, 1961+), pp. 394.
11.

 

salsa, if ever, 3

...:i: {tick an in
'1'! t "z; ': an out:
main and predil
31125155 of t};

a

he ielmeatei.

': vks as the
tuna. .
.‘usllon cf l
’O-

~Qt'

\‘ h A
if“- ' .
“':‘\
F a
6 ‘ 1 Q’“
'3‘ Ag‘
‘ Ix. ‘
. “NHL .
. I
£47 A
‘vr “
’1. ‘
' 1:“. ~
f‘
. ‘ W
“i ~a
*. fa.“ '
s ”a ‘A~
'4- i “'
\~ :NQ‘ V.
! A ;

35

seldom, if ever, coincides with the "real" world. The environment
within'which an individual behaves may be considerably different from
that which an outside observer sees him to be operating within. To
eXplain and predict behavior in space, therefore, requires that the
parameters of the environment within which the individual behaves

be delineated.

The Nature of Environment

Although the notion of environment is a key concept in geo-
graphy, its dualistic meaning has probably resulted in some confusion
in efforts by geographers to deveIOp rigorous environmental studies
with other disciplines. Most references to the term.are made with the
physical elements of nature in mind; the biotic, edaphic, and climatic
components that surround us. Characteristically, nongeographers refer
to this as the geographic environment,1 although the "environmentalist"
tradition of Sample and Huntington utilized the term in a similar

fashion.

 

1Other terms are the nonpsychological environment, pre-
perceptual environment, and ecological environment. Barker has
remarked that much of psychology's neglect of the effect of the
physical environment on human behavior can be traced to the influence
of Kurt Lewin. Lewin considered it impossible to make derivation to
behavior from.the nonpsychological environment and his philosophy
has molded much of’present day thinking in psychology. See Roger G.
Barker, "On the Nature of the Environment," Journal of Social
Issues, XIX (October, 1963), pp. 17-38.

 

av" manage-9 .- v
Cu 4 . ta

AV 6..

‘;fl~a< 4A
\ . V
.... -S-_.r, e,

32333732-e e"

eat

al-

v, :5 ' ’
Mmu it.

h.‘ I
I. -‘eas Q
, h
e
A? a
a. 19“.;
«8.... A" q
A 4V
. u
42‘ ‘h

' J‘s “‘4
Y I'e of no
“a:‘ I ‘\ Ja:
.ka‘ Darn
\1 Va
3.,
a

'J“
at and :

36

The need for a broader definition of environment, however,
has long been recognized by geographers. In 1935 Pomfret1 defined
human geography as the interrelationship between the physical
environment and the social environment of any group. But in Pomfret's
discussion, environment (both physical and social) was a readily
observable entity, of similar magnitude and relevance to all who
observed it.

In a report on the current status of geography and its future
opportunities,2 the National Academy of Science-National Research
Council committee Specifically recognized that a comprehensive view
of geography had to include not only visible physical and social
parameters, but that, "many . . . geographers are coming to realize
that ideas, attitudes, and other nonvisible entities of culture are
of importance in understanding Spatial distributions and Space re-
lations of'phenomena."

As a result of the need to adequately delineate the environ-
ment within which man perceives and behaves, the phrase "behavioral
environment" has been suggested. The phrase has its origin in Gestalt

psychology3 and describes the environment as it is perceived and

 

1John E. Pomfret, The Geo ra hic Pattern of'Mankind (New York:
Appleton-Century Company, 19355, p. 13.

2Ad Hec Committee on Geography, Earth Sciences Division, The
Science ofG Geography (washington, D. 0.: National Academy of‘Sciences-
National— Research Council, 1965), p. 28.

3Kurt Koffka Princi les of Gestalt Pszeholog (New York.
Harcourt and Brace, 1935), p. 374.

LA

 

‘ 'o 4 .
renter: .o by an .n
'0 03-; «‘- 3‘ 9m
55:” ‘uvd ”.6. a d
ms: in 1. 4:7:
I s a: ‘ ' ‘ .
gamma. 11.91:.

i! "is. g‘. “.

- '-~.. ~48 3512-83

‘0 I

“‘5". n}- 4 t
E.'EO 5".3’ V‘ “se

‘115 ccntends :3;

“Cali t0 haw }

.:‘a’t‘ A ‘
‘Qq. I a
“.Vags 0‘ tr‘e

37

reacted to by an individual, as opposed to the geographical environ-
ment, which referred to the objective physical and social environment
in which the individual is immersed.1 The phrase was introduced into
geographical literature by Kirk2 who suggested its use as a framework
in which the man-environment relationship would be more adequately
understood.

Since Kirk's application of the behavioral environment to
geography, its use as a construct has gained in sophistication. It
is a key concept to the man-milieu hypothesis of cognitive behaviorism,
which contends that man reacts and behaves in regard to his environment
according to how he perceives and interprets it.3 The Specific
dimensions of the behavioral environment, as well as its philosophical
ramifications, have been discussed by a number of authors, including
David Lowenthal,‘Yi-Fu Tuan, Thomas Saarinen, and Robert Kates.

Lewenthal notes that we inhabit a world in which the amount of

information available far exceeds our capability to absorb it; as a

 

1Note that Keffka's use of "geographical environment" is
distinctly different from that used by other nongeographers, who
generally use it simply as a synonym for the physical environment.

2WilliamKirk, "Historical Geography and the Concept of the
Behavioral Environment, " in Indian Geographical Journal, Silver
Jubilee Edition, ed. by George Kuriyan (Madras: Indian Geographical
Society, 19525, pp. 152-160. A later eXpansion of Kirk's views is in
"Problems of Geography, " Geography, XLVII (1963), pp. 357-371.

3Saarinen, Perception 93 t_hg Drought Hazard, p. 26.

 

gum,"er .Jw-L.‘

Y‘A

”t‘ ‘ vs 537...:

“(w-“b.

.
3v:---"AF a“
......‘U-Uu avv

.' s '
2:: s:—:-e.y am
"F“; H r "‘F " f
'ieo" 3-08 .Mi

. . . , , , ,
'.‘ ii“ an, a my.
Uni no.“ A AA

. . . becaus
also . . .‘:
zilieuina

Van's re
Elissa; or co:

A‘."I‘1 ‘ ‘n
“aux m 1.25

Sniety or cult;

ficient ‘
reasons of 1
great “Dans
0:33:13; 12:.
P’O‘Iident if:

318 than;

Sf 5+, ,,
P855 9 Were

u"'n' I ‘4‘
‘H':esn u H
wig-3%, ~11: 5'"

n,"
fin-e:- ’ “4-ng
. QlSCQS <
E‘s,- 5-0%
«i.e.,. “* , See

3‘ £65

 

38

result, we synthesize, reduce, and selectively acquire only that
infbrmation necessary to function. This process is a reflection of
our society and the end result is that we each inhabit a "private
‘world," one which has points of commonality with others about us,
but which is unique:
. . . because each person inhabits a different milieu . . .
also . . . because everyone chooses from and reacts to the
milieu in a different way. 1
Man's relation to this environment is often influenced by the
emotional or conative significance which he attaches to it. Than has
detailed how the recognition and differentiation of landscapes is
closely tied to the symbolic significance those landscapes hold for a
society or culture.
Ancient writers tended to neglect the dry lands for
reasons of theology as well as cosmogony. How could these
great expanses of near sterility be made to fit the view
of nature inSpired by the Hebraic-Christian notion of a
provident and omnipotent God?2
The man-land relationship also may be affected under conditions
of stress, where the hardship that accompanies the pursuit of a liveli-

hood is such that the perception of the environment is altered in some

 

1David Lowenthal, "Geography, EXperience, and Imagination:

Towards a Geographic Epistemology," Annals p_f 3.113 Association _o_f
American Geographers, LI (September, 19535, p. 25“.

 

2‘Yi-Fu Tuan, "Attitudes waard Environment: Themes and
Approaches" in Environmental Perception and_Behavior, ed. by David
Lewenthal (Chicago: Department of Geography, 19375, p. 10. For
another discussion of the role of symbolism in affecting the man-land
relationship, see walter Firey, "Sentiment and Symbolism as Ecological
Vigiables," American Sociological Review, 10 (February, 19h5), pp. 140-
1 I

. .1‘

Hymn '

tc_J-'

(

. A ;
’.:n'.ev- 33 " “1

.1....v... - d "

. fl ‘ :-
mtze :rea. ..a

‘ C
"P". I ' r‘—‘r
hufli “e" ‘4‘, :-

”‘“ ‘ies 1:. ‘3

a.... _

. I

’H- .s "VF .

.L‘V‘ ~e‘ A VS 9
., . _
l“ ,.
.J:~ۤS .43

39

fashion. Saarinen has scrutinized this problem in a study of drought
on the Great Plains. He concluded that increasing levels of experi-
ence‘with drought conditions tended to constrain the perception of
alternative land practices and reduced the propensity of farmers to
adopt new farming techniques. Additionally, he found marked in-
accuracies in farmer perception of drought frequency, with almost all
farmers underestimating occurrence.1
Kates has reviewed the role of environment in various social
science disciplines and found that it commonly serves only as a back-
drop against which man's activity is studied. He calls fer more of an
interdisciplinary approach to the study of environment, noting that:
Geography has long dealt with the stimulus properties of
the environment-sweather, topography, city form_.and the
symbolic qualities—-Space, regions, maps . . . psychology . . .
has studied intensively the perception and symbolization of
discrete stimuli.2
The work of these scholars, and many others, points to the
need to develOp a conceptual framework which incorporates man, on the
one hand, and environment on the other, and delineates their relation-

ship from.various levels of analysis. In the paper before the American

Association fer the Advancement of Science, Sonnenfeld prOpOSed a

 

1Saarinen, Perception 2f. _th_e_ Drought Hazard, p. 139.

2Ro‘bert‘W'. Katee, "Stimulus and Symbol: The View from.the

Bridge," Journal 2; Social Issues, XXII (October, 1966), p. 26. For
a partial eXplanation of‘why the two disciplines have not been more
closely associated see fectnote 1, p. 35.

 

h»

‘ +.‘ e
» Vue 2

I I
ampg’souoar .
ha..- U‘v‘ wag;

211176359 .

I .

[Aua".. A--
“ 4

\""¢V0vou..-

' O
..‘:'~.V‘-

'-
‘T‘l‘ “a! ’-

Ve-
'; ' .W ‘ a
.0... fi‘ VG ~16
I
e..T.f‘“"‘av-t

1
“are; 12‘.- I
My:

Jensen:

indi'u‘ici‘n; , I

W .
.36 CT;

"“' L A is
133-9 9-8”07‘5
- ..y
i‘eczm. 3C3:
:2: RF"; GM
522795 . . .

~/

1 (1.»
0
‘1
,‘1
m

in IUrJe. t "
LinAW ‘ ‘ .
4v “H ,
he 3:“ ”‘33
\ ““Na :1 u
5.. \v1 “3."

bt’
5’ '
,' 1
I _
I
I

m tJ
j!
a:
'-

D

tit.
m?)
P
'.

‘ it‘d
'ue‘ ‘\u
is“; ‘b S "2.
NSC :‘
a ‘J‘ient 4
O, ‘

f"

scheme to accomplish this need. He noted that man functions within

a nested set of environments:

At the broadest level is the geographical environment,
constituting both proximal and distal elements of man's
universe. This is reduced in stages to the operating
(operational) environment, which is that environment
impinging on man with which in some way or another he is
likely to be directly involved; to the perceptual
environment, which is that environment of which man is
aware; and finally to the behavioral environment, the
environment which elicits a behavioral re5ponse from the
individual. 1

 

The critical difference between the perceptual environment
and the behavioral environment is that the latter does not include
those elements to which no overt or conscious action or behavior is
directed. Sonnenfeld notes "there is no necessary relationship between
that which one perceives to exist . . . and the way in which he

behaves . . . ."2

 

1Sonnenfeld, "Geography, Perception, and the Behavioral

Environment." Emphasis added. This conceptualization is similar,
although much more detailed, to one proposed by Marston Bates in
The Human Environment, The Horace M; Albright Conservation Lecture-
ship, Vbl. II (Berkeley: University of California School of Forestry
and Conservation, 1962), pp. 7-10.

2Ibid. Sonnenfeld's "behavioral environment" is very similar
to Chein's "geo—behavioral" or "objective-behavioral" environment,
defined as the geographical environment (the physical and social
environment in which an individual is immersed) looked at from a point
of view that is concerned with understanding behavior. See Isidor
Chain, "The Environment as a Determinant of Behavior, " Journal of
Social szchology, 39 (February, 195“), p. 116. It is also logically
related to Barker's "eco-behavioral" concept which describes the
environment in which behavior occurs. This would unite the ends of
the E—E arc (environment-environment) where a stimulus in the physical
end (an area of’no concern in Lewinian psychology) elicits a re5ponse
in the psychological environment of the individual. See Barker, "0n
the Nature of the Environment," p. 25.

—m&._—.

'K‘.‘

i"‘-'

‘ 04
13:3 cf man's ac.-‘-

invent are c f

‘ v ‘ . ~ .
8m .2 wszca. a

we. ‘
. U

v a
6'. I Q
*5 $021.1. syste...
V'W‘LI ‘ ...
-'~“‘w nee“ a‘

‘ ‘

‘MUV‘.‘ _‘

eV‘Vv: ‘
n.‘ A.

“:‘as
‘ " 04 : .
,
33:57.. i a
‘ §
4.

#1

Since geographers are concerned with the Spatial manifesta-
tions of man's activities (behavior) on the earth's surface, it
necessarily follows that the nature and dimension of the behavioral
environment are of importance. 'We are concerned to a large extent
with the interaction which occurs in that environment between man
and the physical elements and, to a lesser degree, between man and
the social system. This degree of concern then serves as a rough
boundary between areas principally of concern to geographers and
those of’primary relevance to sociology or psychology. To again
refer to Sonnenfeld, the difference is whether the concern is for
the reacting environment (reacting is defined in terms of social
interaction) or the nonreacting environment. Geographers have been
principally involved in the latter area; however, concern for the
geographical implications of social interaction is salient and
growing.

Sonnenfeld's framework is a useful model in conceptualizing
the different environments in which man is immersed and, to varying
degrees involved, and lends itself to efforts by human geographers
to understand differential spatial organization. The variability
which characterizes human occupance and use of space is necessarily
a reflection of man's perceived relationship to the environment.
This is eSpecially true in the case of wilderness. Deepite the
array of administrative and legislative edicts, wilderness remains

largely a function of human perception. Examining the question of

‘T thwi 1

‘Léerness recrea
an 2:45 wilderness
was of its ac‘ai
1;??3335 Fill f3:

its use that 1125'.

‘5 I So:
:, , ..
Jagger-1:73.. E

P-‘ESezzed with ‘
Pepi-31131; to a

£539,339 5‘ “T ‘.
'

"V“

‘ Palatio" C .II 4

Atyu‘p

’85:.“

‘P‘tiom

42

wilderness recreation carrying capacity requires that research fecus
on the wilderness environment as it is perceived by the user, not in
terms of its administrative or legislative definition. Such an
approach will focus attention on those elements of the resource and

its use that influence carrying capacity determination.

The Concept of CarryinggCapacity

.As a focus of study, carrying capacity is a traditional theme
in geography. Students in introductory geography courses are often
presented with various man-land ratios; population to total acreage,
population to arable acreage, and so ferth. These ratios are, in
essence, simplistic notions of carrying capacity. They help eXpress
a relationship between man and resource. They are also, however,
only descriptive. They describe conditions as they are; they lack
eXpression of the man-land relationship as it should be (a measure of
prescription). The prescriptive dimension of the carrying capacity
concept is extremely important since it implies the incorporation of
a perceived need or objective into the calculation, a value judgment

as to what "should be."

Egggying Capacihy Definitions in Man-Land Studies

The preponderance of work by geographers on questions

of carrying capacity has involved the study of subsistence

'v
H. r" 2,:-

nannies .

Snips must b-
m'+ 13 8‘:

“'3“ ----
‘l

rv-‘fie:

I"-A~l‘?e 5:

43

economies.1 In this context, carrying capacity has been defined as:
. . . the maximum number of peOple that a given land area
will maintain in perpetuity under a given system of usage
without land degradation setting in.

Zimmerman has noted that an understanding of man-land relation-
ships must be evaluated in terms of the capacity of the land "to
support life, to satisfy human wants."3 He suggests that while
carrying capacity can be relatively easily ascertained in closed
primitive societieS, the increasing complexities brought about by
the technological and institutional advances of civilization require
a shift in the definition of the term. Whereas primitive societies
rely on the internal caacity of land for sustenance“ (that is,

the capability of the lands in situ to provide a livelihood), it is

 

1Street notes "the calculation of carrying capacity of the
environment of some particular primitive society and the improvisa-
tion of formulae for the determination of carrying capacities have
been fairly comon objectives of . . . cultural geographers," John M.
Street, "An Evaluation of the Concept of Carrying Capacity," The
Professional Geographer, XXI (March, 1969), p. 104. Other pertinent
discussion may be foun in the section "Through the Corridors of Time"
in Man's Role in Changing the Face _o_f 2133 Earth, ed. by William L.
Thomas, Jr. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), pp. 115-
448, and William M. Denevan, "Aboriginal Drained-Field Cultivation in
the Americas," Science, 169 (August 11, 1970), pp. 6157-654.

2William.Allan, "Studies in.African Land Usage in Northern
Rhodesia," Rhodes Livingstone Peers, No. 15 (1949) , quoted in Street,
"An Evaluation of the Concept of Carrying Capacity," p. 104.

3 Zimmerman, World Resources ind; IndustrieS, p. 92.

“An expansion of this point is found in Philip Wagner, The
Human Use 2!. 313 Earth (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960),
pp. 77- .

. _-

unis...” ....° -.-.L

necessary to co:
unity, when 1
taxes i:.t<2 aces
and pclitical a.
S‘Jgpcrt I pom;
territory.
he cor.
:cted by 'cht.

he 1‘ -
“.33“? 1:12-93;

Here 3
lit-d. In .
'ai

necessary to consider the external capgcitz, as well as the internal
capacity, when studying more advanced societies. External capacity
takes into account such things as trade agreements with other countries,
and political and financial arrangements that enable a country to

support a population above and beyond the capabilities of the home
territory.

The complicating effect of increased civilization was also
noted by ngt. He examined the problem.of’determining carrying
capacity through the formula, c = 3:3. '

Here C stands for the 235733 ca cit of any area of
land. In its simplest ferm this means its ability to pro-
vide fbod, drink, and shelter to the creatures that live
on it. In the case of human beings, the equation finds
complicated expression in terms of civilized existence.

B means biotic tential or the ability of the land to
produce plants fer she tor, for clothing, and eSpecially
for food.

E stands for environmental resistance, or the limita-
tions that any environment, including the part of it con-
trived and complicated by man, places on the biotic
potential or productive ability. The carrying capacity
is the resultant of the ratio between the other two
factors.1

 

The prescriptive nature of carrying capacity estimates has
led to considerable involvement on the part of economists. Efforts
to allocate scarce resources between competing uses have led to the
development of conceptual frameworks designed to optimize resource

utilization in time. wantrup, for example, speaks of the safe minimum

 

1William: Vogt Road to Survival (New York: William Sloane
Associates, Inc., 1 ), p. T6;

Like... ..l-‘thnihL: .l..———

\

sat'z'd of cor
' ‘31 :‘r'M
m; Veee ”0.01.1
team of th‘.

“ -.c w
" 271.101; Z

a a
can?
’a“ . '
Ekuru‘s“ a“ a!”

"~'-<"u

““Qauy C P

 

45

standard of conservation, a concept of defining the economic Optimum
by the restriction of avoiding immoderate possible losses.1 Main-
tenance of this "safe minimum standard" is accomplished by avoiding
the critical zone-.."that is, those physical conditions, brought about
by human action, which would make it uneconomical to halt and reverse
depletion. "2

Gannon has argued that in a world of technologic change, the
Malthusian and Ricaran hypotheses of natural resource scarcity hold
little validity. However , the recent growth in the demand for the
services of unique natural phenomena coupled with the relative
inability of present day technology to produce suitable substitute
services has produced a legitimate need for renewed evaluation of
a restricted-use philosophy.3 Developing some of the notions originally

posited by Krutillaf+ he attempts to formulate an economic framework

 

1S. V. Ciriacy—Wantrup, Resource Conservation: Economics and

Policies (Berkeley: University of California, 1963), p. 88.

 

2Ibid. , p. 253.

3 Colin A. Gannon, Towards a Strategy_ for Conservation in a
World of Technological _C_h__angg, RSRI Discussion Paper Series No. -25
(Philam ESlphis: Regional Science Research Institute, 1968), pp. 1-3.

“Three papers by Krutilla are the foundation to Gannon' s
effort. See John V. Krutilla, "Conservation Reconsidered, " American
Economic Review (September, 1967), pp. 777-786; "Some mviro—Efnmen
fifects of Economic Development, " Daedalus, 96 (Fall, 1967), pp. 1058-
1070; and "Balancing Extractive Industry with Wildlife Habitat, "
Transaction_s_ 9_f th__e_ Thirt -Third N_9____rth American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference (Washington, D. C., 1 968), pp. 19- —T_f30.

linnaBS‘ ‘ ‘..,_"‘~ ;-3._L'— __-.—~

9...

a. . nan...-
ede. 91‘0"“‘E

'
b
o

analogical c‘.

M‘A":I~ new...)
.

iv‘u'vdew‘. y.¢
~ a

2:: Snake River

‘I I a
.1: costs and e

he

R ,
D l
“431...;
I

‘flu‘or‘ of

one
"IN-l ‘
M“ 158 tr.

P :&y
‘ue 2‘“ a
\ WQh

fer evaluating postulated shifts in taste preferences and forms of
technological change.

In recent testimony before the Federal Power Commission
concerning proposed construction of'the High Mountain Sheep Dam on
the Snake River, Krutilla has developed an economic model to assess
the costs and benefits associated with preserving the canyon in its
natural state. He incorporates into the model a carrying capacity
constraint, designed to insure preservation of the desirable character-
istics of the area in the face of increasing demand.1 This capacity
constraint has the effect of creating higher prices with increases
in demand, thus representing increases in accrued annual benefits.2
Computation of the carrying capacity constraint is not well developed,
however. One surrogate suggested by Krutilla is a level of recrea-
tional use that does not adversely affect the effort-success ratio
fer hunters and fishermen of the area.

Barnett and Merse have examined the concept of "scarcity,"
its origins in Malthusian and Ricardian economics, and its relevance

in a society of changing technology.3 The decision to establish a

 

1John V. Krutilla, Draft of testimony presented to the Federal
Power Commission concerning construction of the High Mountain Sheep
Dam, Hells Canyon, 1970.

2For a criticism of some of the underlying assumptions of
Krutilla's thinking, see Warren G. Robinson, "A Critical Note on the
New Conservationism.," Land Economics, XLV'(November, 1969), pp. #53-u56.

 

3Harold J. Barnett and Chandler Mbrse,Scu1cit and Growth:
The Economics of Natural Resource Availabilil ltreimo : The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1963 .

 

“--..w—ia

M2~"‘a 5A,. ..
..J‘Ve Vbaeshfi

D

i'-“~""'81“5 ible d

-‘~ ‘ ‘
M be 3:193:29

l’fin‘

was" by 11:
”4‘”
9k mental

m
:e,

4?

carrying capacity standard implies the notion that unrestricted use
‘will yield a deteriorating state of the resource; a condition of
scarcity. The authors of Scarcity EEQMEZSEEE argue, correctly, that
advances in technology and various types and levels of investment may
largely mitigate the effects of continued and increasing levels of
resource consumption.

In situations where the concerned resource is characterized
by uniqueness and irreproducibility, however, consumption rates will
have to be tempered. In the absence of certain capacity constraints,
irreversible destruction will occur; that is, damage which could
only be amended by "lavish outlays of time, trouble, and economic
inputs" by future generations.1 If preservation of a spectrum of
environmental conditions is deemed socially valuable, than means to

insure perpetuation of these areas must be taken.

Sustained Yield and Carryinngapacity

Carrying capacity has been linked to the concept of sustained
yield. Dana has commented:

There are two underlying philosophies that apply to
all natural resources management . . . they are multiple
use and sustained yield . . . . Sustained yield is
equivalent to what we have here been calling carrying
capacity . . . . Research is needed to determine what
facilities and what concentration of users will result

1Ibid., p. 257.

If"

.n)

" P'."'".‘
L.- EH'M‘b

recreatic:
52:3 <
spirizes ' :1
am been dew
2.11131; 31' res.
The 2‘!

5mm stren!
353- 328 LC‘
1'29 a:

lEVel 832T."

Tens-1:19
‘9“ n T ‘
V.

flunk bI
.

T‘ n
:3“. V'De <
\J an,
m; ‘v. 6‘
e ‘ V~ “UL
“Judge :\‘
...

in Optimum permanent satisfaction from the particular
recreational activity involved.1

Both concepts seek a pattern of resource allocation that
optimizes utilization in time. Various "rules of conservation“2
have been developed that attempt to govern our management and organi-
zation of resources in such a manner so as to promote this end.

The relationship of sustained yield and carrying capacity is
further strengthened within the Multiple Dee-Sustained Yield Act of
1960. The Act defines sustained yield as:

The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high.

level annual or regular periodic output of the various
renewable resources of the national forests without impair-
ment of the productivity of the land.3

‘Wilderness is recognized within the Act as being consistent
with the purposes and provisions of the legislation. Thus, management
of these areas must provide for a sustained output of its various
products, including such elements as solitude and a primitive and
unconfined type of recreation. The establishment of carrying capacity

standards is mandatory in light of this Congressional charge.

 

1Samuel T. Dana, "Conference Summation," Proceedin s of the
National Conference on Outdoor Recreation Research (Ann Arbor:
Ann Arbor Publishers, 19 33 5, p. 142.

 

 

2Ronald Beazley, "Conservation Decisionmaking: A Rationali-
zation, " Natural Resources Journal, 7 (July, 1967), p. 345.

3U.S. Congress, House, An Act to Authorize and Direct that the
National Fbrests be Managed Under Prin__ples of Mult_§le Use an o—

 

Prod'u" ea Sustained Yield of Products and Sen-Ices and for “0513:-

ses H. .R. I5 572, 35th Cong., ist-Sess., 1950 ,E:_'1:__-

F

1"; __——~

v

I“ +3531;

. Q

‘ pa
43.4.6.—
‘ Q ‘ O F

~11 ‘0 ‘
:2: -Be- 6 U-Jn
.- IA:’W ’ pa
‘:¢~-~J C.

. - ' :
firmer, :s c-

°." In. 6 4
...5 ....‘2 werJ

3‘9 4
t ‘01: areas C

“‘30P”.
Re“. “‘st 0t
Hat.

3 "

“9

Normally, the calculation of carrying capacity involves a
consideration of the relationship between population and material
benefit. This holds true, in part, when estimating the carrying
capacity of recreation resources. The output of these resources,
however, is often measured principally by their ability to satisfy
the nonmaterial related desires and wants of people. This dimension
of the overall capacity of recreation resources is a difficult one to
measure; it may very well be, however, the principal constraint in
establishing appropriate parameters of use for the maintenance of
these resources over time. This is particularly true in the case of
wilderness recreation, where a principal management objective is to
provide for a primitive and unconfined type of recreational experience

in an environment largely unmodified by man.1

Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity2

Specific calls for research on the question of wilderness

recreation carrying capacity have come from a variety of sources .

—k

1T_h_e_ Wilderness Act, p. 1.

2The discussion presented in this study concerns the recrea-
'tional carrying capacity of wilderness. While it is recognized that
Similar investigations of recreational carrying capacity have been
lllade on areas other than wilderness , the investigation here is restricted
to the application of the term in the wilderness context only. For
8implicity's sake, carrying capacity and capacity will be used as
synonyms for the lengthier Wilderness recreation carrying capacity. "
Fin-a good discussion of the use of carrying capacity in recreational
srwironments other than wilderness, see Michael Chubb, "Outdoor
Recreation Land Capacity: Concepts, Usage and Definitions" (Unpublished
14.3. thesis, Michigan State University, 1964), esp. pp. 117-141.

2.1—2") : ‘ 'I-L

‘13.;

‘ 9; “we;
I... u'l“~, "

r.”-v‘s be

voova i

s v
.-. g

o v.‘ Ugl-

I.“

51:wa

’; 0

Unit! C

b.’
q

Uodn C

'41”

fl ‘0‘

--‘l‘

5.33:2“

In
L \
\:~. ‘h‘v‘
1. ”-19“?-
‘p‘. " V‘s
\ Va I

9 puke
:‘efie‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
I‘¢.'1 9

50

Both physical and social scientists have recommended that research
efforts be directed at ascertaining critical use levels in wilderness
in relation to the quality of the experience. In the pioneering
study by Dana on forest recreation research needs, he noted:
A basic problem.in recreation management, comparable to
that of sustained yield in timber management, is determina-
tion of’the 'carrying capacity' of different sites fer
different recreational uses. flew much use can a given area
stand without physical deterioration of the site and without
irment 93 esthetic 32g spiritual values.1
Fisher, in a paper befere the Outdoor Recreation Resources
Review Commission, commented, "Granting that wilderness is an economic
resource and has value because of use, the interesting question arises:
how much of what kinds of uses can it have and still be wilderness?"2
Hawkes further emphasized the necessity to probe the quantity-quality
relationship, noting:
The research of the future will need to learn more about
the capacity of'different areas to supply recreation without
modifying the qualities of the area, to know more about the
traits and desires of the different segments of the total
public who will visit the recreation areas.3
Finally, in a Speech at the National Conference on Outdoor

Recreation Research, Clawson and Knetsch cited carrying capacity as

 

1Samuel T. Dana, Problem Analysis Research in Forest Recreation

(weshington, D.C.: U.S. Department'of Agriculture):_p. 52. Under-
lining is added.

2Joseph L. Fisher, Notes 22 the Value _o_f Research 211 the Wilder.
ness Part EE'Wildland, Resources for'the Future Reprint N . 23
(washifigten, D.C.: Resources for the Future, Inc., 1960), p. 3.

3H. Bowman Hawkes, "The Paradoxes of the Conservation Move-
ment," paper presented at the Twenty-Fourth Annual Frederick‘William
Ikwnolds Lecture, Salt Lake City, Utah, February 11, 1960, p. 26.

 

I 9.4.:w r956
6 ...—I59.

4

" P we:
a ... Li’s
191:1»: O.

‘ 1
he insert 0.
*

F433;” “5 cc:

a.-.
17% ca pa -:
3*. M»... e

New... he?“ . L

b.

‘14 . .,
....QI'Sanan.

51

a primary research need relating it to the concept of optimum in-

tensity of use.1

The Concept of'Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity

Despite a broad base of support fer such research, empirical
efforts directed Specifically at fermulating the carrying capacity
of wilderness have been limited. Several authors, however, have
examined the concept and suggested Specific ways in which carrying
capacities could be defined or investigated. Other studies have
touched upon issues which are certainly important to understanding
carrying capacity in a wilderness concept, such as the level of use
encountered, but which, by themselves, are not sufficient for complete
understanding.

In a 1959 nationwide survey of recreation resources,2 the
U.S. Ferest Service attempted to develop guidelines by which the
capacity of recreational areas could be estimated. Efforts were
directed at creating "converting factors" which represented the
acreage of a recreation resource needed to satisfactorily accommodate

one man-day of use fer that resource. Fer wilderness areas, a

1Marion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch. "Recreation Research:
Some Basic Analytical Concepts and Suggested Framework fer Research
Programs. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Outdoor
Recreation Research (Ann Arbor-:— Ann Ar— bfl—or 'Pu' b""""""1ishers ,196 37—, p'.‘ 20.

2U.S., Department of.Agriculture, Fbrest Service, The
National Ferest Outdoor Recreation Resources Review work Plan (wash.
ington, D. C., 1959).

kw unr

‘ 00 ‘fi' V‘
zezera. "3r.- " ...

I‘ f ‘
‘5'“.125 .0? 651.."
‘ 9

”he s. c

theflliemess ex
the capacity f3
:ess experience 5
’\
timizatisn. "
The the:
5...;
We? Of per-5;:
.’ 9!
.. ~38 season of
PM the may:
Kaila the
e; ‘
eon in tne de f1,
' e
finned “0 Emir-i
‘Ir’iiie‘w' - .
' “119 In H;
of ..., .
‘r’rmpnate 1.E
in“) ...
‘a
we qualififir'g c‘.
NM.
«Oat destroy:

33mm“

 

52

general converting factor of 3.0 acres per man-day was accepted as
a guide for estimating capacity.1

The study recognized that capacity could be defined only if
the Wilderness eXperience were considered, noting "in determining
the capacity for wilderness-type areas we must consider that a wilder-
ness experience should provide isolation from the masses of
cifilization. "2

The theoretical capacity of a wilderness was defined as the
"number of persons who could be dispersed in the area at one time
. . . without destroying the wilderness . . . multiplied by the length
01' the season of use."3 The acceptable "number of persons" was based
“P011 the judgment of personnel familiar with the wilderness area.

While the quality of the wilderness eXperience was a considera-
tion in the definition of the theoretical capacity, there still
existed no empirical method of fully estimating its significance as
‘ guideline in wilderness recreation management. The establishment
0f appropriate levels of use that would provide for adequate visitor
i301111;:ion were based on arbitrary decisions. It is unclear whether
the qualifying clause concerning the numbers of people possible..-
"without destroying the wilderness"--referred to the ecological

”Infinity, to the aesthetics of the visit, or to both.

1

Ibid., p. 53. ZIbid., p. 51. 3Ibid., p. 52.

...——

I'I'KW‘ EA

is

“,6 S
. u a

“'0" AA A W‘
‘4‘ vv'n— gal

53

The study revealed the inherent difficulty in establishing
capacity standards for wilderness areas in the absence of empirical
data concerning users. It did, however, focus attention on the
importance of the wilderness experience as a factor in a consideration
of capacity. In addition, it pointed out the necessity of consider-
ing inputs other than acreage in developing an appropriate measure
of capacity-.-factors such as trail systems, campsites, and recreational
Opportunities were noted.

Wagar has defined recreational carrying capacity as "the
level of use at which quality remains constant."1 Obviously, each
shift in the level of use will result in a redefinition of the level
°f quality. In attempting to define capacity, then, decisions must

be made regarding the level of quality for which the area is to be
Weed. Additionally, Wagar points out that high-quality recreation
13 Possible by a variety of costs paid by the recreationist, such as
linitations on the number of visits, paying higher prices for forest
PMucts that are less abundant because recreation causes a reduction
0f 1'oimber supply, and accepting a different kind of recreational
°xP°r1ence. This discussion again emphasizes that land cannot be
considered the only input in management plans for high quality

recreation.

 

 

1J. Alan Wagar, E Mg Ca cit of Wildlands for

__Recl‘oation, Forest Science Monogra 7 Washington, D.C.: S—o'c-iety

°f herican Foresters, 1964), p. 51.)h The monograph is an abbreviated
f°m 0f Wagar's Ph.D. dissertation "The Carrying Gupacity of Wildlands
for Recreation" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
MicIii-gain, 1961).

AH

e 1
e318 0.‘

e' 1
remancra- c
”F 'U‘
baa. ...e a.“

are: to aroma

54

One of the few studies providing empirical data relative to
recreational capacity was conducted by Lucas in the Quetico-Superior
Area. The author defined capacity as the ability of a recreational
area to provide satisfaction, a service limited by both physical
factors and the attitudes of people.1 Findings of the study revealed
that user definitions of capacity were related to both amounts and
kinds of recreational use. Canoeists, for example, I’wanted much
lower levels of use and distinguished more sharply between sorts of
groups met than didmotorboaters."2

The operational assumption for defining the capacity of the
Quetico-Superior Area was that paddling canoeists were the critical
group for establishing appropriate levels of use. Nearly all
canoeists identified lakes where use was less than about 300 canoe
parties per season as wilderness. Where there were between 300 to
600 canoe parties per season, or up to 200 canoeing and boating groups
combined, only about half of the canoeists continued to identify the
area as wilderness. These latter results point to the highly signifi-
cant relationship between capacity and both forms and levels of use.

By relating specific levels and forms of use to capacity as

perceived by user groups Lucas was able to project the amount of time

 

1Robert C. Lucas, The Recreational Capgcity of the Quetico-

Superior_ Area, U.S. Forest_ Service Research Paper LS-15_z§t. Paul:
Lake States Forest EXperiment Station, 196fi), p. 5.

2Ibid. , p. 9.

.0'

O
w:
“\

:65

w"‘

I-
A

.5

SIZE

8.32

'1'

I Q
0.0A
“Us
'1 s4
‘9'-
J

s9

n

I o I. ‘
+~ ha
I... It
4.. e

‘
5 ..

401.. Elihur

29.. swfiak

, 1t
ne‘
vi— “... .

n .
ya. I
‘
"V—ee.
o
:f «...
«...!

II!

..

nee\uv .4 Q
+ T. . ‘5‘
...s MW at

.l A kid “e
em» 2. Au 7...

a.“ .e. his .

 

55

before various areas would exceed capacity. The availability of such
information presents resource managers with a much clearer picture of
decision needs and provides empirical support for management decisions
affecting the wilderness resource.

A recent study for the National Park Service attempted to
develop new methodologies for determining the capacity of Natural
Areas in the National Park System to absorb use for a sustained period
of time "without destroying definable and measurable park and recrea-

tion values."1

The authors point out that recreation or visitor
carrying capacity cannot be considered as a single, absolute value.
Rather, it is a flexible measure, changing with the particular level
of investment, design, and user eXperience as well as in Space. If
any level of use represented the absolute capacity, it would be
characterized by virtually a complete loss of user satisfaction and
irreversible damage to the physical resource. They conclude:
The major consideration in determining the level of use
of an area is the trade-off between the benefits which
result from admitting additional users to the area or per-

mitting more intensive use of the area and the losses, if any,
associated with the increase of intensification of use.2

 

1Arthur T.'Wilcox and R. Burnell Held, "A Study to Develop
Practical Techniques for Determining the Carrying Capacity of Natural
Areas in the National Park System" (unpublished study proposal, Center
for Research and Education, Estes Park, Colorado, 1967), p. 2.

2R. Burnell Held, Stanley Brickler, and Arthur T. Wilcox, .4.
§tgdy to Develo Practical Techni use for Determining the Ca
Ca cit" of Na ur'a'l Aree"s"'1n"'t'h'e' NE atl'ofia' Park s stem Rep-e_nt gaéhe

NaEional Park Service, washihgtsu, D.C., Nov. 15 19 9 (Estes Park,
Colorado: Center for Research and Education, 19é9), p. 8.

IL

L“ w!“

 

.-
As:
at

9 MW'" '
c. U‘onJ-“

t-a‘ nevi-r"
U he v‘ "I‘-

332 36:38 a

e. ‘-
5474.”..5.
Z a
..4-

56

Additional studies, not directly concerned with the question
of carrying capacity, have nevertheless provided substantive evidence
that crowding and its symptoms seriously affect user satisfaction,
and hence are closely related to the establishment of capacity
standards.

The Wildland Research Center questioned visitors to several
wildland recreation areas around the country as to their reaction to
various negative features encountered on wilderness trips. In the
High Sierra Primitive Area of California, for example, 50 per cent
of the reapondents noticed littered or rundown campsites, 38 per cent
noted the effects of too many horses on trails or near campsites,

33 per cent responded negatively to very large parties, and 27 per
cent reported difficulty in finding isolation from.other camping
parties.1 Additionally, 43 per cent of all wilderness users inter-
viewed indicated the principal reason they wanted to visit a wilder-
ness was to get away from crowds of’people.2 Merriam and Ammon33
found that between 70 and 90 per cent of the persons interviewed in
three different wildernesslike areas felt that "few people" were an

important characteristic of wilderness. In a study comparing three

 

1Wildland Research Center, Wilderness and Recreation, p. 14h.

ZIbid. , p. 147.

3Merriamand Ammons, The Wilderness User 33 Three Montana
.Areas, p. 29.

nk"‘._e- 'J‘Jmst fl

" ‘0
“”51-art s v',

“gob. woe

- l
1": ‘Dfis‘nvr‘. pa.
d. -0... J I ...:

' n
“:..A‘ '17‘Ar-
”-VVL “rv.‘

12::mmied

'l'lerness :
' O

“Ie
-.‘a b
k: -291: L, a:

57

different styles of outdoor recreation camping, Burch and wenger
noted that "the more primitive one's style of camping, the less he
desires sharing the camping area with strangers."1

Education and interpretive programs are seen by Brandborg
as important means of increasing the carrying capacity of wilderness.
By improving visitor behavior, and thus reducing the impact of the
visitor upon the wilderness resource, greater numbers could be
accommodated with a reduction in the deleterious effects. Similarly,
providing better maps and other guide materials could relieve con-
gestion and result in a more even distribution of use over the area.2

Given an increasing population and a limited amount of
wilderness, Hardin views three possibilities as existing fer future
management action: (1) opening the wilderness to all (end result:
absolute destruction); (2) closing the wilderness to all (end result:
preservation, but does no good for anyone now); and (3) limiting
access to wilderness.3 Choosing the latter option as the only course
of action that can be "rationally defended," he suggests that the
selection of those who may utilize the wilderness be based on merit;

only those with the physical abilities and skills could use such areas.

 

1Burch and wenger, The Social Characteristics 2f Participants
in Three Styles 22 Family Camping, p. 26.

ZStewart M. Brandborg, "On the Carrying Capacity of Wilder-
ness," Living_Wi1derness, 82 (Summer-Fall, 1963), pp. 29-31.

 

3Hardin, "The Economics of Wilderness," pp. 21-22.

mix

“5W; rat-W

I

“a

-..-

".0 an.“‘ a

be“ Us."
‘9’.-

...e

e. ..
.P“‘ be
\
Iii. our!

dis: 15'-
the use
fees or
the tas;
as... ~:a.

v6 v-6.
s

15 5:13:37

:9 .act the
""35?- t‘n'o
a~~

Q
‘1
u-
(D
’1
(n
.
01—4

‘VI.L: '5 §
\ 0‘ ‘3

58

The notion of restricting use in wilderness areas, while
unpalatable in many ways, has received further attention from.Hendee:
The potential for increasing carrying capacity by better
distribution of use is not infinite, and attempts to control
distribution have largely been unsuccessful . . . ultimately,
the use of wilderness will need to be rationed by charging
fees or by other means . . . . Research must also bend to
the task of’determining physical and esthetic carrying

capacities consistent with preservation objectives, to serve
as standards upon which to base rationing decisionS.1

An Operational Definition of Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity

Defining the recreational carrying capacity of a wilderness is
a complex and frustrating task. Part of the difficulty arises from
the fact that any calculation of carrying capacity must take into
account two distinct parameters. First, capacity may be determined in
a purely ecologic or biotic sense,2 and indeed, it is this dimension
that most land managers consider when Speaking of carrying capacity.
In attempting to utilize ecological capacity as a surrogate for
recreational capacity, however, two shortcomings may be noted: (1) it
does not recognize the wide range of’quality perceived as acceptable
by users. For some, the ecological carrying capacity may be synonymous

with their perception of recreational carrying capacity. For others,

 

1I-Iendee .e_t_ g” Wilderness Users in the Pacific Northwwt, p. 61.

2Carrying capacity in this ecological sense may be defined as

the population level above which no major increases can occur; a level
'determined by environmental resistance. See Eugene P. Odum. Funda-
mentals g Ecoloa (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 19595, p. 183.

'a

,P
U.

...,‘w- ~.
*u'oJ

a...

“.4” .

se.

"\

little (ii

in...

 

:to

1’:

V
‘fs,

.-
\
V‘UV
a

I“n

IPJ

..‘_

... a seas

3"

Val

wan:

{1‘ p
‘3 e a Al‘ .N
a; o
re.
8 a."
h“ a“ a K a.
We .s .h‘ ‘1‘

mile ~v 0
I Q \ IV “kt

 

59

it may have little or no relationship; and (2) any use that occurs
in an ecological complex results in 1% changes. Frissell1 found
in a study of campsite deterioration in the Quetico-Superior Canoe
Country that over 80 per cent of the ground cover was lost with only
light use. Similarly, Wagar concluded "in wilderness situations, even
a little direct contact by recreationists might cause marked changes
in plant composition and appearance."2 The decision on the amount
of change in the ecology to be accepted is arbitrary, unless there
is an understanding of the manner in which people perceive and
reSpond to the environment.

This then leads to the second "type" of carrying capacity.
The use a wilderness area will be allowed to sustain can be defined
in toms of the effects of such use upon the recreational experience
of the user. Obvious and serious problems immediately arise, however.
Such a measure requires a consideration of values. Whose values are
to be considered: the managing agency's or the public's? And if the
public values are to be relied upon, which public? Represented
within the population that uses wilderness are value systems ranging

from those which favor maximizing use to those supporting virtual

 

isidney S. Frissell, Jr., and Donald P. Duncan, "Campsite
Preference and Deterioration in the Quetico-Superior Canoe Country,"
Journal _o_f Forestfl, 63 (April, 1965), p. 258.

2Wager, The W Capacity 93 Wildlands E Recreation,
p. 18.

Lid

’1':

4

'7'

I

 

t_xlfi' .

Q at. “A
" “c 9 ....

U-.- .0

- .51.
airs-SUI

a.. ‘85 ""

‘ ‘
“rte.- .
r“:!V.-U-.

60

closure of the areas. Reconciling such a range of values is difficult
and must be analyzed in terms of the objectives for which such areas
are reserved.

The construction of a definition of wilderness recreation
carrying capacity for the purposes of this study is based on certain
prepositions. First, the capacity of wilderness must be judged
against the objectives detailed within the Wilderness Act. The
legislative charge to manage certain areas "as wilderness" and to
provide within them."outstanding opportunities for solitude and a
primitive and unconfined type of recreation" necessarily will require
restrictions on the number and type of users at some future date.
Secondly, recreational carrying capacity is principally a function of
the users' perceptions and attitudes. It may be eXpected to vary in
response to increased levels of use and different kinds and character-
istics of use, as well as in response to personality and socio-
economic variations among the users. Third, recreational carrying
capacity cannot be defined in an absolute sense; no single figure
exists which represents the capacity of an area. It will vary from
place to place within any wilderness, between different users,
according to the management objectives, and over time. Finally
(related to proposition three), the capacity of’a wilderness may be
increased not only by inputs of land, but also by decisions of the

managing agency to consider various levels of investment, various

b

‘1:

... A»
c.55-

’ ‘ .-

.aE‘H

o.

4.
..v

3.
Cu

we‘.

3‘

w Fin

an.

ad

 

_axa ‘3-
... ".~

v.-

3938

..
I

61

levels of investment, various levels of design, and other management
costs.1

Based upon these propositions, and fecusing upon the actions
of the wilderness user, wilderness recreation carrying capacity is
defined as:

The level, type, and/or character of recreation use

consistent with (1) sustaining the optimum level of user
satisfaction with the area as wilderness, and (2) guarantee-
ing the maintenance of the wilderness resource over time

as defined in the Wilderness Act.

This definition explicitly recognizes the dual nature of
wilderness recreation carrying capacity and provides a framework
where the two elements are balanced against one another. In cases
where the Optimum level of user satisfaction is adversely affected
by some parameter of recreational use (fer example, too many people),
then capacity has been exceeded, irreSpective of the fact that the
physical resource may be capable of withstanding considerable more
use. On the other hand, if some level or type of recreational use
has a deleterious impact on the wilderness resource, then the physical
capability of the resource becomes the constraint deepite the fact
the level of eXperience for the user may not have been affected in
any'way.

This definition leaves two important methodological questions

to be investigated. First, how is the "optimum level wilderness

 

1

Held, Brickler, and'Wilcox, A Stud tom mvelo Practical
Techniques for Determining the EEEEZEEEM @acit' of Nag Mal fleas in

 

 

the National Park System, p. 7.

4;.

e

A" 91"

e; F v
.7... -40¢

A“ “0";
'0

over.-.-

0

.e - ~
...-e .v- -

:‘MU-C

w;
e” ‘A"a
.0 o.-h.ev

2,";es" ...

....

.
are...
‘ {V‘U‘l

tie ..a‘ ‘—

-" .'00?

I; e ta .
“Evil-BO.

:53“: .3?
bvuwr‘a‘
,:'9‘alfl ;
.0, 22

It. ‘

"NE b.\
e. V

a”; A " /

62

experience" to be defined? Secondly, how can the physical impact
of recreational use upon the wilderness resource be measured?

In regard to the latter point, substantial literature is
available documenting the effects of recreation use on the physical
environment.1 While some of the research has been conducted on non-
‘wilderness environments, it seems feasible to interpret and apply
results to the wilderness environment. Research upon the former
question, however, is very limited. Defining the parameters for
determining the "optimum level wilderness experience" is crucial to
a rigorous definition of carrying capacity, and in Chapter III,
the methodological dimensions of how this was done in the study are

detailed.

 

1Examples include A. D. Dotzenko, N. T. Papamichos, and
D. S. Romine, "Effect of Recreational USe on Soil and Moisture
Conditions in Rocky MOuntain National Park," Journal 2; Soil and,Water
Conservation, 22 (1967), pp. 196-197; Robert P. Gibbons and Harold F.
Heady, The Influence _o_f Modern @ 933 the Vegetation of Yosemite
valley, Manual 36 (Berkeley: University—of California, Division of
Agricultural Science, 1964); H. J. Lutz, "Soil Conditions of Picnic
Grounds in Public Forest Parks," Journal 32 Forest , 43 (February,
1945), pp. 121-127; Frissell and Duncan, "Campsi e Preference and
Deterioration," pp. 256—260; Stephen F. McCool, Lawrence C. Merriam,
Jr., and Charles T. Cushwa, Th2 Condition gf'Wilderness Campsites in_
222 Boundary waters Canoe Area, Minnesota Forestry Research Notes
No. 22, April 15, 1969 (S . Paul: university of’Minnesota School of
Forestry); Wilbur F. LaPage, Some Observations 22 Campground Trampling
and Ground Cover Beeponse, U.S. Forest Service Research Paper NE-
(fipper Darby, Pa.: Northeast Forest Experiment Station, 1967);
E. P. Meinecke, A Report Upon the Effect _o_f Excessive Tourist Travel
22 Egg California Redwood Parks, Report to the California Department of
Natural Resources, Sacramento, California, 1928 (Sacramento: California
State Printing Office, 1928); and Bettie Willard Scott-Williams, "Effects
of Visitor Use on the Ebosystems of Rocky'Mountain National Park,
Colorado, U.S.A.," Proceedings and Pa ers of the IUCN 10th Technical

Meeting (Lucerne, Switzerland, 1966 , pp. 1160-1170.

 

 

 

 

 

L;.

For
3955 be: in
312: Zintas ]
bet in Firm
m Presentl;
3" Utah are
llthcugj um
it is Preser

The
mic M 1151

has, trWei

of the area
“as ““3 ids
M “59 and

Q: ,
“‘Rcl

t3 Cc

5% ifidol

\
1

CHAPTER III

STUDY AREAS AND STRATEGIES

Study Area Selection

Four areas were selected for study: The Bob Marshall Wilder-
ness Area in Montana, the Bridger Wilderness Area in Wyoming, the
High Uintas Primitive Area in Utah, and the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area in Minnesota (see Figure 1). Eucept for the High Uintas, all
are presently part of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

The Utah area is presently awaiting reclassification as wilderness,
although under the terms of the Wilderness Act, it is managed as though
it is presently in the system.1

The selection of study areas was based on several criteria;
ratio of use to area size, per cent of summer use, ratio of foot to
horse travel (except in the BWCA), the basic resource characteristics
of the area, and the situational characteristics of each area. It
was considered desirable that the study areas represent a broad range
of use and resource characteristics so that the perception of carrying
capacity could be measured against a backdrop of varying conditions.

Some wilderness areas are predominantly summer use areas: others

 

1The Wilderness Act, p. 2.

63

 

 

 

 

 

—.u““—F-FU .“

 

receire t: r.

I O
(3"; n‘e‘v- a‘ -
Vu. ' v ,. “Av-..'
.

:Ezrarv" ~ a“

in). ..a—ws‘

'he .
A24; 3., Sim

acre; the as,

Op- .
“us—u a .:
n V'
a” “U '6
en‘ .

:J
‘-
‘23“'7~ “e:
.. «a m,
k=lsl ’ ‘.V‘
~ 7“;
‘K.
EVOP .
I
23
E: “e:

eatfi ’ ‘Va‘i
U V. ”a
. v ‘
”Cir, 3‘- Tle C1
. a“?
'53 $‘_ ““91‘
e e 3

.0."

.'

(D
Nu
f_J.

65

receive the major volume of use during the fall hunting season. Some
serve principally a hiking and backpacking clientele while others are

characterized primarily by horse travel.

Use Characteristics

 

Table 6 shows the use characteristics of each study area.
As can be seen, a broad range of characteristics is represented
among the areas.

One additional use characteristic remained to be examined.
In 1959, the Forest Service made subjective estimates that wilderness
and primitive areas in Region 11 had a carrying capacity of 3.5 acres
per man day. Areas in Region # were estimated to have a capacity of
3.0 acres per man day while the capacity in Region 9 was placed at
1.75 acres per man day.2 Utilizing these subjective capacity figures,
the relationship of current use to suggested capacity was examined
(Table 7). As can be seen, all the areas appear to have substantial

acreage remaining for wilderness recreation use.

 

1Region 1 is a Forest Service Administrative unit, made up of
Montana, North Dakota, northern Idaho, and small portions of eastern
washington, northwestern wyoming, and northwest South Dakota.

2Region a includes southern Idaho, western wyoming, Utah, and
Nevada. Region 9 encompasses Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, west Virginia, Maryland, and all states to the north.
east. The carrying capacity figures are from a memorandum from
John Sieker, Director of the Division of Recreation, washington, D.C.
to the Regional Foresters, January 22, 1960.

 

 

4'. Fl: Plakr ..lr-w F

_a i,

$43£< Manama nag .nDHumHNwaaogtb 353

C amdfiu

 

66

Queue one Hos—Based weapon 303.5 .8. 3934..on

 

.onumm .aa .mmmmmmm.mmmmmmmm.mmm.mmvaoapuoaoom sooupso scam assay

3

$393.39.. «Sansone: ooEom phenom Hdfioammo Eon.“ panacea—.0 earns

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oanuoaamaa so: cm a.« mam.mmm ooa.oma uon< condo
assess kudos—Sm
0: mm H.~ asanosm oomusaa ..scaa swam
no om a.m oom.mmn oom.aas poweaum
m an m.sa coo 0mm com on Hauansnz pom
Aspens pooh eons yoga hog-nova»? namesaod «Anhaaopdngv send
ewevsooaem emepsoouom \oeaod pez condensed mom."
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIaIIIIuIIIuIIIILrIIIIIaIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIunuluuunauunnnuununnllnu

 

m<mm< Em ho moggogo amp

0 H.549

\A

Nu

“m h: (L.

 

67

.53 noun—nut Men
as sea mum. mo noses“ 5.3.3380 panama Roseanne as ho. 0.5mm“ hep a
e 3 oeuhobnoo as: seas hoops nose now 02.. had nova»? conned?» ones

 

 

 

3 lambda 298m mmmamm Rafi? «smog
93°33 350m
3 532m Shea omwumow 8A8 .35: swam
A+v one}? oom.mmm onm.mom 39$ aomflum
3 Rm :8 o8 one go S: a? S 333.: pom
smashed Q. m v Then as: non mopeoz
Auv 30309 .8 ewdewew poz nosed on when 55 «when sex send
3 3H5 88% 3.84
H LLI

 

 

 

 

I
it. ill!

 

 

 

mag Em ho HBHUdhdU wag QED Euaaag

mag

 

”a “
fie“

"*6 ”vars:

tee-v vJaa

“PA, I ‘ Ar.

UFJM yea v.4
‘

‘ e. #1,
”$0.335..‘
5:75:85, am:

:L'tLen-zc re

‘."." ‘
~4....‘.'e {3-

. I

“a e ‘
d ‘5 “Oh

O .

‘9- , .

L" 5‘4le

‘. .. I §

" '59 31-:

Q

'3'»: .

“down

‘
a'.
“I .‘3 4‘-

l- V L: 3‘.
.‘I‘ ‘
«:2,‘ ‘
k, ‘

68

Three important factors need to be considered, however. First,
the conversion factors established by the Forest Service were based
upon personal judgments of individuals familiar with the areas. The
relationship of variations in topography, vegetation, cover, trail
systems, and attractions to a definition of capacity are unclear.
Furthermore, the estimations were made in the absence of any sub-
stantive knowledge concerning user perceptions of capacity.

Secondly, comparing the acres needed to the net acreage of the
area is not altogether a valid procedure. Depending upon the particular
area studied, substantial acreages may be unavailable or inaccessible
to the wilderness user. As the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission reported, "The (recreation) problem is not one of total

acres but of effective acres."1

 

Finally, the recreational use of wilderness areas is generally
distributed very irregularly. Factors such as topography and the trail
system strongly influence use patterns. Capacity standards based upon

an entire Fbrest Service region are likely to be misleading.

Resource Characteristics

The study areas differed considerably in terms of their physical
resource characteristics. These differences, in turn, provided a broad

range of aesthetic and recreational opportunities fer visitors.

 

1Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor
Recreation.£2£ America (thhington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1962), p. H.

Ecrests in
AAA 5
9.

JVV -BEt

" e I sg
~58 £111-

8
Area gu‘C‘;£
:‘H‘o ' ' ‘
U“.‘ tr‘e ‘
mars a:

elor
a
G?
a” .
a. «c293:

69

The largest of the areas is the Bob Marshall Wilderness,
comprising 950,000 acres on the Flathead and Lewis and Clark National
Fbrests in western Montana. Elevations range from h,000 feet to over
9,000 feet along the Continental Divide, which runs north-south through
the middle of the area. While there are not an especially large number
of lakes in the area, several river systems cross the area (see Figure 2
for area map). The Flathead system, composed of the South Fork, Middle
Fork, Spotted Bear, and White Rivers, drains the western portion of the
area through generally broad and Open parklike flats. On the eastern
side, the North and South Forks of the Sun River are the principal
rivers, and again, much of the area adjacent to these rivers is open.

In these open valleys, horsefeed is relatively abundant.

Glaciation has been a major ferce in shaping the landscape.

Ice action along the Cambrian limestone cliffs on the east side of the
Continental Divide has fermed the Chinese wall, a major scenic
attraction.1

Generally it is the first part of July before snow has melted
off access trails. By early September, snow has usually returned. How-
over, due to the hunting attractions of the area (elk, deer, and mountain

goats, as well as grizzly bear), use continues into November.

 

1The best account of the geologic history of the Bob Marshall
is in W. C. Alden, Physiography and Glacial Geolog 21; Western Montana
and Adjacent Areas, Geological Survey Professional Paper 231
(Wishington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1953).

 

 

(We)

confir-

70

    
 

 

BOB MARSHALL WILDERNESS

Legend
MAIN ROAD

—°-— AREA BOUNDARY

 

 

L70 “ALIS?!“

 
   

._\\\\\\
\\\ Spotted Bear

I.-
.C
,.
.
.
'l
.l
1.
I.
. .
-.;.
.
.I.l
.
I...
.,:
. .
. .
.
.
.
. .-2-‘-
. ...-l O I.
i . .
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
. :.;.
- ..... e e e
l‘l‘s’v'l'.‘.’l‘i’ I' III.I.I‘O.I'I I I.
. . I. . . ' .l.. l O
...! I I I I a
C's's I
" ‘.:.
.l I.-
. .
.l'-..
‘0.-
. .
.0
. .
. .

     
 

. ”vi-S"
. s-

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

 

MARSHALL

  
 

so. Prairie

 
  

CHINESE

WILDERNESS

    

 

 

(to easeouu

 

Figure 2. Bob Marshall Wilderness Area.

71

 

Figure 3. Bread, partially open valley along the South
Fbrk of the Flathead River in the Bob Marshall Wilder-
ness. U.S. Forest Service photo.

 

Figure 4. The Chinese Whll in the Bob Marshall Wilder-
ness, a focal point of visitor attention. U.S. Forest
Service photo.

'*." 4
AAA
.r the
C
I
e
W
‘aee
..-
...Yer raft.

v

area and t

«e
.huea J‘

h

. a '.
L32; knee

3.: incae J. O

:
.e

P
955 3. :10!

e

1

.r. 3. .o, - n.
V e S

e e a. a

S .m\ . a u e

n4 3. ‘ a u
a t

3“ AH {u A

a. «C ..C. .M

.9

72

While broad parklike valleys, develOped around the major river
systems, characterize the Bob Marshall Wilderness, the Bridger Wilder-
ness of’northwestern wyoming presents a strikingly different area.

Much of the area is high, glaciated terrain. The Continental Divide
along the crest of the Wind River Range ferms the north and east
boundary of the 383,300 acre area.

The extensive glacial action has left over 1,300 lakes in the
area and the fishing opportunities are substantial. The only major
river is the Green River, draining the northwest end of the area.

Along the crest of the Wind River range are several permanent
glaciers. The presence of the glaciers, coupled with the rugged Wind
River range itself afferds some of the best technical rock and ice
climbing to be fbund in the conterminous United States.1 Peaks along
the crest range between 11,000 and 13,000 feet high.

The major access points range from 6,000 to approximately 9,000
feet above sea level. Snow makes most of the high elevation trails in-
accessible befbre mid-July. Snow returns by early September, but as in
the Bob Marshall, hunting continues into the latter part of fall. Hunt-
ing use is, however, relatively light in comparison to the Bdb Marshall.

The intense glacial scouring of the area has left much of the
area devoid of soil. Vegetation is Sparse in many areas, and soils are
unstable under even limited use in some of the higher basins, eSpecially

in the Spring.

 

1An excellent description of the geological features of the Wind
Rivers is in Orrin H. Bonney and Lorraine Bonney, Field Book--T_hg Wind
River Range (Houston, Texas: By the author, 1968).

 

 

 

73

 

‘- T0 BONDURANT

 

BRIDGER WILDERNESS

Legend
MAIN ROAD
—--— AREA BOUNDARY

  
  
   

 

 

'I ...
......

‘Oeeqs.:.'
e
.. ,
n.
:3 I...
. " cs.
‘ " es
0 ...
. e
r .. ,
" ee .
ee .. "
e‘ .
,, -- ee
..
sea 2:
n

..
00a.
-...3

I
m

u‘ .- .e
u -- ....
.e'..-

‘.

annws ‘ii

   
  

   

  
 
 
 

 
 

am new For: =3:
Lake {-.=;
.MNMH

 
     

.......
...............
........................
“'1 .. - .':.:.:."‘-'.' ................................

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

..........
---------
........
""'OOI ':: ......
ssssss

PINEDALE

. ,..
. .
in 1‘.-

   

I‘.

BOULDER

BIG SANDY

TO FARSON
F

 

Figure 5. Bridger Wilderness Area.

 

 

,. a. Iran‘s». .II x.
_ on

it; u,

7n

 

Figure 6. Island Lake in the Bridger Wilderness,
surrounded by a rugged glaciated landscape. U.S.
Forest Service photo.

 

Figure 7. Mt. Agassiz in the High Uintas Primitive
Area stands above one of the high alpine meadows.
U.S. Forest Service photo.

 

P’r‘sitive A

75

The third western study area, the High Uintas Primitive Area,
lies on the Uinta Mountain range in northeastern Utah. Geologically
it is unique since the Uinta Mountains are the only range in the
United States that lie on an eastswest axis. Several peaks within the
Primitive Area are over 13,000 feet high. Extensive glaciation has
resulted in numerous cirques and tarns. The resulting high alpine
basins provide the focal points for much of the summer recreational
activity.

Summer thunder storms are quite common. ‘Winter snow remains
on many of the trails until mid-July, or even later. Snow comes early
to the area, and results in the movement of game animals down to lower
elevations; consequently, fall hunting is limited.

The Boundary waters Canoe Area presents a wilderness environ-
ment strikingly dissimilar from the three western study areas. Lakes
are the most essential feature of the landscape, covering 16 per cent
of the total area. Local relief within the area is low, with 500 feet
about the maximum figure. DeSpite low relief, however, the numerous
rock outcrOps provide fer scenic variation.1 Additionally, the low
relief results in a reduced visual field fer the visitor, and the
effects of’man's past activity, such as logging, is much less visible

than in mountain areas of the west.

 

AA good resume of the physical environment of the Boundary
Whters Canoe Area is in Robert C. Lucas, "The Quetico-Superior Area:
Recreational Use in Relation to Capacity" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion, University of Minnesota, 1962), pp. 20-40.

 

 

 

 

\ )h—U U!(J L4‘” Oh \ W \

 

76

 

HIGH UINTAS PRIMITIVE AREA

Legend
MAIN ROAD
--— AREA BOUNDARY

 

 

OeeIelnluee
OIISQDO It
-==—

 

tTO SALT LAKE CITY

 

‘Lro EVANSTON

3'4?

M mu

.9 an

men
. #5"- : '
t a " umvas 0 a"
”0’ .‘“.
ONeeee Ieele
_ ‘Hnle ‘ . I I
If " I-RIMITIvs c,
" lee! em 3‘ ,
“a“ "can . l
..... N . a” , "3,-
x r‘ - . .. - " ‘
'.-'-,. he!

Lets

 

,- TO STOCKMORE

 

Figure 8. High Uintas Primitive Area.

 

<mmd. NOZQU WIMFGQS \rtd‘QZDom \ \

77

.33 ooseo «have: ransom .m enema

 

 

 

00.! c. 0'8

H“!
I. N. .nQnVLO

>¢<o2300 4 mad I.)

ocom 23: "I”
p593

<mm< moz<o may—.43 >m<ozzom

 

dz.-

 

 

 

I 43...! I. HEN ... s§.Ll

 

78

 

Figure 10. Numerous lakes, interspersed with tree
covered islands characterize the landscape of the
BWCA. U.S. Fbrest Service photo.

 

Figure 11. Rocky outcrops along the shore of Lac La
Croix provide canoeists a unique esthetic landscape.
U.S. Forest Service photo.

 

rock con-c:

relatively
EC’Od. THE

in" tiers a:

“u + .
.v-aavlsn,

centeI-s ,

what
I

center.

79

Lucas notes "because of the combination of climate and bed-

1 Due to

rock conditions, the lakes are relatively infertile."
relatively low fishing pressure, however, fishing success is fairly
good. The area experiences a summer maximum in precipitation and
winters are severe.

In summary, then, the feur study areas represent a broad
range of physical resource characteristics. The Bob Marshall is
characterized by broad, open_ valleys, at relatively low elevations,
interSpersed by the ranges of the Continental Divide. The Bridger
is a high, alpine area, with Sparse vegetation, dotted.with numerous
lakeS, and characterized by considerable exposed rock. Although
similar in many ways, the High Uintas offers a less harsh environment,
‘with several high basins and meadows. Finally, the Boundary waters
Canoe Area is a relatively flat region, endowed with numerous lakes

which are separated by rock outcrOps and deciduous ferests.

Situational Characteristics

The situational characteristics of each study area differ
markedly. The relationship of study area location to population
centers, major routesof'travel, and access is an important influence
on both the levels and types of use they receive.

The Bob Marshall is relatively remote from any major pOpulation

center. It is, however, within an hour's driving distance of western

 

11nd. , p. 33.

9“. _w - Y-

Kontana‘

Helena 1

par'LleI

and 39 :

s“:- +

-‘v 5
i

80

Montana's main urban areas: Missoula (29,000), Great Falls (60,000),
Helena (22,000), and KaliSpell (11,000). Montana State Highway 209
parallels the western boundary of the area, while state routes 200
and 89 run along the south and east sides.

Direct access into the area varies. Along the west and east
side, the visitor can drive within two or three miles of the wilderness
boundary at some locations. Road access to the boundary on the north
and south, however, is restricted and substantial distances must be
traveled on fect or horseback through gg'fagtgywilderness to reach the
boundary. There are approximately 20 access points into the wilderness
itself; use on these trails, however, is very unevenly distributed.

The Bridger Wilderness is even more isolated from any major
center of population than the Bob Marshall. The towns of Jackson
(1,000) and Lander (4,000) are the only concentrations of population
close to the area. Tourist travel in this area is very high, however,
particularly in the summer due to the presence of'Yellowstone and
Grant Teton National Parks, two hours driving time to the northwest
of the wilderness. wyoming State Highway 187 parallels the southwest
boundary of the area.

All but one of the access points to the wilderness lie along
the southwest border. The Green River entrance lies on the northwest
end of the area. The Glacier and the Popo Agie Primitive Areas and

the'Wind River Indian Reservation all abut directly on the Bridger's

C a
ad
a«

.-H

ncrt

only 5?

Mo

[we’uv'v'fl

C 3“ ;"

.e. ...
.. l A
m ..c
m. m

t‘I-‘c are;

E

3‘

Earl

y
‘4

 

81

northeastern boundary. Approximately 15 trails provide direct access
into the wilderness along the southwest boundary.

Whereas the Bob Marshall and Bridger Wilderness lie in relative
isolation to population centers, the High Uintas Primitive Area lies
only 50 miles east of Salt Lake City, Utah, with a population of over
500,000. In addition, the western boundary of the area lies only a
few hundred feet from.state highway 189, a major route of travel to
and from.Salt Lake City. The southern and northern boundaries are
paralleled by major state highways and road access to the immediate
boundary is well developed in several places. Approximately 15 trails
provide access into the Primitive Area.

The Boundary waters Canoe Area lies within relatively easy
driving distance of St. Paul-Minneapolis and Chicago. Together these
two areas represent over 5 million people. Highway access to the
Canoe Country is well developed, and visitors can drive close to the
boundary along most of the area.

Additionally, the BWCA represents a unique type of environment
to the area, with only limited alternatives available to the population
of the upper midwest. In the Rocky Mountain west, numerous alternative
locations are available to the person wishing to visit a wilderness.

Access directly into the BWCA is extensive. There are nearly
70 locations where users may enter; however, eight of them account for

nearly 80 per cent of the total use.1

 

1Superior National Forest, Official Registration Data, 1968.
(Typewritten.)

a detaf
disensf

of the

82

The Questionnaire

The principal source of data for this study was obtained from
a detailed questionnaire. The questionnaire items focused on five
dimensions: (1) a description of the party; (2) the past experience
of the respondent in terms of general outdoor recreation and wilder.
ness; (3) respondent attitudes and perceptions of the various para-
meters of use; (4) reSpondent attitudes about potential management
alternatives in regard to wilderness; and (5) a standard socioeconomic

description of the respondent. (The questionnaire is in Appendix B.)

‘lhe Likert Attitude Scale

Attitude scales are simply a series of statements with which
the respondent is asked to rank himself in terms of the order of his
agreement or disagreement. 1 A number of different scales have been
developed: We of the most comon are the Thurstone Attitude Scale
and the Likert Attitude 50.1.. The latter scale was selected for use
in this study for three reasons 3 (1) the Likert Scale is concerned
with unidinens ionality.-that is , each statement in the scale is designed
to investigate a single, specific attitude, rather than a composite
group of attitudes toward some dimension; (2) it is a much easier
device to use in a field interview situation than is the Thurstone

 

1A. N. Oppenhein, estionnaire Basie 93 Attitude Measurement
(New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1933), p. 0.

 

Scale; am
Milena:
obtained
high dog:-
T
faShiors.
basic tit
191815 of
cf use '1:

Magma:

83

Scale; and (3) it requires much less advance testing and developing:l
Furthermore, evidence indicates that the correlation between scores
obtained from the two scales ranges from .77 to 1.00, indicating a
high degree of comparability. 2

The attitude scale was applied in two different but related
fashions. First, 18 items were constructed that focused on three
basic attitude dimensions : (1) attitudes toward encountering various
levels of use in the wilderness: (2) attitudes toward various forms
of use in the wilderness; and (3) attitudes toward various wilderness
management policies. Responses to these statements fan: a portion of
the analysis to be covered in chapters IV and V.

A second use of the technique centered on the need for a unit
of analysis in this study that recognized the wide range of individual
involvement , concern , and knowledge about wilderness among the
respondents sampled. Recent work along this line by researchers at
the University of Washington and the Pacific Northwest Experiment
Station provided a point to work from and an effort to improve the

analytic technique was made .

 

1For a discussion of the underlying assumptions and construction
procedures of the Likert Scale, see Rensis Likert, "A Technique for the
Measurement of Attitudes," Archives pf P cholo , No. 1140 (1932),
pp. 7-35. Further discussion on the neth§ of construction is in Gordon
Murphy and Rensis Likert Public 2goinion 2E1. _t_h_e_ Individual (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1938), pp. L591.

zLiker't, ”A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes," p. 25:
Allen L. Edwards and Kathryn C. Kenney, "A Comparison of the Thurstone
and Likert Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. " Journal 93

5221-20-5 PszOhO10Ez (1%), Fe 82e

 

 

 

varyir;
and Uh:
to ider
fimw}
lpproac

lode of

35ers 4
¢
”1:131;

°0n5151

The "Purism" Scale

Prevzlous studies have recognized that wilderness users hold
varying, and at times , contradictory notions of what wilderness is
and what management practices are necessary and appropriate. Attempts
to identify the different wilderness user groups and the intensity
with which they hold certain value systems have been made. Lucas
approached the problem by differentiating users in the BWCA by their
mode of travel, noting that paddling canoeists held more rigid and
demanding conceptions of wilderness than persons traveling in motor

propelled craft. 1

me Wildland Research Center, on the other hand,
utilized prior wilderness experience "as a rough and admittedly
partial measure of commitment."2

Both of these efforts were aimed at differentiating wilderness
users in a manner that would enhance the land manager's ability to
translate user values and preferences into actual management decisions ,
consistent with legislative and agency constraints .

he analysis herein recognized this need of land managers for
a framework within which data supplied by wilderness users could be
most meaningfully evaluated. Tito basic guidelines by which such

Judgments could be made were recognized.

 

1Lucas, "Wilderness Perception and Use," p. 1108.

2Wildland Research Center, Wilderness 22 Recreation, p. 135.

 

of acti
for son
.til 5
certain
rescue
the

on a "z

05 has:
has bee
‘ aanne
v

‘55? de
think a
Ctema

‘\
“3° to.‘

85

First, the Wilderness Act specifically permits certain types
of activities and prohibits others . If there exists public demand
for some practice now prohibited by law, then the law can be changed.
Until such time , however, it forms an institutional constraint on
certain actions. A primary concern of the Act is to protect the
resource. mills has pointed out, "needs and desires must be tempered
by the ecological capability of the land."1 Making management decisions
on a "majority vote" basis may not prove feasible to begin with.
Secondly, the range of opinion among wilderness users in terms
of basic notions about what the area is and the purpose for which it
has been designated is great.2 Many persons may be using the area in
a manner incompatible with management objectives; the ldnd of eXperience
they desire lies elsewhere. Land managers need to know what users
think about wilderness and their attitudes toward various management
alternatives: they also need .to know how these feelings vary among
the total user population.
In a study of wilderness users in the Pacific Northwest,
Hendee developed a scale to differentiate wilderness users on the

basis of the underlying values that governed their attitudes and

 

1Archie Mills, "Back Country. and the Hand of Man" (Paper
presented at the national meeting of the American Society of Range
Management, Seattle, Wash., Feb., 196?), p. 2.

2See Lucas, "Wilderness Perception and Use," pp. “08-411 and
Hendee .e_t_._ 52.3, Wilderness Users in _t_h_g Pacific Northwest, pp. 65-68.

motive
state:
: strc

than ;

01‘ and
‘ fiVe

“as p,

86

motivations to visit wilderness.1 The scale consisted of 30 short
statements relating to wildland recreation values that persons with
a strong wilderness-purist set of values might hold more intensely
than persons with less extreme concepts.2

The scale developed for the purposes of this study presented
the respondent with 10 statements concerning three basic elements of
wilderness defined within the Wilderness Act; ecolog, level of
development, and simplicity of the recreational activity ( see question
10 of the questionnaire for the specific items, Appendix B). In
addition, four other items relating to the wilderness environment were
presented: solitude, little evidence of other visitors , remoteness
from urban areas, and the size of the area.

Respondents replied to the items on the basis of how desirable
or undesirable they felt such an item was in 3.112. context g_f_ wilderness.)
A five-point scale, ranging from "very undes irable" to "very desirable, "

was provided for answering. These responses were accorded values from

 

1Hendee, at £1_. , Wilderness Users in Eh: Pacific Northwest,

p. 23.

2For details of the mechanical construction of the scale, see
Hendee 213 pl. , Wilderness Users _in 333 Pacific Northeast, pp. zit-26,
and John c. sand"ss""", __Th-o—mas—T—S einburn , mm_R-._TCa ton , Jr. ,
"Wildernism--The Development , Dimensions , and Use of an Attitude
Scale" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Socio-
logical Society, San Francisco, Calif., August 26, 1967).

3 It was recognized that the term "wilderness" holds mam
connotations . A definition of the term was therefore supplied on the
first page of the questionnaire, indicating exactly what type of area
was meant by "wilderness. "

one t:
Scori:
about
natior
70 ans

' e
A VI"
VOAAUJ

less ;

87

one to five and a total score for each individual was computed.

Scoring was arranged so that a person who held strong ”purist" ideas
about wilderness would score high while the person with less intense
notions would score low. The possible range of scores was between

70 and 14. The end result was the ability to rank users along a
continuum ranging from a strong purist concept of wilderness to a

less purist philosophy. This ability made it possible to examine and
evaluate user attitudes regarding levels and types of uses as well as
management alternatives in light of the user's knowledge and under.
standing of the intent and purpose underlying wilderness resource
preservation and his agreement with this end. It also provided a
convenient framework for examining the degree to which the various
purist group attitudes corresponded with or departed from institutional
constraints embodied within the Wilderness Act. This provides land
managers with a framewrk of information within which decisions can

be made that reflect the preferences and desires of a selected

segment of the user population, one whose perception and use of wilder-
ness is most nearly in accord with institutional and physical con-
straints , rather than on the simple, but inefficient, basis of

"majority rule. "1

 

1'For’ an interesting discussion of the role of a minority group
in influencing policies toward some end that will benefit even the
disinterested majority, see Aaron Wildavsky, "Aesthetic Power or the
Triumph of The Sensitive Minority Over the Vulgar Mass: A Political
Analysis of the New Economics," Daedalus, 96 (Fall, 1967), pp. 1115..
11 .

theirov
,1;
purls.s,
purists,
new»;

Fable 8

st‘xy a
No que
(2‘; did
“‘94 hc
Wigs:
Simila;

in Pal-1

‘4 5%"
Q

field 1
r” co.
Past s-
of age

,
spicy

queSti.

The respondents were classified into groups on the basis of
their over-all "purism" score. Four groups were established: strong
purists , persons who scored between 60 and 70 on the scale; moderate
purists, persons with scores from 50 to 59; neutralists, scoring from
40 to 49; and non-purists, persons scoring less than #0 points.

Table 8 shows the distribution of these groups among the study areas .

As can be seen, the relative proportion of users of the four
study areas who were classified as "strong purists" varied greatly.
TVo questions come to mind: (1) why did such a range occur: and
(2) did persons who were classified as "strong purists" in one study
area hold similar attitudes and perceptions concerning use levels ,
management alternatives , and other related variables as those persons
similarly classified in another study area? Chapters IV and V focus ,

in part, on these questions.

Administration of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire was administered primarily in the field. A
field worker contacted exiting parties at the trail heads and asked
for cooperation in completing the questionnaire. A departure from
past studies was made in that each person in the party over 15 years
of age was asked to participate. Also, rather than having the field
employee ask the questions and record them on the answer form,
questionnaires were passed out and the respondents completed the
answers themselves. hese steps eliminated the bias that has resulted

 

q bLD<E

 

 

89

.980 won one no guano can» 33...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3% m 3 3 «3 S emu 3 SN 38.
and N m 8 mm as 2. R ms .338 ha
i: . H 3 3 mm am am 3 fig
03 s N a m an 3 mm mm #32:: com
mom m 3 mm «n ma o3 cm 3 63m

pace 9:00 #93 ..Eoe

8m saga 3m nonfiz ..om possum mom saga
H309 8.: 383

23.5 $19: 39.3 33.5
33-52 $330.82 H 3.25 38.8: 33am 32%

 

3&4 Em 02024 $396 Baum ho zOHHDMHmHMHQ

mg

 

:bout 3|
refusal

to fini

field r
there 3
could b
the ear
"0170:
Visitor
Of g 51
mint

90

in the past studies relying entirely upon the party leader's responses.
In a study of attitudes, it cannot be assumed that one person's
attitudes toward wilderness are held by the other party members.

Despite the length of the questionnaire (13 pages, taking
about 30 minutes) cooperation by visitors was very good. The only
refusals to cooperate fully came in the BWCA where three persons refused
to finish the questionnaire, after completing half of it.

The decision to rely upon questionnaires administered in the
field rather than by mail was based on We considerations. First,
there was not a good source of visitor names from which a mailing list
could be compiled. A self-administered registration system is only in

the early stages of development in most areas.1

Additionally, not
everyone registers when they enter a wilderness2 and certain types of
visitors are more likely to register than others. Preliminary results
of a study by the Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station
indicates , for example, that backpackers register at a rate of about

2 to 1 compared to horseback riders.

 

1The exception is the BWCA, where a mandatory permit system has
been in effect since 1965. Due to the poorly developed systems in the
other study areas , however, it was not used.

2Monger and Gregerson note, "Some types of persons distort the
data on relevant variables by their tendency to avoid registration. "
See Wiley D. Wenger, Jr., and Hans M. Gregerson, k Effect 23 9122'
resmnse on Representativeness _o_f Wilderness-Trail Register Information,
U.S. Forest Service Research Paper PNW-17,—(Portland: U.S. Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Ewcperiment Station, 1961+), p. 11.

 

 

lift Er."
y.

—:..

3.1;!!-

l

 

91

A second problem of the mail questionnaire is nonresponse on
the part of persons receiving questionnaires. This is, however, a
problem that can be mitigated to a large extent by stressing the
importance of the study in the initial contact with the potential
respondent and by using followup contacts.

Field personnel worked on the trails from approximately 10 11.11:.
to 6 p.m. Shortly after initiating the field season, it became apparent
that parties exiting late in the day or during periods of inclement
weather were reticent to participate in the study. As a consequence,
the field personnel were instructed that if, in their opinion, the
visitor was "in a hurry," the name and mailing address of each person
who normally would have completed a questionnaire be obtained. These
persons were informed they would receive the questionnaire in the mail
in a few days. This technique proved to be a satisfactory technique
for obtaining questionnaires from persons who would otherwise not have
been contacted. No statistical difference existed in responses obtained
from the different tom . 1

Up to into followups were sent to persons not responding to
the first mailing (the followup letters are in Appendix G). Overall,
a 78 per cent return was obtained. The remaining ’nonrespondents were
mailed a one page questionnaire, containing selected portions of the

 

1The field and mail questionnaires were identical in form,
except for minor changes in verb tense on some questions. There was
no evidence that persons in the same family "collaborated" in answering
the mail version: answers to the attitude and open ended questions often
varied widely, for example, on a husband's and wife's form, further sub-
stantiating the need to avoid obtaining all answers from just a single
party representative .

‘VI’A I!!!” .1 .1.! I D
L ,

n. .

vr|.‘!

 

92

original questionnaire. Analysis revealed no significant differences
in their answers from those of respondents (see Appendix 1").

Field contacts yielded 303 questionnaires while an additional
191 were obtained by mail.

M Procedures and Problems

he use of wilderness trails varies greatly. In order to
eliminate the problem of allocating field time to trails where the
probability of encountering an exiting party was very low, the trail
heads1 were stratified on the basis of the probability of encountering
a certain number of exiting parties each day. No levels of use were
defined: Class I trails , where an average of at least We parties per
day could be expected and Class II trails, where from three-fourths to

two parties per day could be suspected on the average.

Trail Stratification Ptocedure

National Forest staff were asked to stratify the trails in
each of the study areas on the basis of the above definitions. Their
tabulation provided the following results in the three western areas:

Strata I Strata II
Bob Marshall 3 10
Bridger 1+ 7
High Uintas 6 6

 

1Trail head simply describes the location where the wilderness
visitor leaves his vehicle to enter the wilderness . It may or may not
be directly on the formal wilderness boundary.

 

 

stands

the tv.

‘°¢01n'

1‘itiom

93

The case of the BWCA is somewhat different. Applying the use
standards used for the western study areas to the BWCA produced a total
of 39 access points in the two strata. These accounted for nearly 100
per cent of the total use. The range of use intensity, however, was
very great. The difference between the most intensively used entry
point in the BWCA and the entry point ranking 28th is 100 fold. The
level of use at this 28th point was sufficiently heavy enough however,
to be categorised as a Class I trail under the system.designed for the
western areas.

An additional problem was that the published use estimates, in
some instances, were for entire lakes, rather than a single entry point.
For example, 31 per cent of the total BWCA use was estimated to enter
on Moose Lake. There were several points where persons launched their
craft onto the lake, however.

In light of these problems, the decision.was made to identify
the two major access points (noose Lake and Fhll Lake, together
accounting for approximately half of the entries into the BWCA) as
strata I locations, and the remaining entry points as strata II. The
rationale behind this decision lay in one of the assumptions underlying
the purpose of stratifying. It was hypothesized that the users of less
intensively used access points might differ in certain basic attitudes
toward the various parameters of use in a wilderness. Although the
level use on the strata II access points in.the BWCA was many times
that of similarly classed trails in the west, relatively gpggking_their

91+

use was very much less intense than the two major access points.
Consequently, people using these locations to enter the BWCA may have
selected them for their less crowded characteristics.

Tito locations each on Moose Lake and Fall Lake were selected
for contacting visitors, for a total of four Class I access points;
18 entry points were classified in strata II.

Determination of the Sampling Schedule

The study season for the three western study areas was 11
weeks long (June 25.September 7, 1969). Each of the field staff worked
five days per week, resulting in an effective 55 day study period. In
the BWCA, due to administrative difficulties , it was not possible to
have a field employee on a continuous basis . Arrangements were made ,
in cooperation with the North Central Forest Emperiment Station, for a
field assistant for 40 days. his block of time was'divided into four
10 day study periods, spaced evenly over the late spring and smer
use season (May 22—September 7, 1969).

The sampling schedule for each field worker was constructed so
that each day of the week was approximately equally represented (see
Appendix C for sampling calendar).

Strata I trails were sampled at rates approximately twice that
of the strata II trails. Because of problems involving driving dis-
tances from one trail head to another, small variations in this rate

occurred. The basic procedure was as follows:

95

1. The trail heads were numbered consecutively around each
study area.

2. Using random numbers, a starting point was selected
(the first day of field work).

3. The direction the field worker moved on the second
day of work was based on the flip of a coin; for
example, if heads , move to the next trail north (or
west), tails, move to the next trail south (or east).

14-. To maintain the 2:1 sampling ratio on strata I trails ,
the field worker sampled on every other strata II
trail the first time around the study area , then sampled
the skipped class II trails on the second pass. Strata I
trails were sampled each time they were encountered.
In order to utilize sampling time most efficiently, some adjust-
ments in the sampling plan had to be made in the field. It was possible,
however, to maintain the proposed sampling ratio to a close degree. The

ratios for each area were as follows:

Bob Marshall 2.131
Bridger 1.8:1
High Uintas 1.8:1
BWCA 1.7:1

Bangle Characteristics

The sampling technique utilised in this study yielded a strati.
fied sample of unequal clusters. The clusters were defined as location-
date units: that is , one trail head location on one day of the use
seas on represented one location-date unit. The elements of the clusters
were individual visitors .

The clustered sampling unit was picked primarily because it
was the most efficient sampling technique, in terms of both time and

96

cost por element. Additionally, it provided a convenient framework '
to obtain information on the attitudes and perceptions of all persons
contacted within the sampling framework, rather than just the arbitrar-
ily selected party leader. As noted before, most past studies of
wilderness users have relied upon the information obtained from a single
individual from each party: as a consequence, their analysis reflects
only this one individual' 8 attitudes. It was hypothesized that while
the parties were probably homogeneous in many ways , important differ-
ences existed within them relative to individual attitudes concerning
crowding and the effects of use on the enjoyment of a wilderness trip.
Kish notes that if sampling rates (fh) are uniform within
strata, they may differ between strata , provided that ’11:: and xhx
(the simple sums of the stratum totals) are properly weighted to
compensate for unequal sampling fractions.1 In this study, the sampling
ratio betwun strata was 2 :1. Therefore, those observations obtained
from strata II trails was duplicated, resulting in an adjusted sample
size of 6219.2

 

1Leslie Kish, Survey _SggLing (New York: John Wiley 8: Sons,
Inc., 1967), p. 191.

2The 621; figure is broken down as follows: 362 observations
were obtained from strata I trails , 131 observations from strata II,
yielding a basic raw sample size of 493. Expansion of the strata II
observations by a multiple of 2 raised the sample size of strata II
observations to 262 and the over-all adjusted sample size to 621}.

97

Tim problems can be noted here concerning the structure of the
sample. This study, like almost all recreation studies, utilizes a
cluster sample rather than a simple random sample. Om of the important
effects of clustering is its tendency to increase the level of the
error term over what a simple random sample would yield. Error terms
have not been calculated in this study: however, given the objectives
of this study, it seems that the over-all conclusions and interpreta-
tions are not affected greatly by this problem.

Secondly, expanding the strata II trails resulted in a 26 per
cent increase in overall sample size. This increase, in turn, appears
to elevate the level of significance of such statistics as chi square.
The exact dimensions of this influence are not clear, but with the
relatively large size of the raw sample, it does not appear to be
appreciable.

Recreation surveys in general, and wilderness studies in
particular, have suffered from numerous statistical shortcomings in
the past. Part of this may be traced to the relative newness of the
field. Sampling wilderness visitors involves contacting persons who
are widely dispersed in space and time. Estimates as to the relative
intensities of use at trail heads are more often than not very
inaccurate or totally lacking.

What has been done in this study is to define where sources of
bias exist and to control for these sources to the maximum degree

possible. Contacting all party members eliminated bias emanating

 

98

from studies relying only on party leader responses. By personally
contacting the respondents , the problems associated with non-registration
at trail registration boxes was avoided. Followups resulted in a good
response rate to the mail questionnaire. The field questionnaire was
completed by the respondent himself: eliminating two sources of'bias

and confusion: (1) the biases which the field worker himself might
introduce into the study1 and (2) where any misunderstanding of a
question occurred, it could be clarified by the field worker.

 

1The effects of the administrator of a questionnaire (inter-
viewer) on the quality of data obtained is discussed in Wilbur F.
LaPage, "The camper Views the Interview," Journa1.g£;Leisure Research,

I (Spring, 1969), pp. 181-186.

CHAPTER IV
THE PERCEPTION OF WILDERNESS RECREATION CARRYING CAPACITY

We now move to an examination of those parameters of use that
bear on the question of carrying capacity. As noted earlier, four
dimensions of use are investigated: (1) the level of use encountered;
(2) the type of use encountered: (3) the spatial variations in use
encounters: and (h) the depreciative aspects of use. These elements,
of course, are not unique and distinct, but overlap one another in

variouS‘ways.
Use Level and Its Effect on Capacity

Probably one of the most commonly ascribed attributes of
Wilderness is solitude--an area characterized by a low intensity of
use. This dimension is specified in the‘Wilderness Act and it seems,
intuitively, to be a prerequisite to defining an area as wilderness.
It is a quality that may underlie much of the motivation to use
wilderness. The opportunity to get away from.people has been demon-

strated in several studies to be an important factor.1

 

1The Wildland Research Center concluded that the "exit-
civilization motif (defined as a general desire to escape from.crowded
cities and crowded resort areas, and to have the experience of'doing
something different) has the more pervasive and . . . broader impact."
Wilderness and Recreation, pp. 1#5-147. Utilizing factor analysis,
Hendee g§_2l. found that "escapism," identified as those items implying
aversion to involvement with human aggregations, had the lowest eigen-
value of seven factors defined over-all. The authors note, however,
that the escape from civilization theme is implicit to the other
factors investigated "but, by itself, is overshadowed," Wilderness
Users in the Pacific Northwest, p. 31. Also see William R. Catton, Jr.,
"motivations of'Wilderness Users," Pulp ggg_Papgr Magazine 23 Canada
(December, 1969), pp. 121-126.

99

100

Solitude, low intensities of use, and freedom from crowding
are all relative measures, however, Conditions perceived as "uncrowded"
by one person may represent an intolerable situation to another.
Management to provide "outstanding opportunities for solitude" must

recognize this variation to define acceptable ranges of use.

The Dimension of Solitude

Within the items listed in the purism scale, visitors were
asked to indicate the degree to which "solitude-—not seeing many other
people except those in your own party"'was desirable. A favorable
response to this item was judged to be a measure of the visitor's
recognition of solitude as a salient feature in his personal defini-
tion of wilderness as well as a characteristic specified within the
institutional framework of the Wilderness Act. Table 9 shows that the
preponderance of visitors to all the study areas felt solitude was a
desirable and important facet of the wilderness experience. Visitors
to the three western wildernesses tended to find solitude a more
desirable feature than those in the BWCA (86 per cent over-all for
the three western areas compared to 72 per cent in the BNCA). Recrea-
tional use of the BWCA, however, is the highest of any wilderness in
the country and the intensity of use (see Table 6) is similarly high.
It seems likely that visitors to the area may commonly expect to
encounter other parties on their trip and the importance of solitude

is diminished in the face of this expectation.

101

TABLE 9

THE DESIRABILITY OF‘SOLITUDE AS AN ELEMENT OF
THE WILDERNESS ENVIRONMENT, BY STUDY AREA

 

 

 

 

 

Very Unde- Unde- Very de-

Study Area N sirable sirable Neutral Desirable sirable
15 fl 9‘ i i
BWCA 205 9.4 7.3 16.1 32.2 40.0
Bob marshall 120 0.0 5.0 12.5 26.7 55.8
Bridger 1## 2.8 1.# 6.9 25.7 63.2
High Uintas 15h 2.6 0.6 9.1 28.6 59.1
Total 623 2.7 3.9 11.6 28.7 53.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi-square 37.82, 12 degrees of freedom, .001 )> p.1

Lucas noted that canoeists in the EWCA'wanted much lower levels
of use than those visitors utilizing motor propelled craft.2 Differ-
entiating wilderness recreationists by their mode of travel had little
effect on the pattern of reSponse for the three western areas but

substantial differences did occur in the BWCA. Eighty per cent of the

 

1Chi-square is the standard test of statistical significance

used throughout this report. The test provides a measure of the
probability that the distribution of cell values is not random as well
as a method of overlooking the effect of sample size upon the distribu.
tion of values. The null hypothesis in each case is that k samples

of frequencies or proportions come from the same or identical popula-
tions. AA good discussion of chi-square is in Sidney Siegel, Non-
parametric Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956), pp. 175:179.

2Lucas, The Recreational CaEcity 2f the Quetico-Superior Area,
p. 9.

102

paddling canoeists reaponded that solitude was desirable, while only
65 per cent of the motor canoeists and 62 per cent of the motor
boaters responded in this fashion.

While solitude seemed to be generally considered desirable,
differences in terms of its desirability were noted when analyzed by
the purism score. Table 10 shows that none of those persons classified
as strong purists felt solitude to be an undesirable feature and only
10 (4 per cent) out of 248 responded in a neutral manner. Conversely
it may be noted that nearly all non-purists (89 per cent) considered
solitude an undesirable or neutral environmental element as did
#0 per cent of the neutralists. Considered together, nearly half
(48 per cent) of these two groups held a conception of”wi1derness that
did not contain solitude as an integral element.

Solitude is, however, an amorphous term that is subject to
varying interpretation. Fbr some, solitude is only possible with no
other people around: for others, it may be experienced in the presence
of several. Attempting to define levels of use that add to or delete
from the satisfaction of the wilderness trip required questioning

respondents about Specific circumstances of encounters.

The Impact of'Encounters

In light of the general desirability of solitude as a character-
istic of wilderness, did visitors expect to find a situation where they

'would encounter little or no use? Reapondents were asked the degree to

103

which they agreed or disagreed with the proposition "It is reasonable
to expect that one should be able to visit a wilderness area and see
few, if'any, people." In.the three western areas, 77 per cent of'the
respondents were in agreement with this statement, while only 67 per
cent of the BWCA re5pondents agreed. It again seems to be a reasonable
pattern of re3ponse, given the high intensity of use in the BWCA. The
chances of seeing other parties is greater: hence, it is unreasonable

223 to expect some other parties.

TABLE 10

THE DESIRABILITY OF SOLITUDE AS AN ELEMENT OF THE
‘WILDERNESS ENVIRONMENT BY PURISM GROUP

 

 

 

 

 

Very undo. Undo- Be. Very do-

Purist Group N sirable sirable Neutral sirable sirable
1 i i f f
Strong Purists 248 0.4 0.0 4.0 17.8 77.8
Moderate Purist 254 0.8 4.3 12.2 36.2 46.5
Neutralists 102 8.8 8.8 22.5 40.2 19.6
Non-purists 19 26.3 21.1 42.1 10.5 0.0
Total 623 2.7 3.9 11.6 28.7 53.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi-square 214.63, 12 degrees of freedom, .001 > p.
Gm e591

 

1Throughout this report, the standard measure of statistical
association is gamma. Gamma provides the proportional reduction in
error (PRE) in predicting the dependent variable possible through
knowledge of the independent variable. For discussion on the calcula-
tion and use of gamma, see Leo A. Goodman and William.H. Kruskal,
"Measures of Association for Cross Classifications," Journal.2£:the
American Statistical Association, #9 (December, 1954)'—, pp. 732-767:

II It.

 

 

 

 

104

Encamining r68ponses from the BWCA, however, revealed they,
varied sharply between nodes of travel. Paddling canoeists tended to
be more in agreement with the statement than those traveling in motor

propelled craft, as Table 11 shows. Two reasons support this result.

TABLE 11

THE EFFECT OF MODE OF TRAVEL IN THE BWCA ON RESPONSE TO "IT IS
REASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT ONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO VISIT A
WILDERNESS AREA AND SEE FEW, IF ANY, PEOPLE"

 

 

 

 

 

Mode of Travel N 3:33:22 Dis agree Neutral Agree 81:22:23
f 5 f I f
Paddling
Canoeists 119 2.5 4.2 21.0 54.6 17.6
Meter Canoeists 22 9.1 22.7 4.5 45.5 18.2
Motor Boaters 60 15.0 13.3 13.3 48.3 10.0
Total 201 7.0 8.9 16.9 51.7 15.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 23.77, 8 degrees of freedom, .01 > p > .001.

First, the range and penetration of canoeists into the area is

greater than that of motor propelled craft.1 With increased penetration

 

and, by thesame authors, Measures of Association for Cross Classifi-
cations: III. Approximate Sampling Theory, " Journal 2; the American
Statistical Association, 58 (June, 1963), pp. 31—33110- . HST-Be—‘rt L".' "'
Costner, "Criteria for Measures of Association, " American Sociological
Review, 30 (June, 1965), pp. 341-353 is also usefill.

1Lucas, Recreational 1132 2.1: th_e Quetico-Sugrior Area, p. 36.

105

into the area, use falls off, and with it, the probability of
encountering others.

Secondly, paddling canoeists were decidedly more purist than
other groups in the BWCA. Twenty-eight per cent of the group was
classified as strong purists, compared to 10 and 6 per cent reSpectively
for motor canoeists and motor boaters. As noted in Chapter III, the
purism scale was constructed using the Wilderness Act as a normative
framework in which wilderness could be defined. Considered in this
context, then, it was entirely reasonable that one M expect to
see few, if any, people in a wilderness; it represented the normative
situation defined by the Wilderness Act. This reasoning is substanti-
ated in examining re5ponse to the statement by purist score: 87 per
cent of the strong purists were in agreement, compared to only 71 per
cent of the moderate purists and 59 per cent of the neutralists.

mile reapondents indicated it was reasonable _t_o_ 3M to
see few people on their trip, the question did not yield any information
as to whether encounters with other parties added to or deleted from
their enjoyment of that trip. Some authors have argued that an import-
ant part of wilderness recreation centers on the social interaction th’e
visitor may engage in with others he meets. 1 Visitors thus were
asked a series of questions aimed at eliciting attitudes toward situa-

tions where Opportunities for increased social interaction would be
enhanced.

 

1See, for example, Gregory P. Stone and Marvin J. Taves,
"Camping in the Wilderness," in Mass Leisure, ed. by Eric Larrabee and

Rolf Meyersohn (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1958), pp. 298-300.

106

Encounters with other parties may occur at two basic locations:
while enroute from one destination to another or at the campsite. It
was hypothesized that attitudes toward meeting other peOple would vary
according to whether the respondent was in transit or in camp.1
Initially, persons were asked to indicate their reaction to encountering
other parties on the trail. Over-all, only about one out of five
persons (19.1 per cent) indicated they enjoyed it, while one-third
(32.2 per cent) replied that it "did not matter." In the BWCA, however,
nearly'one-third (29 per cent) resPonded they enjoyed the encounters,
while only'14 per cent of the western resPondents felt similarly
inclined.

Analyzing the reSponses to the statement by the purist cate-
gories revealed considerable variation in the degree to which encounters
affected satisfaction. As Table 12 indicates, only about one out of
ten of the strong purists enjoyed meeting people on the trail. The
gamma statistic of -.21 indicates a moderately strong inverse relation.
ship between purist score and the degree to which one enjoys encounters.

There was some variation between study areas, however, in the
reSponses of the strong purists. In the Bridger and the Bdb Marshall,
these persons were less inclined to accept encounters on the trail as

a part of their wilderness trip than the strong purists in the BWCA

 

1This component of capacity'will be more fully investigated
and expanded upon in the section on "Spatial ABpects of Capacity."

107

and the High Uintas. Whereas about one out of five strong purists in
these latter areas (21 and 17 per cent, reSpectively) enjoyed trail
encounters, only about one out of twenty in the former areas were so

inclined (5 per cent in each).

TABLE 12

PURIST ATTITUDES TOWARD MEETING OTHER PARTIES ON THE TRAIL

 

 

 

 

 

Bother a Does not

Purist Group N Bother a lot little Enjoy it matter
% 1‘ 7‘ $
Strong Purists 248 20.5 39.5 10.1 29.8
Moderate Purists 254 12.6 32.7 23.2 31.5
Neutralists 102 4.9 30.4 30.4 34.3
Nonpurists 20 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0
Tbtal 624 14.1 34.6 19.1 32.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 45.53, 9 degrees of freedom, .001 j> p.
Gamma -.21.

As noted earlier, it was hypothesized that attitudes toward
encountering other people would be expected to vary according to
whether the encounters took place along the trail or at the camp
site. The trail is, of course, a focal point of’movement. While one
is on the trail the normal activity is travel and the eXpectation that
one will meet others in transit probably tempers adverse reactions.

‘While in camp, however, attitudes towards other parties may shift

108

markedly. Visitors were asked the extent to which they agreed with
the statement "Meeting other people around the campfire at night
should be part of any wilderness trip."

Surprisingly, the pattern of re3ponses to this statement and
the previously discussed one were quite similar. Again, only about one
out of five persons (21 per cent) agreed that meeting people around the
campfire was part of the trip and about one-third (34 per cent) were
neutral on the matter. As was also true with the statement on em-
counters while traveling, reapondents from.the BWCA tended to be more
in agreement (28 per cent) than their western counterparts. Finally,
the response of strong purists was essentially identical to this
statement as it was to the statement concerning encounters while
traveling (only 10 per cent agreed that meeting people around the
campfire was part of the trip). The association between purist score,
and the level of agreement showed a somewhat stronger inverse relation-
ship, however, with a gamma value of -.39, evidence that strong purists
tend to consider encounters in camp more disturbing than on the trail.

To further test Specific attitudes regarding encounters with
others, visitors were asked to respond to two similar questions, one
describing a normative condition and the second a hypothetical situation,
but one which they almost certainly had encountered. First, they
were asked the degree to which they accepted or rejected "It's most
enjoyable when you don't meet anyone in the wilderness." Table 13 shows

marked differences between the study areas in reSponse to the statement.

109

TABLE 13

RESPONSE TO "IT'S MOST ENJOYABLE WHEN YOU DON'T MEET
ANYONE IN THE WILDERNESS," BY STUDY AREAS

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly , Strongly

Study Area N Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
fl 3% i 1 73

BWCA 203 10.3 23.2 20.2 23.6 22.?
Bob Marshall 120 1.7 11.7 21.7 32.5 32.5
Bridger 144 2.1 12.5 19.4 25.7 40.3
High Uintas 154 4.5 15.6 27.9 25.3 26.6
Total 621 5.3 16.6 22.2 26.2 29.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 39.40, 12 degrees of freedom, .001 :> p.

Visitors to the Bob Marshall and Bridger'Wildernesses re5ponded
almost identically (65 and 66 per cent, resPectively) in terms of con-
sidering the statement a desirable norm. It is interesting to note
the close percentage reaponse to the desirability of the statement that
occurred between the BWCA and the High Uintas (46 and 52 per cent,
respectively). Tb again refer to Table 6, it can be seen that the
relative intensities of use of these two areas are very similar. They
are also similar in their situational characteristics, with well-
developed access and nearby concentrations of population. Finally,
they both had a substantially lower percentage of strong purists within
the sample than did the Bob Marshall or Bridger (see Thble 8). It

would thus follow that the pattern of response to the normative

110

statement posed here would reflect the less discerning perception of
wilderness by users.

As a related question, visitors were asked to reSpond to a
situation where they encountered no other parties during the day on a
‘wilderness trip. As a situation which they had either actually
emperienced or could reasonably expect to experience, what effect did
it have on the enjoyment of their trip?

It was expected that reSponses to this question would closely
mirror those found in Table 13, as this question presented the
reSpondent a Specific framework within which to answer as opposed to
the normative situation posed above. This prediction held reasonably
‘well for the study areas as can be seen in Table 14. Only in the BWCA
did a noticeable difference occur; on the statement presented in
Table 13, nearly half (46.3 per cent) felt no encounters was a desir-

able situation whereas in Table 14, the figure declined to 37 per cent.

TABLE 14

THE EFFECT OF MEETING NO OTHER PARTIES DURING THE
DAY ON TRIP SATISFACTION, BY STUDY AREAS

 

 

 

 

 

Bother a Doesn't

Study Area N Bother a lot little Enjoy it matter
f i f f
BWCA 205 5.9 20.0 37.1 37.1
Bob Marshall 120 0.0 3.3 62.5 34.2
Bridger 144 2.1 4.9 63.2 29.9
High Uintas 154 3.2 9.1 52.6 35.1
Total 623 3.2 10.6 51.8 34.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 52.93, 9 degrees of freedom, .001 j> p.

111

The reSponses to these two statements were examined using mode
of travel as the independent variable. There was a similar decline in
the positive reactions toward encountering no other parties among
travelers in the BWCA, but not among the western visitors.

The hiatus that exists between the prescriptive frame of
reference and actual conditions for visitors to the BWCA was examined
in more detail. One hypothesis was that the level of wilderness
experience might affect visitor attitudes toward solitude, with those
persons having little or no prior eXperience less receptive to
conditions involving few or no encounters. Such persons might hold
notions of wilderness where few encounters was conceptually important,
but which actually proved dissatisfying in reality. In testing this
possibility, two dimensions of experience were examined. First,
respondents were asked whether they had ever been on a wilderness
trip before. As can be seen from.Table 15, the western study areas
as a whole had significantly fewer first time visitors compared with
the BWCA. Secondly, an examination of the relative frequency of
“wilderness trips was made. Again, visitors in the western study
areas tended to have a higher level of experience than those in the
EWCA, as Table 16 indicates.

Surprisingly, the higher frequency of wilderness visitation
appeared to have only a minor effect upon attitudes about other parties.
As Table 17 indicates, those persons with lower levels of“wilderness

experience tended to react more favorably towards not meeting any

112

other parties than did those with more experience. There was a slight
inverse relationship, however, between experience and the effect upon

satisfaction.

TABLE 15

PERCENTAGE OF PERSONS ON FIRST WILDERNESS TRIP

 

 

 

 

 

'Was this your first wilderness trip?
Study Region N No (S) Yes (f)
EWCA 206 71.8 28.2
‘Western Areas 418 84.2 15.8
Total 624 80.1 19.9

 

 

 

 

Chi square 12.67, 1 degree of freedom, .001 3. p.

TABLE 16

FREQUENCY OF'WILDERNESS VISITATION IN THE
BWCA AND WESTERN STUDY AREAS

 

 

 

 

 

Mere than About About Less than
once a once a once every once every
Study Region N year year two years two years
1‘ i i 3%
EWCA 148 41.2 25.0 11.5 22.3
‘Western Areas 352 42.0 32.4 12.2 13.4
Total 500 41.8 30.2 12.0 16.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 7.15, 3 degrees of freedom, .10 :> p >».05.

 

113

TABLE 17

THE EFFECT OF THE FREQUENCY OF WILDERNESS VISITATION ON
VISITOR REACTION T0 MEETING NO OTHER PARTIES

 

 

 

 

 

Bother Bother a Doesn't
23323;? N a lot little Enjoy it matter
Visitation $ f f i
More than once
a year 207 2.4 9.7 51.2 36.7
About once a
year 148 4.7 9.5 50.0 35.8
About once every
two years 58 0.0 6.9 67.2 25.9
Less than once
every two years 75 0.0 14.7 57.3 28.0
Total 488 2.5 10.0 53.7 33.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 13.93, 9 degrees of freedom, .20 ) p > .10.
Gamma -.08.

The persons with the lower level of wilderness experience may
represent a population which, because of various kinds of constraints
(distance from.the wilderness, cost, etc.), are able to visit the
'wilderness infrequently. When they have the opportunity for a wilder-
ness visit, however, they desire an experience that affords them.few
or no other encounters. To these people, the wilderness trip may
represent the "once in a life time" event and as such, it needs to

provide the kind of experience no other opportunity can provide.

114

An additional factor may lie in the patterns of membership in
conservation and outdoor recreation organizations between the study
areas. In the western study areas, 34 per cent of the visitors indi...
cated membership in some type of outdoor interest group, as opposed
to only 14 per cent in the BWCA. Additionally, within the population
belonging to such groups, 30 per cent of the western visitors as
Opposed to only 3 per cent of the BWCA users indicated membership in
a wilderness-interest type of organisation.1 Membership in organiza-
tions with general interests about the out-of-doors as well as speci-
fically in wilderness tend to provide a framework within which certain
attitudes are stressed and reinforced. Interaction within such
organizations probably tends to strengthen the concept of wilderness
as an area where few or no encounters is the norm. As a result,
members come to the wilderness anticipating an experience to fit their
norms and their expressed attitudes toward prescriptive and actual
situations tend to be more nearly aligned.2

To this point, discussion has centered Specifically and

directly on the absence of peOple. What effect on satisfaction,

 

1"Wilderness-interest organizations were defined as the Sierra
Club, Wilderness Society, National Parks Association, or a state or
regional level organization specifically orienting its activity and
interest toward wilderness.

2For a discussion of the significance of conservation organi-
zations on molding Opinion, see Keith A. Argow and Selz C. Mayo, "The
Sociology of Informal Groups and Their Significance to Conservation
Opinion," Journal 3; Forestry, 65 (March, 1967), pp. 176-179, and
Joseph Harry, Richard Gale, and John Hendee, "Conservation: An Upper-
Middle Class Social Movement," Journal 93 Leisure Research, 3 (Summer,

1969) . PP. 246-254.

115

however, does the presence of others have or should it have? Re5pondents
'were asked to evaluate the statement, "You should see at least one
group a day in the wilderness to get the most enjoyment out of'your
trip." Over—all, only about 25 per cent of the visitors to the four
study areas expressed agreement with this statement. Substantial
differences occurred, however, between the various units of analysis.
As before, the reSponses of BWCA visitors differed markedly from.those
of the western areas, whereas the re5ponses in the High Uintas varied
from.those of the Bob Marshall and Bridger visitors.

As Table 18 indicates, reSpondents in the Bob marshall and
Bridger showed a much stronger negative reaction toward the state-
ment than those in the BWCA or the High Uintas. ‘Within the BWCA, motor
boaters had the highest level of agreement, 45 per cent. This greater
desire for seeing others substantiates Lucas' earlier conclusions that
motor boaters were less discerning in their perception of the wilder-
ness resource and, in fact, mey consider encounters with others as
an important contribution to the enjoyment of their trip.1

The pattern of reSponses between study areas is further clari-
fied in examining the percentage of each area's sample classified as
strong purists (see Table 8). This group provided the most stringent
evaluation of the statement under discussion; only 13 per cent agreed

'with it, while 26 per cent of the moderate purists agreed.

 

1Lucas,

T_h_e_ Recreational Capacity _o_f the, Quetico-Superior Area,
p. 18.

116

TABLE 18

RESPONSE TO "YOU SHOULD SEE.AT LEAST ONE GROUP A.DAY
IN THE WILDERNESS TO GET THE MOST ENJOYMENT
OUT OF YOUR TRIP," BY STUDY AREA

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Strongly

Study Area N Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
9% 93 fi 73 3%

BWCA 203 5.9 24.1 33.5 26.6 9.9
Bob Marshall 120 13.3 45.0 27.5 11.7 2.5
Bridger 144 18.8 39.6 25.7 13.9 2.1
High Uintas 154 13.6 31.2 29.2 23.4 2.6
Total 621 12.2 33.5 29.5 20.0 4.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 53.81, 12 degrees of freedom, .001 > p.

To this point in the discussion, it seems clear that regard-
less of how the question is examined, wilderness visitors conceptualize
low intensities of use, involving few or no other encounters, as an
important dimension of the wilderness environment. Important differ-
ences in perception do exist, however, and are reflected in such user
characteristics as mode of travel and purist score. In examining the
role of the level of use on perception of carrying capacity, it soon
became apparent that it is difficult, and perhaps inpossible, to dis-
associate the _n_u_m_b_e_1; of encounters from the Em or 3329. of encounters.
Hence, the specific examination of levels of use was combined with

types; the trio dimensions of use are closely interwoven in the

 

l'ti

r0-

In

Owl

117

wilderness setting and their effects on user satisfaction and consequent

impact on perception merit such combined consideration.

Type of Use and Its Effect 0n Capacity

Although the term "wilderness recreation carrying capacity"
implies a measure of some level, it appears that the character of that
level is quite critical. That is to say, the type of use bears directly
upon user evaluations and attitudes about the accompanying level. As
used here, type refers to either the mode of travel (backpackers,
paddling canoeists, etc.) or to the character of the party (large

organization-Sponsored party, family group, etc.).

Previous Research

Part of the importance in centering attention Specifically on
the type of group, particularly the mode of travel, relates to the
conflicts that exist between groups and which thus tend to operate to
reduce the capability of an area to provide an Optimum level of
satisfaction. Lucas has examined the conflicts that exist between
paddling canoeists and those traveling by motor propelled craft in
the BWCA. He notes that paddling canoeists, in response to the
question, "How many canoeing and motor boating groups could you.meet
in a day before you would feel there was too much use?" replied they
wanted to see ng_motorboats, while they could tolerate up to five

canoes without a loss in satisfaction.1 Motorboaters, in reSponse

 

1Ibid. , p. 16.

118

to the same question indicated no limit on the number of canoeists
and anywhere from.25 to 100 boats. Lucas further notes:
Some motorboaters seemed puzzled by the question.
They apparently were not thinking in terms of seeking
solitude.1
Other studies of BWCA users have supported Lucas' findings.
The Wildland Research Center reported that one-third of the canoeists
sampled indicated annoyance at encountering motor boats.2 AA 1967
survey of users in Quetico Provincial Park of Canada reported that
15 per cent of the canoeists disliked encounters with motor propelled
craft. Additionally, when asked to define what "crowding" meant,
22 per cent of the canoeists replied "motor boats."3
While not as well documented, a similar conflict mey exist in
most western wildernesses between backpackers and horseback travelers.
Merriam.and Ammons reported nearly 40 per cent of the hikers sampled
in Glacier Park backcountry preferred to neither ride horses nor

encounter them.“ Thorsell has reported that residents near'Waterton

 

1Ibicl.

2Wildland Research Center, Wilderness 59d Recreation, p. 144.

3 Gordon Lusty Survey Research Ltd. , A Stud 93 Visitor Attitudes
Towards Quetico Provincial Park (Don Mills, 0n rio: Gordon Lusty
Survey Research Ltd., 1968), Table 41.

“Merriam and Ammons, Thngilderness User i2 Three Montana

Areas, p. 32.

119

Lakes National Park in Alberta attribute the deterioration of wild-
flowers in the park backcountry to large horse parties.1 Hendee found
mixed feelings on the part of users toward developments to facilitate
horse use. He concluded that conflicts between horse users and others
are likely to increase as wilderness use increases and that efforts
should be made to keep horses away from hikers wherever possible.2
A.third of the visitors sampled in the High Sierra area of California
were reported by the'Wildland Research Center to have found the effects
of stock on trails and campsites annoying.3

Burch and Wenger attempted to estimate how many hikers and
horsemen backoountry visitors could meet and still have an enjoyable
experience. They found that 88 per cent of the reSpondents were
favorably inclined toward backpackers while 77 per cent expressed a
favorable response to horsemen. However, the structure of the question
was such that the exact meaning of the answers is difficult to inter-
pret. If the respondent indicated he would prefer not meeting any of
a particular category of recreationists, the response was interpreted
as expressive of an unfavorable attitude toward that group. If,

however, he could meet at least one without a loss in enjoyment, his

 

1J.‘W'. Thorsell, 'Wilderness Recreational Dee, Waterton Lakes

National Park Visitor Use Survey, Part II (Ottawa, Canada: Parks
Planning Division, 1967), p. 5.

 

2Hendee et al., ‘Wilderness Users $2,333 Pacific Northwest,
pp. 56-57.

3Wildland Research Center, Wilderness 2§g_Recreation, p. 1443

 

 

 

 

 

120

response was interpreted as an over—all favorable attitude toward that
type of recreationist. Additionally, it was unfortunate that the
re8pondent's mode of travel was not recorded as an independent variable
for analysis.

The impact of large parties on the quality of the wilderness
recreation experience seems similarly important. These groups appear
to represent more than a simple discrete number of individuals; they
are perceived as a particular unit with certain ecological and
esthetic impacts on the wilderness environment not associated with a
similar number of individuals traveling by themselves or in small
groups. In both the Mt. Marcy area and the High Sierra of California,
for example, 16 per cent of the reSpondents to the Wildland Research

Center survey reported encounters with large parties annoying.1

Perceived Appropriateness of Mbdes of Travel

An effert was made to ascertain the degree to which the various
modes of travel were perceived as appropriate in a wilderness setting.
Visitors were asked to reSpond to the statement, "Both backpacking and
horseback travel are entirely appropriate ways to travel in wilderness

areas."2

 

1mm.

20n the BWCA form, "paddling" was substituted for backpacking,
and "using an outboard motor" for horseback travel.

121

An interesting pattern of reSponses developed. In the west,
the bulk of the reSpondents agreed with the statement. However,
re3ponse was less strongly in agreement in the Bridger (7h per cent)
than in the High Uintas (80 per cent) or the Bob Marshall (92 per cent).
The Bridger is an area of foot travel rather than horseback use, whereas
horseback use predominates in the latter two areas. It would thus
appear that backpackers are less tolerant of horseback riders than the
reverse situation. Herses often leave trails badly muddied, backa
packers often need to move off the trails to prevent startling horses,
and horse manure on the trails often makes hiking difficult and
unpleasant! Aside from problems of horses being startled by passing
hikers, horseback travelers are not particularly bothered by persons
on foot. Analysis of this statement with mode of travel as the

independent variable tends to confirm this (see Table 19).

TABLE 19

PERCEPTION OF APPROPRIATENESS OF FOOT AND HORSE TRAVEL
BY BACKPACKERS, HORSEMEN, AND HIKERS WITH STOCK

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Strongly
Hbde of Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
Travel U ‘ g $ f g f
Backpacker 237 509 706 11.“ 60.3 14.8
Horseback 168 1.8 0 7.7 59.5 31.0
Hiker-Stock 14 O O 28.6 #2.9 28.6
Total #19 4.1 4.3 10.5 59A 21.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 37.13, 8 degrees of freedom, .001 3) p.

122

Notwithstanding certain objections to horse travel, visitors
perceive the three modes of travel in western areas as appropriate
'within their normative conception of wilderness. This attitude, of
course, coincides with institutional constraints; hiking and horse
travel are implicitly recognized as appropriate by the Wilderness Act.

In examining response in the BWCA, however, the conflict
between paddling canoeists and.motor propelled craft demonstrated by

Lucas and others is further substantiated (see Table 20).

TIBLE 20

PERCEPTION OF.APPROPRIATENESS OF MANUIL AND MOTOR TRAVEL.BY
PADDLING CANOEISTS, MOTOR CANOEISTS, AND MOTOR.BOATERS

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Strongly
Hbde of Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
Travel N f i g f g
Paddling Canoe 119 19.3 32.8 21.8 21.8 #.2
Hbtor Canoe 20 15.0 10.0 5.0 35.0 35.0
Hbtor Boat 60 O 6.7 18.3 46.7 28.3
Total 199 13.1 23.6 19.1 30.7 14.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 57.59, 8 degrees of freedom, .001 j> p.

Only about one out of four paddling canoeists agreed that both
paddling and using an outboard motor were approPriate means of travel
in a wilderness. As'will be documented later in this chapter, the

strong negative reaction to the statement can be attributed almost

123

entirely to the reference to outboard.motors. The perceived norm
regarding appropriate means of wilderness travel held by the paddling
canoeists is in close coincidence with institutional norms, while motor
canoeists and motor boaters look upon their own mode of travel as
largely appropriate and in keeping with the wilderness environment.1

Continuing the investigation at the normative-conceptual level,
attention was fecused on the degree to which respondents perceived
differences in other visitors as reflected in their mode of travel.
Over-all, 50 per cent of the reSpondents sampled felt there was a
great difference between the kind of'people who chose to backpack (or
paddle a canoe) and those who went by horseback (or by outboard motor).
Distinct regional patterns arose which appear tied to the re8pondent's
mode of travel.

In the BWCA, 55 per cent of the resPondents agreed that a
great deal of’difference is to be found between people who travel by
paddling a canoe and those who utilize a motor for propulsion.
Ekamining this statement in light of the reSpondents mode of travel,
however, revealed that 73 per cent of the paddling canoeists were in
agreement, compared to only 36 and 30 per cent of the motor canoeists
and motor boaters, reSpectively. Nearly half of both of these latter

groups disagreed with the statement. Again, it appears that paddling

 

1Under the terms of the Wilderness Act, "Prohibition of
Certain Uses," Section 5, the use of motor prOpelled craft is permitted
as a protection of pre—existing rights. Currently, over half of the
water acreage of the area is open to motorized craft.

12h

canoeists perceive those traveling by motors to be inappropriate
intrusions in their normative concept of wilderness. On the other
hand, visitors using motor propelled craft consider their use consonant
with wilderness. Moreover, they tend to perceive other wilderness
groups as homogeneous to themselves and this may explain the source
of at least part of the conflict between these user groups. If motor
users extrapolate their attitudes and norms about the wilderness
environment to those traveling in non-mechanized craft, then their
behavior in regard to these other travelers may be governed by their
perception of a shared value system, although in fact no such shared
system exists.

Although the intensities involved were not so great, a similar
pattern of reSponse appeared among western visitors. Backpackers
tended to perceive greater differences between themselves and those
traveling by horse than did the horsemen (57 per cent as opposed to
28 per cent, resPectively). Backpacking is often considered the "elite"
'way to travel by its advocates. However, feur out of ten backpackers
either disagreed with the contention or held a neutral view, reflecting
the greater level of perceived appropriateness of horse travel revealed
in Table 19.

Overall, strong purists in the western study areas did not
show an appreciably greater level agreement with the statement than
other purists groups, and gamma was only .12. Nor did strong purists

in the BWCA.demonstrate any greater level of agreement than the other

125

purist groups there. Gamma between purism score and tendency to
agree with the contention that a difference exists between persons

using different modes of travel was .09.

Visitor Preferences for Other Mbdes of Travel

An effort was made to develop an index of preference for the
various modes of travel. Visitors were asked to indicate their
personal preference for seeing the different modes of travel they
might encounter. The question was worded so that reSpondents assumed
they Egg meet some other parties.

The pattern of resPonse showed marked regional variations as
well as distinctions based upon the reSpondent's own mode of travel.
In the BWCA, 69 per cent of the reSponse indicated a preference for
seeing paddling canoeists while only 15 per cent indicated a preference
for motor canoeists and 6 per cent for motor boats, desPite the fact
these latter two groups comprised nearly 42 per cent of the sample.
Table 21 examines BWCA re5ponses by the re5pondent's mode of travel.

The over-all favorable attitude toward paddling canoeists is
clearly recognizable. Motor canoeists tend to be more ambivalent in
their attitudes toward paddling and motor canoeists; this may be a
reflection of the small sample size of motor canoeists (N = 22).
Their distinct negative reaction towards motor boats concurs with

Lucas' earlier findings, however,1 Whereas there is strong antipathy

 

1Lucas, _Th_e_ Recreational Capacity of the Quetico-Superior Area,
p. 18.

126

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on ma am we N am as N am sopsom nose:
mm mm m om 0 on mm m a: pmwoomdo mono:
he aw H 00 mm m NH m mm #mdoozmo wmdflvvdm
on woo: poo: case use: poo: sumo use: use: He>ems
so ou #0: on a op soc op a on pom op o
p_:oa homonm Mahmud p. on homonm hemmed u. on echoed aomonm M
sea:

 

whoseom aopoz

 

mpmfioocso aogoz

 

mumamocso wcaaeesm

 

omsaceoaom mm .meomoaoyoam pouncedxm

 

 

 

AH><MH ho manoz mEmHo UZHMMM mom natzmmmmmmm nummmmmum

qm>¢me so moo: m.ezmnzommmm mm .«ozm may zH

HN HAM<H

127

by paddling canoeists toward motor boaters, the reverse is not true.
Over three times as many motor'boaters expressed a preference to see
canoeists as those indicating preference fer their own kind. En-
counters with canoeists probably add an aura of the "voyageur" spirit
to the visitor's experience.

Also of interest here is the general "don't care" attitude of
a large proportion of the motor boaters. This reflects in many'ways
their undiscerning attitude about appropriate uses of the wilderness
and is indicative of their greater interest in a Specific aspect of
the area than other visitors. When asked if there was one single
activity for which they used the BWCA, #0 per cent of the motor
boaters answered yes, compared to only 25 and 14 per cent of the
paddling canoeists and motor canoeists, respectively.1

In the western study areas, spatial patterns of preferences
fer different modes of travel appeared linked to the type of‘travel
characteristic of the individual study areas. Table 22 shows this
relationship.

In the Bridger'Wilderness, where backpacking is the predomi-
nant fbrm.of travel, nearly eight out of ten persons sampled favored
seeing backpackers and six out of ten preferred not to encounter
horseback parties. This attitude contrasts with that fbund in the

 

1Thirtyaseven per cent of the motor boaters answering yes to
this question indicated fishing as the principal attraction compared
to 2# per cent fer the paddling canoeists.

128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm mm 3 3 mm mm 3 m an .35 swam
mm mm 3 mm on 3 m« e R .838
on .3.“ m." N: «N km N: a.“ +3 gamma pom
poo: poo: poo: poo: poo: soon 8.2
emuon op pom on some“ 3. no: es powwow on no: op human
9 . echoed echoed . echoed nemoam . hemonm hemmed
303% A35 93me among modneumom emexoemxoem
emevseonem hm . nooseaemeam tenuous

 

 

 

game gamma» Eases E
E3 so 88: E8 cam m2 Hogm Beams

NN an.

129

Bob Marshall and the High Uintas , where horse travel is predominant
(65 and 51 per cent, respectively). In both of these areas, visitors
were more favorably inclined to encounters with horseback parties and
showed a reduced propensity for seeing backpackers. The large "don't
care" response in the three areas in reference to hikers with stock
reflects the unfamiliarity of travelers with this mode of travel;
over-all, it represented only 3 per cent of the sample.

Taken as a unit of analysis, horseback riders showed a strong
preference for seeing other horseback parties (#7 per cent), but were
largely passive in their attitudes toward backpackers, with 62 per
cent indicating they "didn't care" about seeing hikers. As was true
in the BWCA, there seems to be a situation of one.way resentment, with
backpackers strongly disliking encounters with horsemen, whereas
nearly nine out of ten horseback riders show either a preference for
or a neutral reaction to seeing hikers .

Analysis of this question by purism score revealed that the
responses of strong purists in each area closely resembled those
presented in Table 22. The one notable exception occurred in the
Bridger, where strong purists expressed a greater rejection of horse-
back travel: only 8 per cent preferred to meet horseback riders and
66 per cent preferred not to.

he Effects of _Ia1_3e Parties on the Perception of CarryingiaLlut

Other characteristics of the recreational use of wilderness
remain to be examined. As noted earlier, other research studies

130

have suggested that "large" parties may have especially severe impacts
on user satisfhction. Such an effect could result in any or all of
three ways: (1) the perception by other users that such groups are
inappropriate in the wilderness; (2) the recognition of the severe
ecological damage that such parties inflict upon the resource; and

(3) the manner in which such groups contribute to feelings of crowding.

Tb establish a notion of’the user's perceptions of’large
parties, visitors were asked to respond to the statement, "Seeing a
large party (a dozen or more people from a club, etc.) reduces the
fbeling that you're out in the wilderness."

Two-thirds of the respondents concurred with the statement, but
important areal variations were noted. Bridger visitors expressed
considerably more agreement (80 per cent) than their counterparts in
the Bob Marshall (68 per cent) and the High Uintas (69 per cent).1
Both these latter areas are characterised by more organization-
sponsored trips (for example, Boy'Scouts) and by more trips handled
by commercial outfitters. Both of these types of parties are usually
large (20 or more people) and there seems to be some relationship
here between the degree of exposure to such groups and tolerance for
then. In the Bridger,'where most travel is in small parties, a norm
supporting the small group as appropriate seems widely held; in the

 

1A difference significant at the .001 level.

131

other western study areas where large parties are more common, norms
have apparently shifted to a more tolerant position.

‘A similar line of reasoning holds for the BWCA, where only
5# per cent of the respondents were in agreement with the statement.
Mode of travel, interestingly enough had no effect on response.

Strong purists , however, were much more in accord between the
study areas in their acceptance of the statement. About 80 per cent
of this group over-all considered encounters with large parties as
detrimental to their enjoyment of the trip. Again strong purists in
the Bridger were more in agreement than others with 87 per cent.
Seventy-five per cent of the strong purists in the BWCA concurred with
the statement.

Sonnenfeld has suggested that in the face of various conditions
of stress, man may adapt to the conditions through the process of
either heightening or reducing his sensitivity. 1 The results found
in response to the questionnaire item discussed above tends to support
this hypothesis. This would suggest that any effort at formulating a
measure of carrying capacity for wilderness would be valid only for
the particular area studied and at the particular point in time.

Mitigating this conclusion, however, is the fact that the
phenomenon of adaptation appears to be sharply reduced when the norms

 

1Joseph Sonnenfeld, "Variable Values in Space and Landscape:
An Inquiry into the Nature of Environmental Necessity, " Journal 2;
Social Issues, XVII (October, 1966), p. 75.

w..—

-»I {‘11

..n.

 

132

of those persons holding a more discerning and purist concept of
‘wilderness are examined. It seems that certain values are shared
over space; the extent to which they are maintained over time awaits
the availability of data from which trends may be examined.

One final examination of user preferences fbr the size of
parties encountered while traveling was made. Visitors were presented
with three situations in which they were asked to indicate their
preference for: (1) seeing one large party during the day'and no
one else 25 one small party a day and no one else; (2) one large party
a day and no one else 2: five small parties a day and no one else: and
(3) one large party a day and.no one else 25 ten small parties a day
and no one else. A.large party was indicated to have about 30 people
in.it, a small party about three. Thble 23 presents the results, by
study areas.

.As was expected, the prependerant share of visitors expressed
preference fbr a single small.party rather than one large party, and
this percentage declined for five and ten small parties. Hewever,
note that only in the Bob Mhrshall did more respondents ever fever
meeting the single large party ever the small parties. This occurred
despite the fhct that ten small parties would mean the respondent was
seeing the same total number of'people during the day (30), but could
probably expect to see at least one party every hour, assuming a ten-
hour long day on the trail! This seems a situation hardly conducive

to solitude. It indicates that the large party has an extraordinarily

133

 

 

 

 

a A 80. 8.A aA mo. 8o.A aA 8. afidhgfim
om we 3N mm mm he ma mm m oweho><
mm 9 mm eN an i in mu m was; seem
an em 8 fl 8 2 m mm a 832m
R mm mm mm S :m 2 mm a #32“: pom
mm m: 9 mm 8 3 mm on N. 8,5

mofiphem hphem mofiphem hvhem hphem hphem soa<
ohdo HHdam swung sumo Haesm owned sumo Hausa swung
face c3 25 face 8E as face 25 25 mesh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"msfioom wefiuo>eh mommodnom Ho emepmoOHom

 

 

 

«mud unpam Hm .mmHam<m andzw ho Manama

mqdeMds 4 Mo mHHHm<m mundq mom muzmmuzmmm mmmp

«was

134

detrimental effect upon user satisfaction as well as suggesting a
recognition on the part of respondents of the generally harmful impact
of such groups on the plwsical resources such as 30118 and forage.

Other factors almost certainly bear upon the pattern of
response obtained. Such large parties (30 people, or maybe more)
generally travel by horse in the western areas and respondents probably
were weighing the situation at least partially on the basis of this
fact. Also, 30 people in a party, if traveling by horse, would
normally have at least an additional 30 animals accompanying then,
loaded with gear. Thus, in effect the party size becomes 60 and its
esthetic and ecological impact is substantial.

‘l'ne respondent ' s mode of travel did not result in appreciable
variation in response. All modes favored the small parties over the
large one, with paddling canoeists in the BWCA and backpackers in the
west slightly more disposed toward the small parties (which is the way
they normally travel) than others. Strong purists showed a more
definite response to meeting a single small party rather than a single
large party (88 per cent) than did other units of analysis, but their
responses to the other We situations were quite similar (57 per cent
and #8 per cent, respectively, favoring small parties).

It was hypothesized, however, that user preferences for small
parties would tend to be offset in the face of a situation where they
were posed the alternative: meeting one large party and no one else

on a week-long trip 2 encountering three or four small parties every

trip

a sf
of .
1‘65;

the:

few
the
the

802

8a..

135

day on a'week-long trip, but no large parties. A.choice of the first
option would mean an encounter that might be rather dissatisfying

at the time for the visitor, but'would result in the remainder of the
trip devoid of other encounters. Given the strong indications that
few or no encounters is a desirable condition, it seemed reasonable to
expect persons would accept a trade-off'between a brief'period of
dissatisfaction with an extended period of complete solitude.

The over-all results, however, indicated that 51 per cent of
the respondents favored seeing the small parties each day rather than
a single large party and 22 per cent were neutral. Only'about one out
of four persons chose seeing the large party. The most favorable
response for small parties came in the BWCA, with 61 per cent preferring
them. Only in the Bob'Marshall did a majority favor the large party
(38 per cent) over the small parties (36 per cent).

Analysis by mode of travel revealed similar results with all
favoring the small parties over the large. Seventyaone per cent of
the motor boaters responded in this fashion; it seems likely, however,
that in light of their generally more social orientation (or non-
solitude value system), they could be expected to favor that situation
most conducive to enhancing opportunities for social interaction. This
conclusion may, in fact, have some relevancy in interpreting the entire
question.

The pattern of response obtained from.the strong purists in

each of the study areas reflected the ambivalent nature of the

136

situation and probably presented this group with a dissonance.laden
alternative.1 The large party certainly has the most severe impact
upon the physical resource and also appears to be generally perceived
as normatively inappropriate in wilderness. On the other hand, soli-
tude is a particularly important element of the total wilderness
experience for strong purists and by choosing the large party they
afforded themselves with a greater opportunity to enjoy this aspect.
Resolving these alternatives, which are in many ways mutually
exclusive, was difficult for the strong purists. In the BWCA, Bridger,
and High Uintas, about five out of ten preferred the small parties, but
nearly four out of ten in each of these areas opted for the large
party. Only in the Bob marshall did a clear pattern of preference
emerge: 52 per cent preferred the large party and 29 per cent, the
small. Thus, the responses of the strong purists matched the general

sample in direction, but not in degree.

Use and Satisfaction

It is clear that in the wilderness situation, increasing use
results in declining satisfection or quality for the user. Although
the rate at which this decline occurs varies according to the type of
visitor examined, it is a matter of magnitude rather than direction.

 

1Festinger defines dissonance thus: "Two elements are in a

dissonant relation if, considering these two elements alone, the
obverse of one element would fellow from.the other.” Loan Festinger,
A Theog of Co tive Dissonance (New York: Row, Peterson, and

60m, 1'9'57 , p. 13.

137

The preceding discussion has pointed out that the character of the use
also affects satisfaction, perhaps to a greater degree than the level.
Neither of these two use dimensions operate alone, however; an
individual's recollection and evaluation of the day' 8 events might
involve a certain number of encounters with perhaps two or three
different types of groups. Additionally, these encounters have a
spatial-temporal aspect to them and the: behavior of the persons
encountered also affects the user' s evaluation.

To arrive at a measure of how two of these dimensions, level
and type , operate together, with the temporal dimension fixed at one
day, visitors were asked to indicate how they felt about encountering
an increasingly larger number of other parties (Question 16, Appendix B).
Specifically, they were asked to evaluate the question in terms of
meeting the different modes of travel they could normally expect to
encounter. In this manner it would be possible to estimate the effect
of, for example, an increasing number of encounters with backpackers
on user satisfaction.

These "satisfaction curves" were computed for each of the study
areas regarding the various modes of travel a visitor might encounter. 1
he curve was computed by determining the percentage of respondents in

each study area who indicated a ”very pleasant" or "pleasant" response

 

1'No curve was computed for hikers with stock. The small. per-
centage this group makes up of the sampled use in the study areas and
the consequent infrequency of encounters with such parties negated
the usefulness of such information.

133

to the various use encounter situations. The slepe of the curve thus
represents the declining percentage of persons responding in a favor-
able fashion to the increased level of use.

The general hypothesis that satisfaction declines as use
increases was clearly substantiated. Hewever, certain variations in
the slaps of the curve are worth noting. In the BWCA the particular
mode of travel encountered yields broadly disparate curves (Figure 12).
Immediately of’notice is the upswing in the number of respondents
citing satisfhction that occurs with seeing up to two parties of
paddling canoeists.1 It declines quickly, however, with encounters
'with persons traveling in motor propelled craft, especially motor
boats.

The initial upswing in satisfaction feund fer paddling canoe-
ists lends support to the notion that, over-all, encounters are both
expected, and perhaps to a degree, enjoyed. This is tied closely,
however, to the perception of the other group's appropriateness in the
wilderness environment. It was found, for example, that the number of
responses indicating satisfection increased for paddling canoeists
‘with up to about two encounters with other canoeists, but declined
sharply in reaction to encounters with motor craft. Mbtor boaters,
in line with hypotheses concerning their less purist and discerning

 

1Clawson hypothesised that user satisfection might increase to
a limited degree in a wilderness situation with increasing use, but wouli
then drop rather abruptly. See Clawson and Knets ch, Economics 2; 9113'
door Recreation, p. 168.

139

attitudes , reacted favorably to seeing up to about three other parties ,

regardless of their mode of travel.

g1): of Partlecountered

 

100 Paddling Canoeists
90 Rotor Canoeists — ...... ....
80 Motor Boaters —-——-._.-_..
Percentage
Reaponding "A
Pleasant
Ehrperience"

 

 

0

’1 2 3 I: 5 6 7 8

to“

Number of Parties Encountered

Figure 12. BWCA Satisfaction Curves

Figures 13, 11+, and 15 show a basic similarity between results
in the western study areas with those obtained in the BWCA, suggesting
some shared conceptual, norms regarding use encounters. Certain varia-
tions exist between the three western areas , however. An extremely
close association exists between the satisfaction curves portraying
reactions to backpackers and horseback riders in the Bob Marshall and
the High Uintas . Little differentiation occurs in these areas between

the two modes of travel in terms of effect upon user satisfaction. In

140

the Bridger, however, visitors sharply distinguish between the two
travel methods; and an encounter with only one horse party as opposed
to one backpackers group results in over a 30 per cent decline in the
over-all level of satisfhction.

 

 

100 lips of PartziEncountered
90 Backpackers
80 Horseback —————

Percentage
Responding "A 7°
Pleasant
Experience" 50

    

\

 

1 2 3 # 5 6 7 8 9
Number of’Parties Encountered

Figure 13. Bob marshall Satisfaction Curves

Generally it appears that up to two encounters per day still
results in,a satisfhctory experience for at least half of the visitors.
The notable exception is encounters with motor propelled craft in the
BWCA,'where only one encounter results in over a 50 per cent decline in
over-all visitor satisfhction.' As discussed in Chapter III, however,

interpretation of‘data based on averages may result in.nanagenent

 

1111.

11+1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100 L ype of Party Encountered
90 Backpackers
80 Horseback —————
Percentage
Responding "A
Pleasant
Experience"
0 -.. .... ____ ....
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Number of Parties Encountered
Figure 14. Bridger Satisfhction Curves
100 ‘gzpe of Pargngncountered
90 Backpackers
80 Horseback
Percentage
Responding "A
Pleasant
Experience"

 

 

 

1 2 3 h' 5 6 7 8 9
Nunber of Parties Encountered

Figure 15. High Uintas Satisfaction Curves

1#2

decisions that are perceived as inappropriate and nonnornative by
those users classified here as strong purists. Tb ascertain the degree
to which these visitors reflected average values and the extent to
which their perceptions departed significantly fron.those reported

for each study area as a whole, satisfhction curves were computed for
the strong purists. Figure 16 presents the curves obtained for strong
purists in the western study areas; Figure 17, those for purists in
the BWCA. .L comparison between the two figures and with the previous
charts reveals a number of significant differences.

 

 

' 100 .gype of PartzEncountered
90 Backpackers
30 Horseback — -— — —- --
Percentage
Responding "A
Pleasant
Experience”

 

 

 

1 2 3 u 5 6 7 89
Number of Parties Encountered

Figure 16. ‘Western study area strong
purists satisfhction curve.

no

type of Party Encountered

 

 

100 Paddling Canoeists
90 Motor Canoeists -— — -—
80 Motor Boaters -~-e-—~-—-
Percentage
Responding "A
Pleasant
Experience"

 

 

o . _1 \ 3
1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9
Number of Parties Encountered

Figure 17. EWCA strong purist satisfaction curve

Initially, it reveals the degree to which solitude (not seeing
any other parties) is an important and differentiating criterion for the
strong purists. Just over 80 per cent of this group in both the western
areas and the BWCA.preferred a situation of no encounters. This follows
the hypotheses developed from Table 10, where the strong association
between purist score and the desirability of solitude was clearly docu-
mented (Gamma a .59). Thus, it seems clear that for those persons whose
perception of wilderness is most rigid and demanding, solitude is a
najor requisite.

A.second observation is that satisfaction for the strong purist

declines more rapidly in the face of any type of encounter than for any'

144

other unit of analysis. Note there is no upswing in satisfaction with
the first or second encounter as occurs in the other figures, a fact
further solidifying conclusions concerning the importance of solitude.
However, as was the case with the other groups , most strong purists
appear to tolerate up to two encounters per day.

‘Dle single nest notable exception to this occurs in the
presence of motor boats in the BWCA. The percentage of strong purists
indicating a pleasant reaction drops from 82 per cent (with no en.
counters) to 7 per cent with one encounter with a motor boat, clearly
delineating the degree to which such craft are perceived as inappropri-
ate and destructive to the wilderness setting.

Over-all, strong purists differentiate much more sharply than
other groups about the types of use they meet and their satisfaction
declines more sharply and rapidly with increases in the level of use.
Perhaps most importantly, however, is the high degree of association
between the perception of what constitutes inappropriate use by the
strong purists among the study areas. The presence of a cononly
accepted set of values among users of spatially separate and diverse
wilderness environments suggests that the perceptual and behavioral
environments of these people are conceptually quite similar. Shared
value systems have been demonstrated to exist within individual sub.
cultures of the broader social structure, which, although spatially
segregated, are linked through one or more sinilar concerns (that is,

socio-econonic status , institutional structures , and other ferns of

145

social reinforcement).1 In the case of strong purists, it seems
evident that the social interaction and attitude reinforcement provided
through affiliation with outdoor recreation and conservation organiza-
tions fosters a common set of values toward wilderness.2

As cited earlier, level and type of use have been normally
considered the principal components in a determination of wilderness
recreation carrying capacity. Encounters also have, hottever, a spatial
aspect to them which can substantially influence the user's perception.
In the following discussion, attention turns to the manner in which
the locational component of encounters affects attitudes toward carrying

capacity perception.

Spatial Aspects of Capacity

Geographers , planners , and architects are becoming increas ingly
cognizant of man's differential perception of space into hierarchies of
increasing involvement of self. Of particular relevance to this recog-
nition is the fact that human behavior and attitudes may differ sharply
betwun these perceived spheres . Tire conceptual developments seem per.
tinent in assessing how this variable perception relates to an analysis
of wilderness recreation carrying capacity.

 

1For a discussion of the importance of these reinforcing insti-
tutions on attitudes , see James H. Fendrich, "Perceived Reference Group
Support: Racial Attitudes and Overt Behavior, " American Sociolggical
Review, 32 (December, 1967), pp. 960-970.

2'1‘hirty--eight per cent of the strong purists indicated member.
ship in a conservation or outdoor recreation organisation, as opposed
to only 23 per cent of the moderate purists.

 

W___—+r

—— ...“... r

1%

Relevant Research

First, work by Hall and Sommer1 suggests that individuals
delineate taro important behavioral characteristics of space: personal
space, or that area immediately surrounding the individual, and the
territorial cluster, or that space enclosing others frequently visited
and the paths taken to reach them. Physical distance is a principal
consideration in defining these spheres , but the area in which an
extension of self occurs is the delineating characteristic of personal
space. Stea has reviewed material suggesting that alterations in
the shape, size, boundedness, and differentiation of these zones
yield marked alterations in the behavior of individual members . 2

A second closely linked concept is that of territoriality. A
definition of the concept includes more than physical ownership of
real estate; emotional attachment is a particularly strong element.
Somer cites Fried and Gleicher concerning that space around the

individual :

 

1Edward T. Hall, 1h__e Hidd___e_n Dimension (Garden City, New York:
Doubleday, 1966), 201 pp. and— "Proxemics, '1 in Man's Ima e in Medicine
and Anthro lo ed. by New York Academy of Medi edici'ne New York:
International Universities Press, 1963). Also see Robert Sommer,
"Man's Proximate Dmvironment, " Journal of Social Issues, XXII (October,
1966), pp. 59-70, and by the same author, Personal-S— Eco: The Behavioral
Basis o__f_ Desifl (mglewood 011m New Jere—ey-z PrenI—tice-Hafl: 9 9 ,

pp.

2David Stea, "Space Territory and Human Movements, " Landscape
15 (Autumn, 1965), pp. 13-16.

147

(This space) is territorial in a more profound sense:
that individuals feel different spatial regions belong to
or do not belong to them and, correspondingly, feel that
they belong to . . . specific spatial regions or do not
“10113.1
This sense of possession of a spatial territory has been
described by some authors as an important psychological need of man:
Jung has noted "Each person should, possess his own piece of land,

then the old instincts would flourish again. "2

The classic statement
on territoriality is by Ardrey. Positing that man' s behavior is
motivated by three basic needs , identity, stimulation, and security,
he argues that territoriality is one of the few human or animal
institutions which satisfies all these needs.3 Matore' has written
of a need for vital space; space that not only has a ptwsical dimension,
but one which provides for a projection of one ' s personality and a
realisation of various psychological desires.“

To what degree do wilderness visitors perceive and establish

territories and if so, what effects do "intrusions" on this territory

 

1Sommer, "Man's meimate Environment," p. 61, quoting M. Fried
and P. Gleicher, "Some Sources of Residential Satisfaction in an Urban
Slum." Journal g_f_ American Institute g_f_ Planners, 2? (November, 1961) ,
p. 313.

2

Hans Carol "C. J. Jung and the Need for Roots," Landscag
11+ (Spring, 1965), fa. 2. '

3Robert Ardrey, it: Territorial Imperative (New York: Atheneum,
1966), pp. 333-339. Much of Ardrey's work has been criticised, however,
for its biological reductionist approach to understanding human behavior.

66 l‘Gzorges Hatore, "Existential Space," Landscaa, 15 (Spring,
19 ), p. .

1148

have on a user's experience? As was suggested by the data in Table 12,
users appear to sharply differentiate between encounters with other
parties on the trail and those at or near their campsite. Such
encounters appear distinct and separate in the nature of their effect
on user satisfaction beyond the specific level or type of use involved.
Any capacity estimation for wilderness, then, must take into account
the differential impacts upon quality brought about by the spatial
variations of those encounters.

Wilderness has often been measured in a spatial framework.
The Wildland Research Center defined wilderness recreation as use over

one—half mile from a road:l

Merriam and Amons found that visitors

to National Forest Wilderness and Primitive areas were somewhat divided
over "where wilderness began, " with about half answering "at the end

of the road" and the remainder indicating "three miles or more from

end of road. " National Park backcountry visitors were much more likely

to define wilderness in terms of the latter definition.2

file differ.
ence seems predictable, since the administrative boundaries of most
National Forest wilderness areas are clearly delineated on the land
with a sign, and many visitors were probably basing their response

on this fact. National Park backcountry, however, is not

 

1Wildland Research Center, Wilderness _a_n_d_ Recreation, p. 119.

zMerriam and Anons, _T_h_g_ Wilderness Us er in Three Montana
Areas, pp. 30-31.

149

administratively designated; hence user definition of the boundary
tends to be more a function of’the individual's perception. Addi-
tionally, areas along National Park roads sustain considerable day
use, and the visitor seeking solitude may in some cases have to travel
some distance to escape the casual day visitor.

Other empirical efforts have suggested, however, that the
spatial parameter is not highly important. Lucas found that neither
graphs nor rank order correlation coefficients relating wilderness
perception to use suggested that remoteness influenced ratings.1

To adequately describe how the esthetic effect of the location
of the encounter varied, visitors were asked to evaluate situations
involving meeting others along the route of travel compared to in camp
and near the periphery of the area versus some distance inside.
Additionally, the degree to which camp areas represent personal terri-

tony was investigated in some depth.

Peripheral Versus Interior Encounters

The trail head represents a point'where entering and exiting
parties are focused. Generally, as one first enters an area he can
expect that the probability of encountering others is high. It was
hypothesized that this expectation would desensitise to some extent

the adverse reactions visitors would normally experience if these

 

1Lucas , Th: Recreational Capacity 2; 213 Quetico-Superior Area,

p. 19.

1m:

 

150

encounters occurred "deep" inside the area, particularly in the area
of the visitor's campsite. Tb test this, visitors were asked which
condition they would prefer: "Seeing a lot of peeple within the first
few miles or so from the road and no one else the rest of the trip or
several other parties in the area where I expect to camp and no one
else." As expected, over-all response indicated a preference for
encounters at the periphery of the area rather than in an interior
location near camp; about two-thirds (68 per cent) responded in this
fashion. As Table 2# shows, respondents in the Bridger tended to be
slightly'more in favor of peripheral encounters, and were considerably
less ambivalent in their response than other users; only about 17 per
cent indicated they ndidn't care."

TKBLE 24

EXPRESSED pmcs FOR mcouumas 0N mm PERIPHERY
OR IN INTERIOR LOCATIONS, BY STUDY mus

 

 

 

 

 

, Encounters Encounters
Study Area I N __on Periphery' in Interior .Don't Care
f f i

HWCA " 203 59.1 11+.3 26.6
Bob Marshall 118 65.3 7.6 27.1
Bridger 143 76.2 7.0 16.8
High Uintas 152 73.7 3.3 23.0

Tbtal 616 67.9 8.6 23.5

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 22.015, 6 degrees of freedom, .10 > p > .001.

151

BWCA visitors tended to reflect a greater over—all tolerance
for interior encounters. This figure (14.3 per cent) was influenced
substantially, however, by motor boaters, nearly a quarter of whom
favored such encounters. In the west, backpackers showed both a
greater preference for peripheral encounters (74 per cent) and a
lesser tendency to reply "don't care" (19 per cent) than horseback
riders (corresponding percentages for horseback riders on these two
options were 68 and 28 per cent, respectively, a difference significant
at the .10 level).

Adstrong association showed between purist score and preference
for encounters on the periphery. A.gamma of -.#2 indicated that the
higher the score on the purist scale, the greater the tendency to
reject encounters in the interior.1 Over-all, 81 per cent of the strong
purists favored encounters on the trail and there was little variation
between the four study areas.

It would thus appear that users conceptually some wilderness
at a macro-scale, identifying at least one peripheral region and a
core region. ‘Within these zones, expectation of other encounters and
the consequent behavior and attitudes toward such.meetings appear to
differ sharply. This does not suggest that visitors necessarily enjoy

or welcome meetings on the trail: the data presented in Table 12 points

 

1Strictly speaking, responses to this statement were nominal
level.measurements and thus not susceptible to gamma. However, it was
assumed that an order or ranking did exist between responses in the
sense they represented a series of'decreasingly rigid evaluations of
where encounters had the most impact on.satisfaction. So considered,
games was an appropriate statistic.

 

152

to the contrary. It does indicate, however, that most wilderness

users, given the option, prefer seeing others while in transit from

one point to another, rather than while in camp. The campsite thus

seems to represent the user's territory and his behavior and attitudes
toward others is influenced by this. The extent to which the possession
of "territory, " in the fora of a camp, was an important component of

the user's evaluation of the quality of his trip was further investigated.

The Campsite as "Territory"

Initially, respondents were asked the extent to which they
agreed with the statement, "When steying out overnight in the wilder-
ness it is most enjoyable not to be near anyone else." There was
surprisingly broad and uniform agreement with the statement; 75 per
cent over-all indicated their acceptance of the concept, and only motor
boaters differed appreciably, but still with 65 per cent agreeing.

Analysis by purist scores revealed that strong purists agreed
more intensely than other groups. About nine out of ten strong purists
in each of the study areas agreed that solitude at the campsite was
an important and.desirable feature; the association between the
variables was .h3.

In light of this information, notions that the campsite area
of the wilderness visitor is an arena for social interaction with other
parties and the development of friendships with strangers appear false.

There is alweys the possibility that the item as presented represented

153

a ”motherhood" type of statement. To cross-check results and to obtain
a measure of'how the user's behavior’might actually be affected by
intrusions in their "territory," respondents were posed a situation
where, after setting up their camp in an isolated location, two or
three other parties arrived on the scene (see question 11, Appendix B).

Visitor reactions to this situation varied sharply. Overeall,
about three out of ten persons indicated they would keep their camp
where it was and that they either did not care about other parties
camping in the same area or they would enjoy the companionship provided
by these persons. However, 65 per cent responded that such a situation
would result in a loss of'quality to them. Reactions to this situation
by these people varied from steying at the same camp, but with reduced
enjoyment, to leaving the area and setting up camp elsewhere. None
indicated they would be so disgusted as to go home.

Wilderness organisation.menbership again resulted in a signi.
ficantly different pattern of response as compared with that obtained
from the overball sample. Persons affiliated with such organizations
also revealed a much stronger tendency to react negatively to other
campers than did.members of organisations with general outdoor recrea-
tion or conservation interests; Table 25 indicates that six out of
ten wilderness club members would be sufficiently distressed by other

persons camping nearby to spatially segregate themselves from.these
other parties.1

 

1It is unclear at present what, if’any, active defense mechanisms
'wilderness users employ to defend "territory." Acting to spatially sag-
regate oneself from others, however, suggests that accepted social norms
that frown upon physical violence probably make defense of the territory
difficult. What may be more important to investigate is the manner in
which users render their camping area distinctive.

154

.A An «co. racoeeeu no eeenmeo m .u¢.h~ chosen “so

 

 

 

 

a.m m.~n m.o« N.NN v.5 n.5« and Honey
w.uw m.- :.5 «.mm ~.o« m.oN “Na Aenpo
m.~ :.«w m.na m.mH o.o H.a a: encouooafiz
a a a a a a s 523320
heave eeeeaoeae vanes newshonme eseo ewenpo mmml Ho oaks .
misc phone oeosooa v.uoo use oases
is as: s8 :5» s3 Seem Seem 53%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mango chaduMUflm mUOQHDo and

mm Hangs

ZGHH<SMHWZOU amuse ho mmumxmx.nm 924 mZOHadqu<umO
mmflzmunqurho mammZHz Hm mflumz<u mumuo OH szHhodmm

.A
.
I
.
.
,
I - e
. . .
O O 9 e
.
. o e ‘
I
8
{I
g Q s e
.
O
.
O
6
I . . .‘ .~-4
e
«—
. e e
a . . . ‘
. . ' a
O
.
.. . ... ,. .
4 A
. . .
.
.
e
1
.
U j e
o
.
. .
e
.
S
I O
. .
A
.
I
.
r
.

 

155

Over-all, 88 per cent of the wilderness organisations members
reacted in some negative way to other campers , compared to only 57 per
cent of the other club members. It appears clear that members of such
organizations perceive solitude as a critically important component of
their total wilderness experience, an aspect sufficient to motivate a
change in their spatial behavior if threatened or lost. It was
interesting to find that the responses obtained from members of wilder.
ness organisations showed a more negative reaction to other campers
than those recorded for the strong purists in the BWCA and the High
Uintas; only 68 per cent of these respondents indicated either a loss
of enjoyment, a shortened visit, or a search for a new camp as their
reaction. Nearly 80 per cent of the strong purists in the Bridger and
Bob Marshall, however, responded in this manner. Gena for purist
score and respondent reaction was . 3”, reflecting a moderately strong
association.

User attitudes about others in the same camping area were
examined further. The previous statement had revealed that the presence
of two 25 222 other parties elicited a fairly general negative
response, but at the same time, a full 30 per cent had replied they
would enjoy the company of others or would not care about others camped
nearby. Visitors were then presented a situation that required them to
evaluate how "camping at a place where several other parties are
camped" would affect their enjoyment.

156

The frame of reference thus shifted from.a specific stimulus
(two or three parties) to a general one (several parties). A.marked
increase in the degree to which such a situation was detrimental to

user satisfaction accompanied the shift, as Table 26 shows.

TABLE 26

VISITOR REACTION T0 CAMPING NEAR SEVERAL
OTHER PARTIES, BY STUD! AREA

 

 

 

 

 

Bother Bother a Enjoy’ Doesn't

Study a lot little it matter
Area I f $ i f
BHCA 206 38.8 39.8 6.3 15.0
Bob Marshall 120 40.8 43.3 1.7 14.2
Bridger 142 41.5 43.? 2.1 12.7
High Uintas 153 43.8 43.1 2.0 11.1
Total 621 41.1 42.2 3.4 13.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 9.94, 9 degrees of freedom, .50 > p > .30.

Several features of Table 26 are worth noting. First, there
is a strong indication that camping near several others is a bother.
some and detrimental feature to the visitor's satisfaction. Overaall,
only three per cent enjoy it.

Secondly, the negative reaction is quite uniform.over the study
areas; little spatial variation in the attitudes toward other campers

occurs, suggesting the existence of a commonly understood and accepted

 

I: ll’,» ..
Kt»,l x .k‘l ‘
a , ! IIII‘,

157

norm of wilderness behavior. This unifomity extended to the strong
purists; about 90 per cent of them in each study area indicated they
‘would‘be bothered to some degree by other parties camping near them.
Gamma was -.34, indicating a moderately strong negative association
between increasing purist score and the tendency to accept persons
camping nearby-

The slightly higher response of "Enjoy it" recorded in the
BWCA is primarily a reflection of the response of‘persons traveling by
motor craft, particularly by motor boat. Fourteen per cent of this
group indicated a favorable reaction to other parties camped nearby.
This concurs with the earlier findings , both published and in this
study, describing these visitors as less wilderness environment ori-
ented and more concerned with activities and social interaction.

A somewhat contradictory finding , however, involved those
users who described their visit as one with a single activity focus ,
rather than as a more general "wilderness enjoyment" trip. As
Table 27 shows, those respondents with a single activity as the major
attraction of their wilderness trip tended to be somewhat more adamant
in their negative reaction to other campers.

It had been hypothesised that persons with an activity orienta-
tion would tend to be less sensitive to numbers of other people. On
virtually all the variables this was tested against , however , little
or no association or significance could be detected, and in some

cases, these persons showed more "purist" tendencies than those seeking

 

158

a more general experience. Upon retrospect, however, tw0 facts seem
helpful in explaining this general pattern of response and particularly,
the data in Table 27.

TABLE 27

THE EFFECT OF SINGLE ACTIVITY ORIENTATION UPON USER
REACTION 'I‘O CAMPING NEAR SEVERAL OTHER PARTIES

 

 

 

 

 

W‘: 0:13:81" Bother a Bother a Enjoy Doesn't
,1, 5' lot little it matter
e ma jor
attraction N f f s s
No 378 41 .3 39.4 4.8 14.6
YQB 243 40.7 46.5 1.2 11e5
Total 621 41.1 42.2 i 3.4 13.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 8.22, 3 degrees of freedom, .05 > p > .02.

These persons indicating that a single activity was the major
attraction for their wilderness visit generally cited either fishing
or mountain climbing as that activity. For fishermen, their basic
intolerance of other people in the wilderness in general, and for
those camped in the same area in particular, probably reflects their
concern over the possible fishing competition concomitant with growing
numbers of people. The very reason they utilise the wilderness fishery
may lie, in part, in the fact of low fishing pressure: hence, their
adoption of a more purist-like attitude toward other users .

159

In the case of mountain climbers, these persons often view
themselves as the "elite of’the elite." Mbuntain climbing (technical
rock and ice climbing) is one of the most arduous and demanding
activities that occur in wilderness and its advocates probably espouse
a very pure philogophy in regard to wilderness, in line with their self...
perception as persons who are actually pitting their lives against the
environment. 1 As a consequence, many of these individuals obtained
quite high scores on the purism scale.

Based upon the preceding data, it seems clear that wilderness
users consider the campsite location "personal territory. " The boundar.
ies of such sites are difficult to delineate. Wilderness camps are
usually simply locations where it is possible for a small party to
pitch a tent, preferably close to water and reasonably level. Some
locations , of course, become recognised camp locations simply through
use and these may be marked on maps of the area. Generally, however,
no fences, signs, or curbs provide visual evidence of campsite extent:
its bounds are set only by the perception of the occupants and those
passing by. It appears their perceptions closely coincide, a fact
accomplished in part by the apparent general acceptance of certain

norms regarding wilderness behavior among users.2

 

1For a discussion of the underlying motives and attraction of
mountain climbing, see Richard M. Eherson, "Games: Rules, Outcomes and
Motivation" (paper presented to the American Academy for the Advance-
ment of Science Symposium: Psychology and Sociology of Sport, Dallas,
Texas, December, 1968).
2Sommer cites a variety of studies suggesting many commonly
accepted norms govern Spatial relationships in interpersonal behavior.
See his excellent discussion "In Defense of Privacy" in Personal Space,

PP. 39-57-

160

Intrusions by others on this territory have a particularly
strong impact upon the satisfaction of most visitors. It seems likely
that persons passing by the camp, however, do not create the level of
disturbance that a party which establishes their camp nearby does.

The generally widely eXpressed diSpleasure about others near one's
campsite was expected to be reflected in user's expressed preferences
for a campsite location, in terms of its Spatial relationship to other
camps. To determine what factor this Spatial relationship played in

a user's decision-making process regarding campsite selection,
reSpondents were asked to indicate their preference for three basic
ldnds of location: (1) a site out of sight and hearing of others:1
(2) a place some distance away from others, but where seeing or hearing
others would not result in a loss of satisfaction: and (3) a place
near others, to enhance opportunities for social interaction. Addi.
tionally, a ndoesn't make any difference" option was provided.

Clear differences appeared between the BHCA and the western
study areas. Visitors to the Canoe Country expressed a more umbi-
valent response to the options as Table 28 indicates, Splitting almost
evenly on the first two types of camp locations. AS'was expected,
persons traveling by motor propelled craft tended to show a greater

propensity for camp locations near others. In the west, about two-thirds

 

1The phrase "out of sight and hearing" was used as a surrogate
for a Specific expression of'distance in yards or miles. variations
in topography, vegetation cover, etc. made such.measures meaningless.
The phrase provided the reSpondent with the idea of’a location sub-
stantially removed from.others, one where he could gain a sense of
solitude.

161

of the reSpondents favored locations that were out of sight and hearing
of others, with backpackers slightly more so inclined; however, no
significant differences were detected between the modes of travel.

TABLE 28

PREFERENCE FOR CAMP LOCATION, BY STUDY REGION

 

 

 

 

 

Study Out of Sight Some Distance A Place Don't
and Hearing from Others Near Others Care
Region I ‘ r $ $ ‘
BWCA 201 uz.3 37.3 6.5 13.9
West ' #20 65.2 26.9 1.0 6.9
Total 621 57.8 30.3 2.7 9.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 39.66, 3 degrees of freedom, .001 > p.

The pattern of responses from the NCA follows preceding
discussions. The tendency to prefer campsites that do not guarantee
solitude from others concurs with earlier findings that RICA visitors
are less inclined than their western counterparts to perceive solitude
as a desirable element of the wilderness environment (see Table 9).
Additionally, a chi square analysis betwoen the BWCA and the three
western areas treated as a whole concerning visitor reaction to camp-
ing near other parties (see Table 26 for an area by area reSponse)
revealed that BNCA respondents were significantly less bothered by

others camping in the same area. 1

 

1a difference significant at the .05 level.

162

Prior wilderness experience influenced preferences for camp-
sites. Those persons who had been on previous wilderness visits were
somewhat more inclined (60 per cent) to prefer campsites out of sight
and hearing than those on their initial visit (51 per cent) while the
reverse situation existed in eXpressed preference fer sites that
afforded opportunities for social interaction.

Preferences for sites providing complete solitude were most
intensely expressed by strong purists in the Bridger and Bob Marshall.
While over-all only about 55 per cent of the reSpondents favored this
type of site, 84 per cent of these strong purists responded to this
option. Although a smaller percentage of the strong purists in the
BHCA and the High Uintas preferred this type of camping location (69
and 75 pOr cent, reapectively), they still were decidedly more inclined
to prefer such a site than the general sample. The association between
purist score and preference for a location out of sight and hearing
was quite strong (gamma 2 .52). None of the strong purists indicated
a preference for a site near others, and considering the four areas
together, less than two out of ten desired a location where others
‘would be some distance away, but still within sight or hearing.

It seems apparent, then, that the Opportunity to segregate one's
self from.others is an important characteristic of the camping site and
it may, in fact, represent a Spatial manifestation of the strong
purist's conceptualization of the relationship of'man to man and man

to nature in the wilderness. Within this zone around the camp the

163

primary interaction involves man and the physical environment;
socialization with persons other than one's own party members is
unwanted and probably discouraged. 1

To further clarify, and also to quantify, the density level of
camps that would be acceptable to wilderness users within the range of
their visual and audio senses , visitors were questioned as to how many
other camps they would _liicg set up near their own.

Although there was considerable association over-all between
reSponses to this question and the answers provided to the statement
just examined certain interesting variations occurred.

Table 29 indicates that over half of the reSpondents to each
of the western study areas wanted a campsite with no other parties
around; the BWCA visitors were less demanding about this. Visitors
to the Bob Marshall, however, were particularly emphatic in their
preference for such a location. A possible eXplanation for this lies
in the fact that the Bob Marshall is an extremely large area (950,000
acres) and visitors may consider that in an area this size, use can be
distributed in such a manner so as to preclude the necessity of arm
group over having to camp near another. Size of area was found to be
an important component of wilderness in the computation of the purist

score (gama = .72) and the strong relationship found between preference

 

1Cotton has concluded that it appears "that the sophisticated
wilderness user genuinely prefers contact with the natural environ-
ment rather than with other campers , " "Motivations of Wilderness
Users," p. 125.

164

for no other camps and the Bob Marshall may empirically demonstrate
what role area size plays in providing a wilderness experience to the
user. Note also that none of the Bob Marshall reSpondents wanted

more than three camps near them.

TABLE 29

OTHER CAMPS DESIRABLE WITHIN SIGHT 0R
HEARING, BI STUDY AREA

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Other Camps Desired
Study 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Area N f 1 73 5 f f f
BWCA 206 43.2 20.4 15.0 11.7 4.4 1.5 3.9
Bob Marshall 120 75.0 12.5 9.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bridger 144 57.6 14.6 16.0 6.2 1.4 1.4 2.8
High Uintas 154 57.1 13.6 18.2 6.5 1.9 1.9 0.6
Total 624 56.1 15.9 14.9 7.5 2.2 1.3 2.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 48.19, 18 degrees of freedom, .001 >p.

It has been suggested that many persons do not want and may even

discourage opportunities for social interaction with others at their

campsite.

camaraderie that develops with the members of one' s own party.

However, this exchange with strangers may be replaced by the

Persons

traveling with family or friends evidenced no appreciable difference

from the over-all sample response in terms of desiring an isolated

campsite; persons traveling by themselves , however, were decidedly

more in favor of such locations.

Seventy per cent preferred no other

165

camps nearby and the remaining 30 per cent wanted no more than two.
Sample size for this group was small (N = 12), but the results seem
in accord with the type of philosophy one might associate with an
individual who "takes on the wilderness," so to Speak, by himself.

The association between membership in wilderness type organi-
zations and a more discerning, pure attitude toward the wilderness
environment and wilderness Spatial behavior was again demonstrated.
Eighty-five per cent of persons belonging to a wilderness organisation
preferred an isolated campsite, as compared to only 50 per cent of those
belonging to more general oriented outdoor recreation or conservation
clubs.1 The wilderness norm prescribing and reinforcing nature of
the former organisation tends to support a value system among members
that is highly purist in nature. Future research by behavioral
scientists should investigate other ways in which such groups influence
and modify the behavior of wilderness users.

Responses to this question by strong purists closely followed
the earlier finding that only about 20 per cent would accept other
camps within sight or hearing. Only in the BWCA did they depart
appreciably from this pattern; only 55 per cent preferred no other
camps.

The perception of the occupance of that Space within the
purview of the visual and audio faculties of the wilderness visitor

 

1A difference significant at the .01 level.

166

thus seems tied to the individual's conuitment to and acceptance of
certain behavioral norms. Those persons possessing what has been
described herein as a purist attitude toward wilderness perceive this
zone as one optimally devoid of occupance other than their own. The
"personal Space" of these individuals is decidedly larger than that
normally ascribed to the person in his daily life. Recognition of
this seems to be fairly common among most users, and this fact may
operate to create a somewhat natural state of dispersal, at least in
regard to campsite selection. The effects on satisfaction of en-
counters with others in the trail appears to be mitigated by a
reduction in the individual's perception of the extent of his personal
Space, a process encouraged by the traveler's increased expectation of
encountering others while on an artery of travel.

To this point, the discussion of capacity has focused on
encounters; actually seeing other parties. What effect, however, does
the evidence of man' S presence have upon satisfaction level? To
conclude this chapter, we now turn to a brief examination of the
effects of depreciative user behavior upon the objective of defining

wilderness recreation carrying capacity.

Depreciative Behavior ASpects of Capacity

By the very nature of the wilderness environment, where the
works and evidence of man are minimal, the depreciative action of

users are made more noticeable. Depreciative behavior, as used here,

167

describes that behavior which may violate institutional restrictions,
accepted social norms, or both. Behavior, in the sense of human actions
which do not affect the physical environment (for example, such things
as playing volleyball in the wilderness or playing a loud portable
radio) is not discussed here, although such actions certainly bear

on the way in which persons react to others. Attention focused on

tw0 forms of depreciative behavior: littering and campsite deterioration.
Campsite deterioration is in many ways an ecological dimension of the
carrying capacity problem. However, it is included here since it is
often enhanced and accelerated by negligent human actions and behavior
and is an element of the wilderness environment that potentially can
greatly affect the quality of a wilderness trip for the visitor.

Some of the previously cited wilderness studies have mentioned
user complaints about littering and campsite deterioration. The
Wildland Research Center noted that "littered or rundown campsites
was in general the most frequent complaint. "1 Forty per cent of the
users in the Mount Marcy and the High Sierra expressed annoyment at
these features. Thorsell has reported that trash left at trail shelter
locations in the backcountry of Waterton Lakes National Park was a
common complaint.2 Merriam and Ammons reported that only two out of
thirty-three persons sampled in the Mission Mountains Primitive Area

 

1Wildland Research Center, Wilderness 21d. Recreation, p. 143.

2Thorsell, Wilderness Recreational Egg, p. 40.

168

and three out of forty-four in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area
complained about messy camps , "though there were many of these. "1
Although this could perhaps reflect an actual tolerance of depreci-
ative behavior on the part of visitors to these areas, it certainly
does not appear in keeping with other findings and probably is a 5

result of the small sample size and questionnaire design.

Campsite Overuse

It was noted earlier that any use of an ecological complex
results in some change of the environment. This is‘particularly true
at the campsite where use is concentrated in a relatively small loca-
tion over brief periods of time. Opportunities for deleterious effects
upon both the ecolog of the area and the satisfaction of the user are
intensified. Based upon the earlier findings concerning the perception
of the camping area as "territory" or an extension of personal Space,
where primary interaction was between the individual and the environ-
ment, it was hypothesised that visual evidence of campsite ”wear and
tear" would have an eSpecially strong effect on user satisfaction.

This hypothesis was clearly substantiated, as can be seen in
Table 30. Although the effects of camping at a site worn from over-
use were perceived as bothersome in all areas, visitors in the western

study areas were significantly more disturbed than BWCA resPondents.

 

1Merriam and Ammons , gig Wilderness User _i_n_ Three Montana
Areas, p. 33.

169

Three reasons appear to underlie this result. First, the physical
characteristics of’most camping sites in the BWCA are considerably
better adapted to sustaining high levels of use than those in the west.
Many of the BWCA sites are located on the rocky outcrops along the

lakes and are highly resistant to many of the harmful effects of use.

TABLE 30

VISITOR REACTION T0 CAMPING.AT.L PLACE'WORN
FROM OVERUSE, BY STMMK'AREA

 

 

 

 

 

Bother a Bother a Enjoy Doesn't

Study 1 lot little it matter
Aron l 1 f f S
BWCA 206 #5.6 43.2 1.5 9.?
Bob marshall 120 59.2 35.0 0.0 5.8
Bridger 1nu. 68.1 30.6 0.0 1.4
High Uintas 15# 6b.3 33.1 0.6 1.9
Total 62” p 58.0 36.2 0.6 5.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 32.86, 9 degrees of freedom, .001 >.p.

Thus, although visitorsstill show a high degree of concern
with camping at such locations (88 per cent would be bothered), evidence
of such conditions is less prevalent than in the west. In the west,
many of the camping locations have been developed on sites where
effects of overuse are easily visible; soil erosion, soil compaction,
and associated damage to the vegetative community are clearly recog-
nisable by users. Sites at higher elevations are particularly

susceptible to such damage and the recovery time for such locations

170

is long. The generally higher level of experience with sites damaged
by overuse, then, may be a partial explanation for the greater concern
expressed by the western visitors than those in the BWCA.

A second factor, closely related to the first, is that damage
to western campsites is often the result of horses. The detrimental
effects of trampling, tethering horses to trees, and horse manure are
great on the physical resources. This is, however, a problem essentially
unique to the western areas, with no comparable situation found in the
BWCA. Again it would appear that past experience with such sites by
‘western visitors tends to evoke a stronger reaction in regard to
overused sites than that recorded fer the BWCA.

Finally, as mentioned before, the western respondents evidence
on the whole a more discerning and purist attitude about wilderness.
Beat up campsites are probably not considered desirable in any context,
but their presence in an environment where evidence of'man is to be
minimal makes them particularly distressing to those persons seeking
pristine and natural surroundings.

The conclusions above regarding effects of horse use were
reinfbrced in an examination of this question by the respondent's
mode of travel. In comparing the response of backpackers and horse-
back riders, the former group expressed a somewhat greater level of

negative reaction to overused campsite than did the horseback riders.1

 

1A difference significant at the . 10 level.

171

This difference is in keeping with earlier remarks concerning the
generally adverse reaction of backpackers to horseback riders and the
visible effects of horseback travel. Horseback riders, on the other
hand, appear to display a slightly more tolerant attitude toward
the adverse effects their stock causes.

Responses of strong purists in all areas closely resembled
those obtained for the western study areas (98 per cent were bothered).

It appears clear then, that the undesirable effects associated
with the overuse of camping locations are perceived largely in a very
negative vein and differences in opinion about those effects are
primarily matters of degree rather than direction. IMuch greater
unanimity is present among users in regard to the perception of this
element of carrying capacity, a reflection of the existence of some
more generally accepted attitudes about the detrimental use of resources

that we see developing today.1

Littering

The remaining dimension of’depreciative behavior to be investi-
gated involved littering. Two aspects were studied; visitor attitudes
toward finding litter in the wilderness and the manner in which
littering compared with another dimension of carrying capacity, level

of use.

 

1Attitudes that are evidenced by growing public involvement in

such areas as pollution control, landscape beautification, inner city
rehabilitation, and a host of other concerns.

172

Persons were asked to indicate their reactions to finding
litter along the trails and at campsites. The reSponse was clearly
and unequivocally negative. Ninety-nine per cent indicated it bothered
them, either a lot or a little. This is probably the maximum reduction
in error possible in this type of survey research, allowing for errors
in coding, misinterpretation of the question, and so forth. iManipulating
the independent variable had no effect; again, differences were only
in terms of degree.

The reaponse to this question was predictable to some extent.
As discussed above, it represents the extension of some more generally
held norms regarding littering in any situation. It does reveal a
very high association betwun user value systems and the institutional
intent embodied within the Wilderness Act.

It can be argued, correctly, that despite wide spread efforts,
littering still occurs, both in our everyday environs as well as in
the wilderness. Our understanding of this element of depreciative
behavior is poor; in the wilderness context, the answer may lie in
the lack of easily enforceable sanctions or there may be more complex

explanations involving the individual' 8 perception of norms and behavior. 1

 

1The answer may also be tied to the phenomenon of "the tyranny
of small decisions." This concept, developed by the economist Kahn,
contends that the misallocation of resources may occur when decisions
regarding these resources are limited in size, scape, and time-perspec-
tive. To apply this to littering, if the President were presented with
a method to effectively halt all littering, he almost certainly would
adopt it. Since littering is the result of countless "small" decisions,
however, the aggregated result tends to operate against optimum societal
benefit. See Alfred E. Kahn, "The Tyranny of Small Decisions: Market
Failures, Imperfections, and the Limits of Economics, " gyklos, XIX (1966),
pp. 23.47. The reasoning is much the same as that outlined by Garrett
Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Cannons," Science, 162 (December, 1968),
pp. 1216—12148.

173

Certainly part of the explanation may lie in situations where people
litter because other refuse is already there.1 If this indeed is the
case, then a highly useful management action would be to invest consider-
able manpower and funds into an intensive clean-up campaign within
present wilderness areas. Currently an emphasis is being placed on
getting the public to adopt a "packsin, packtout" poliqy; that is,
take out all those materials which are noncombustable (aluminum.foil,
tin cans, and so forth) that you packed in originally. The success or
failure of this effort may hinge upon initially reducing litter
accumulations now present in these areas.

A.central contention throughout this study is that carrying
capacity is a function of several different dimensions. is noted
above, littering appears particularly important as a source of user
dissatisfaction. The overwhelming negative reaction to littering was
obtained in a situation where it was judged by itself. To test how
users weighed two elements of'dissatisfaction, reSpondents were asked
the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement,
"Seeing too many people in the wilderness is more disturbing than
finding a littered campsite."

The intense negative reSponse obtained from users reacting to

littering was mitigated to a degree. A full two-thirds, however, folt

 

1Unpublished research at the University of‘Wisconsin and by
the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station suggest
this may be the case.

17#

that a littered campsite represented a more disturbing situation than
meeting too many people. The pattern of reSponses among the study
areas was remarkably similar, further supporting the earlier statements
regarding littering.1

The fact that the statement referred to a "littered campsite"
may have intensified the extent of'disagreement. It has been demon-
strated that the camp location is a particularly important point in
the user's behavioral environment and it may be expected that littering
would represent an especially detrimental feature at this location.

As'was found in the discussion of campsite overuse, strong
purists did not differ from the over-all sample in their level of
disagreement with the above statement. It was discovered, however,
that the moderate purists showed a slightly greater tendency to find a
littered campsite more disturbing than seeing too many people than
either the strong purists or the over-all sample (71 per cent as
compared to 67 per cent for the latter two samples). The statement
presented an especially dissonance-laden situation to the strong purist,
but the fact that the response of this group matched the overaall
samples' further reinforces the concept that certain widely accepted
value systems are probably in existence. It also introduces the

possibility of'a hierarchy of stimuli with ascending degrees of inpact

 

1It is interesting to note this regional uniformity in response,
especially in light of the vague stimuli "too many people." The many
people is open to interpretation ranging from one other person to a
great many other people. Despite this fact, respondents uniformly
and quite emphatically disagreed with the statement.

175

upon user satisfaction. That is to say, the data suggests that the
detrimental effects of depreciative behavior (in this case, littering)
may override those associated with "crowding" or seeing too many
people. Whether or not this occurs with the other dimensions of
carrying capacity is largely conjecture at this point, but efforts
should be directed toward investigating this possibility. The
presence of such a hierarchy has obvious and important implications

in terms of the establishment of management priorities, particularly
during periods of limited financial resources and other administrative

constraints .

Some Concluding Remarks

A major concern in this study was to determine the extent to

 

which a common value system was held over space regarding those
variables deemed critical to the computation of wilderness recreation
carrying capacity. Construction of the purism scale was undertaken to
yield a population for purposes of analysis whose value system toward
wilderness was defined with reference to a cannon unit of measure.
From this , then, attention could be focused on the degree to which the
perceptions and attitudes of the strong purists toward the wilderness
environment were comonJy ascribed to over space;

As has been noted in the preceding discussion, significant
differences exist between the strong purists in the four study areas

on certain variables , whereas on others , the uniformity is extremely

176

high. Analysis of purist scores on the various variables by each study
area with the Kruskal—wallace onesway analysis of variance quantita-
tively supports this conclusion.

Examining the reSponse of the strong purists in the four study
areas more closely, however, provided some insight into this result.
It appears that those items which require the strong purist to evaluate
the wilderness environment in a more abstract sense, or more correctly,
'within a prescriptive-conceptual frame of reference are characterised
by a spatial ascription that is unaffected by different kinds and
levels of recreation use, resource variability, or situational charac-
teristics. For example, the statement "Meeting people around the
campfire at night should be part of'any wilderness trip" calls for
an evaluation as tO‘Whflt should be: and for the strong purists, this
item is uniformly rejected.

many other parts of the questionnaire probed specific aspects
of the wilderness experience, however. To these, strong purists
evidenced a considerable range of reSponse between the four study areas.
The distinguishing characteristic between these items and those discussed
in the above paragraph appears related to certain characteristics unique
to the different areas. As an example, strong purists adopt a much
different attitude toward horses and horse facilities in the Bob Marshall
(where horse use is predominant) than those in the Bridger (where
hiking is the major’method of travelt The fact that many of the strong

purists in the Bob marshall were traveling by horse and tended to

 

1??

perceive their mode of travel as appropriate and in keeping with
‘wilderness is an obvious contribution to this pattern of re3ponse.

Such a finding suggests that the basic concept of wilderness
held by the strong purists is closely associated with institutional
goals and aims. variations in the size, composition, and utilization
of these spatial units, however, appear to promote some fairly distinct
differences in attitude and perception as to the appropriate methods
for attaining these goals.

It seems clear at this point that establishing the carrying
capacity of wilderness is not a simple matter of determining some
level of use, then restricting further increases. Rather, capacity
is a complex function of several distinct parameters of use which vary
in their relevance to capacity determination both regionally and among
users. It is possible, however, to begin to focus upon these para-
meters and to understand their relationship to the sustained production
of a high quality wilderness experience, the product of the resource

discussed herein.

Wilderness Quality

Up to this point, a conscious effort has been made to avoid
the use of the term "high quality'wilderness experience." It is a
highly personal term, subject to widely different interpretations and
its use has probably led to numerous arguments and disagreements

regarding its exact nature. Its use here has certain important

178

qualifications. First, it does not imply that wilderness recreation
represents one end of a quality continuum with, for example, some form
of "Coney Island" recreation at the other end. Secondly, there does
exist a range of quality within the recreational opportunities afforded
by wilderness. Thus, it is possible to have a "low quality wilderness
experience" as well as a "high quality" experience. Finally, quality
is judged within an institutional framework (that presented by the
‘Wilderness Act) and by the perceptions of those individuals defined
herein as strong purists. A wilderness trip which involves few if
any encounters with other parties in a physical environment where
evidence of man's influence is minimal or lacking would possess the
type of properties associated with a "high quality" experience, while
a trip where one not numerous other groups, found litter scattered
about, and encountered other evidence of man's presence would repre-
sent the type of situation we might term a "low quality" trip.

A major purpose then of a capacity policy is to insure mainten-
ance of a "high quality" wilderness experience. In Chapter VII we
shall attempt to deal in more Specific terms with the manner in which
the various parameters of use discussed so far bear on establishing
such a policy. Accepting for the time being, however, the fact that
recreational use of wilderness cannot be allowed to continue to
increase, then we are faced with the need to develop processes for

the allocation of the benefits of the wilderness resource among users.

179

In Chapter V discussion focuses on a variety of techniques to limit,
restrict, or redistribute use as well as management and design inputs
that represent potential techniques to enhance the capability of the

wilderness resource to produce a "high quality" experience.

CHAPTER V

THE MAINTENANCE OF QUALITY: PERCEPTION OF RESTRICTIVE,

REIDIS'HIIBUTIVE, AND MANAGEMENT INPUT MEASURES

The benefits derived from a variety of our natural resources
have frequently been treated as "free" goods. That is, direct costs
to the consumers have either been totally lacking or, more commonly,
distributed over such a large bloc of persons so as to make the cost
to the individual negligible. Air and water are good examples; it
is only recently that we are facing the imposition of severe costs
for the continued supply of these resources at a high level of quality
through increased product costs and taxes for pollution control.

Hardin has written of the "Tragedy of the Commons "1 the tragedy
being the results of individuals acting to maximise their benefits
through the utilisation of essentially fixed resource stocks (commons).
The alternative to the continued unlimited use of the commons (and
eventual destruction) lies in adopting some process of allocating the

benefits of the commons among competing demands.2

 

1Hardin "The Tragedy of the Common," p. 12##.

2Hardin reviews several methods of effecting such an allocation

he refers to as legitimate extensions of authority. For a critical
analysis of Hardin's comments, see Beryl L. Crows, "The Tragedy of the
Commons Revisited," Science, 166 (November, 1969), pp. 1103.1107.

180

181

Hardin's discussion is pertinent to the topic of wilderness
recreation carrying capacity and, in fact, he has discussed this else-
where. 1 In Chapter II it was noted that neither the treatment of
wilderness as "canons" nor the exclusion of use were feasible
wilderness management alternatives. Given the presence of an es sen-
tially fixed store of areas capable of producing the type of experience
associated with wilderness while meeting the preservation objectives
detailed within the Wilderness Act demands that those responsible for
the administration and management of wilderness must, at some time,

evaluate and establish means of rationing use.

Past Investigations of Visitor Attitudes Toward Use Reggtion

Numerous authors have devoted considerable attention to means
of restricting, redistributing, or otherwise mitigating the effects of
recreationists on the wilderness landscape. Wagar identified four
broad measures that managers might adopt, singly or in combination, to
provide high-quality recreation for high rates of use: ( 1) reduction
of conflicts between competing uses; (2) reducing the destructiveness
of people; (3) increasing the durability of areas: and (1+) providing
other opportunities. He avoided, however, the question of directly

Uniting use, concluding that "mounting visitor pressures make this a

distasteful course of action. "2

 

1Hardin, "The Economics of Wilderness."

2Wagar, _T_h_e_ 953m Capacity _o_f Wild Lands :25 Recreation, p. 12.

182

Lucas concluded, however, that while there may exist "some

Malthusian.type of'minimum satisfaction carrying capacity,"1

other
types of control, including direct limitations, would be preferable.
Such controls could be effected through the use of permits, fees, or a
combination of the two. Mere recently, Clawson and Knotsch have noted
that the most serious problem is not whether recreation use should be
limited, but how. They propose a hierarchy of alternative management
options; (1) provision of additional areas; (2) employment of positive
inducements to shift use; and (3) absolute restrictions upon entry.2
The concept of Spatially redistributing use has often been
cited as a potentially fruitful means of alleviating serious physical
and esthetic impacts on recreational sites. As noted in Chapter II,
however, Hendee has concluded that such efforts have largely been
unsuccessful. One reason for this has been the inability to develop
appropriate incentives to induce desired shifts. The use of fees has
been suggested; however, too little is known about the relationship

of cost to recreational behavior. Also, where fees have been used,

their level has been such so as to generally encourage increased use

rather than to encourage redistributing it.3

 

1Lucas, The Recreational Capgcitz 23 _t_h_e Quetico-Supgrior Area,

p. 32e

2Clawsonand Knotsch, Economics of Outdoor Recreation, pp. 177.
178. Their discussion concerns iii phases of resourceAbased outdoor
recreation, but is of particular relevance to the discussion here.

3Darling and Eichhorn point out for example, that creation of
the Land and water Conservation Fund.entrance permit (Golden Eagle Pass-
port) reduced the season rate at most National Parks by more than half,
thus acting as an inducement to entry. See F. Fraser Darling and Noel D.
Eichhorn, Han and Nature in the National Parks (Wishington, D.C.: The
Conservation *Fbundation, I§57 5, p. 30.

183

A variation on the use of fees to encourage spatial shifts in
use has been preposed in a recent methodological investigation of
carrying capacity for the National Park Service. Rather than manipu-
lating costs to encourage or discourage the use of a particular location,
the authors propose the issuance of ration cards , similar to the
rationing cards used for gasoline, meat, and other consumer items
during World War 11.1 Each card would have the same number of points,
but visits to popular and intensively used locations would require the
use of more points than a visit to a less heavily used area. Such a
system would, hopefully, require visitors to establish personal priori-
ties for their pattern of use of an area. By choosing to visit the
less popular areas , an individual would be able to have more total
visits. Assuming that the choice process of recreationists approaches
some degree of rationality, it would thus be able to predict some
shifts in use away from areas of present heavy use to locations
presently experiencing little or no use. This is also assuming that
a shift of use to these lightly used areas is considered a desirable
action. Redistributing use in such a fashion may simply redistribute
the location of the problem rather than eliminate it.

There have been only a limited number of empirical investiga-
tions of user attitudes toward specific regulatory actions. The Wildland

 

1Held, Brickler, and Wilcox, _A_ M to Develo Practical
Techniques :_f_o_r_ Determining t_hg m Camci't'y 2_ Natural Es ,
Pe e

184

Research Center asked respondents the maximum amount they would be
willing to pay for an annual license fee to use wilderness. Although
total revenue increased up to a cost of between $3 and $5 per person,
the imposition of any license cost resulted in a reduction in the number
of users. The authors note the introduction of a $4 fee in California
National Forests would have reduced the number of wilderness recreation
visits to 59 per cent of the actual 1959 total.1 The attitudes of the
visitors toward such fees, however, were not examined and the visitors
expressed willingness to pay is probably not a sufficient surrogate for
their attitudes. Additionally, the over-all effect of fees upon use
in this case was measured for an entire wilderness; the extent to
which use could be shifted from one access to another on the same area
is still unknown. I

Hendee gt a_l_._. analyzed three questionnaire items regarding
rationing of human use, restricting horse use, and charging for use,
respectively. The authors concluded "most wilderness users do not
seem to feel that human use of backcountry areas needs to be restricted
or that the use of pack animals needs to be restricted. "2 About 140 per
cent of the sample favored a moderate charge for use of wilderness-type

areas but one-third opposed the imposition of such charges.

 

1Wildland Research Center, Wilderness Sid. Recreation, p. 251$.

2Hendee, g al., Wilderness Users in the Pacific Northwest, p. 60.

185

Currently then, we have only a little information regarding
user attitudes about various use control measures and for all practical
intents and purposes we have no data on how such measures might actually
influence or modify current use patterns. This gap in information is a
serious omission in light of the fairly broad agreement among wilder-
ness managers and researchers that some form of use control or controls
must be instituted, at least in certain areas, in the not too distant
future. Manipulating use in space and/or in time, with a minimum loss
of user satisfaction, requires a better understanding of both user
attitudes toward the concept of regulation in a wilderness context and
the effects such regulatory measures would have on the spatial behavior

of users.

Visitor Perception of a New

It has been suggested that the need to establish the carrying

 

capacity of wilderness is recognized by most wilderness mergers. Other

investigators of natural resource problems , however, have discovered

that a hiatus often exists between the problem perception of the

professional or technician and that of the resource user.1 An initial

effort was thus made to determine whether visitors perceive there to

be a level of use beyond which controls on further use may be necessary.
Visitors were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed

with the statement "There should be restrictions on how many people can

 

1A condition probably best detailed in Katee , Hazard £5; Choice
Perception in Flood Plain Management, pp. 10’4-13“.

186

be in a wilderness at any given time." ‘A response showing agreement
'with the statement was interpreted to mean the re3pondent considered
there was some level of use which represented "enough," and that when
this level was reached, restrictions should be incorporated.

Over-all, reSponses Split closely between those agreeing and
those disagreeing. Analysis by study area, however (Table 31), revealed
that in the Bob Marshall and the Bridger (where use intensities were
the lowest) approximately half of those sampled fevored instituting
restrictions, while in the BWCA and the High Uintas (where use intensi.
ties were the highest), approximately half of the respondents oppgsed

use controls.

TIBLE 31

RESPONDENT REACTION TO "THERE SHOULD BE RESTRICTIONS ON HOW
MANYPEOPIECAN BEINAWIIDERNESSATANY
GIVEN TIME," BY STUDY AREA

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Strongly .

Study Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

m. N s a a a: s
BWCA 203 18.2 28.6 25.1 22.2 5.9
Bob Marshall 120 9.2 27.5 18.3 38.3 6.7
Bridger 1#3 5.6 16.8 30.8 37.8 9.1
High Uintas 15# 19.5 23.#> 2#.7 29.2 3.2

Total 620 13.9 24,4, 25.0 30.6 6.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 38.#3, 12 degrees of freedom, .001 j> p.

 

 

e
I ’r III
0 C v 0
. . or .In
e
.
O 0 ( C
.
rel. s,.‘. . e.
e
at V f O
b
0 . r e
.
f C 0 F
e
. o . a. In.
a
Q

187

It thus appears that in those areas where currently the
probability of encountering others is low, visitors are more concerned
with maintaining the low level of use through the use of regulations
than those persons in areas where use is already quite high.

It is helpml to examine twa other asPects of this problem,
one a variable which was examined and the other, a culturally related
characteristic of the study region. First, in the BWCA about 60 per
cent of those persons disagreeing with the statement were traveling
by motor propelled craft. These persons tended to show a somewhat
greater negative posture regarding any use control methods than did
the canoeists. This almost certainly reflects the canoeists' greater
concern with the maintenance of the area as a wilderness, and their
consequent willingness to accept control as a means of protecting the
area.

Secondly, a fairly strong negative response to the potential
need of controls was obtained from the High Uintas. The summer field
assistant stationed in the area also reported some sharp and bitter
denunciations of such measures by persons contacted. One explanation
for this is the strong influence of Mormon cultural mores comon to

the Salt Lake City region.1 The responses of such persons would reflect

 

1Much of the area defined by Meinig as the "Manon Cultural
Region" exhibits a strong conservative political philosophy. For some
of the underlying factors behind the coincidence of the religious
region with the political region, see D. W. Meinig, "The Mormon Culture
Region: Strategies and Patterns in the Geography of the American West,
1847-1964,," Annals of the Association 2}: American Geograglers, LV
(June, 1965), pp. 191-220.

188

their more general rejection of government intervention and control.

It also follows earlier findings that fewer of the High Uintas visitors
are strong purists, and thus less likely to perceive the inapprOpriate-
ness of steadily increasing use on the wilderness environment.

The reSponse of strong purists closely matched that obtained
from the over-all sample in each area. In the BWCA and the High Uintas,
about #0 per cent agreed with the concept of restricting use, whereas
over 50 per cent in the Bob marshall and Bridger concurred with it.
Again, this represents a dissonance laden situation for the purist.

The concept of an area when man's will and action is totally outside

the constraints of’our normally more restrictive society is an important
facet of the total wilderness eXperience; so, however, is the continued
preservation of areas that provide solitude and a physical environment
largely unmodified by man. Arriving at a personal resolution of these
mutually exclusive elements is undoubtedly a difficult and frustrating
task for the strong purist.1

To test the extent to which persons would accept higher levels
of use and reject controls on use, respondents were asked to consider
the statement "It would be better to be able to go to the wilderness
whenever you want to, even if it was badly crowded when.you got there,

than to have any kind of regulations on use." Presented with such an

 

1Gamma for the relationship between purist score and reSponse
to the statement was only .20, further emphasizing the ambivalent
attitude held by strong purists towards controls.

189

alternative, over 60 per cent of the visitors disagreed with the state-
ment. As before, however, visitors to the BWCA and the High Uintas
demonstrated a greater rejection of any controls on use, even to the
point where use conditions were such so as to greatly affect the kind
of experience normally associated with wilderness.

An especially interesting pattern of reaponse was fbund in the
BWCA. Table 32 examines responses by mode of travel. As can be seen,
paddling canoeists evidenced a clear and definite rejection of the
statement, while those traveling in motor propelled craft tended to
accept the statement. It seems reasonable here to conclude that the
paddling canoeists perceive that the institution of use controls will
affect the motor propelled craft rather than themselves. Shifting the
perceived impact on use controls from themselves to the motor canoeists
and boaters is more than simple rationalization; periodic discussions
and efforts to eliminate or further restrict motor craft lend justifi-
cation to this interpretation. These efforts also probably eXplain
in part the position taken by the motor craft users on the statement.

The data in Thble 32 also provide further insight into the
perception of'wilderness by those traveling by the different modes of
travel. The paddling canoeists consistently tend to adopt an attitudi-
nal stance that reflects a greater concern for the maintenance of the
wilderness environment and for opportunities for solitude. The motor
canoeists and motor boaters, however, are less wilderness oriented
and more inclined to react favorably to statements promoting activities,
social interaction, and a generally less purist attitude.

190

TABLE 32

EXPRESSED LEVEL OF.AGREEMENT'WITH.ACCEPTING CROWDING RATHER
THAN USE CONTROLS, BY BWCA MODE OF TRAVEL

 

 

 

 

 

1 Strongly Strongly
”Ode Of 1 Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
Travel N i f ¢ % fl
Paddling Canoe 119 3#.5 38.7 8.# 14.3 “.2
Motor Canoe 22 9.1 18.2 22.7 27.3 22.7
Motor Boat 60 5.0 35.0 20.0 25.0 15.0
Total 201 22.9 35.3 13.# 18.9 9.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 228.82, 8 degrees of freedom, .001 > p.

There was some variation in the pattern of responses obtained
from the strong purists in each area. In each area, however, the
response of strong purists showed a greater preference for use controls
than found for the general sample in that area. In the Bob Marshall
and the Bridger, 75 Per cent rejected the statement. The strongest
rejection, however, surprisingly came in the BWCA, where 81 per cent
of the strong purists opposed the statement. Following earlier dis-
cussions, only about two-thirds of the strong purists in the High Uintas
similarly responded. Notwithstanding these variations, however, it
seems clear that strong purists are by and large cognizant of a carrying
capacity for wilderness. This fact was further substantiated in response
to the statement "If a wilderness area becomes overcrowded, restrictions

on the number of people allowed to visit it should be enforced. "

wa-

191

Approximately 80 per cent of the strong purists in each study area
agreed with this statement, compared to 70 per cent of the moderate
purists, and about 72 per cent of the over-all sample.

The recognition of some carrying capacity for wilderness on
the part of visitors implies they also recognize the need to maintain

use within certain limits.1

Thus, the next stage in this study
involved an examination of user attitudes about specific methods of

regulating, redistributing, or otherwise controlling use.

The Perception of Use Regulation

A wide variety of techniques and measures exist which would
aid wilderness managers in their efforts to keep wilderness use in
line with carrying capacity. Broadly speaking, these measures can be
broken into two main groups: (1) those which enable the managing
agenqy to specifically control use (for example, permits of various
types and foes); and (2) those which act to reduce use by placing
greater demands upon the potential user (for example, manipulating
access or the interior infrastructure of wilderness). These measures
are not mutually exclusive and almost certainly, future decisions to

control use will involve varying combinations of the two. In essence,

 

1Additional evidence of this recognition is to be found in the
recent announcement by the Sierra Club of plans to examine the effects
of club trips on the natural environment, particularly in the Sierra
Nevada. Also, the esthetic and psychological effects of large organized
groups on other wilderness users are to be examined. See "Wilderness
Use Study," Sierra Club Bulletin, 55 (January, 1970), p. 10.

192

however, they do represent different points along a continuum.ranging
from absolutely no control to one where persons are admitted almost

on a turnstile basis.

Specific Control Measures

As discussed at the outset of this chapter, several studies
and articles on wilderness have suggested the use of such measures as
permits and fees as means of controlling future increases in use.
Re5pondents in this study were presented with a question which posed
five different control systems and asked that if use of a wilderness
were heavy and controls on use were being considered, how would they
feel about each of the measures suggested in that question (see
question 15, Appendix B). Table 3# presents the over-all re5ponse to
each measure.

As can be seen, no control measure is favored by a majority of
users. Important differences do exist, however, between the overeall
responses to the individual.measures, the responses obtained from each
of the study areas, and the pattern of response obtained from the
strong purists.

Assigning itineraries as to where people can travel and camp
(Option 4, Table 33) was rejected strongly. The ability to directly
regulate and manipulate the Spatial behavior of visitors mey have some
appeal to wilderness managers; its regimenting nature and its virtual

elimination of the individual's freedom.to recapture the Spirit of

193

Spontaneous and unplanned travel makes it highly unpalatable to the

11801“.

wilderness is to provide.

TABLE 33

OVERALL VISITOR REACTION TO USE CONTROL MEASURES

In many ways, it is the antithesis to the sort of eXperience

 

 

Control Measure

Percentage of Total

 

 

Strongly ' Strongly
Favor Favor Neutral Oppose Oppose

1. Issue limited number of ;

permits on a first come, 1

first served basis. 7.7 20.3 18.0 28.8 25.3
2. Issue limited number of

permits on a lottery

basis. 4.4 14.1 19.5 32.7 29.2
3. Issue limited number of

permits through a mail

reservation.system. 15.4 28.2 17.7 19.1 19.6
4. Issue permits that

assign where peeple

can visit and camp. 2.1 6.3 11.4 34.6 45.5
5. Charge an entrance fee. 5.9 16.8 20.0 22.3 35.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additionally, whereas approximately 20 per cent of the visitors

were neutral in their reaction to the other control.measures (and thus

potentially receptive), respondents were quite emphatic in their

feelings about this particular method.

194

In the Bob Marshall, 27 per cent of the visitors indicated
either a favorable or neutral re5ponse to permits assigning routes of
travel. This was the highest rate of acceptance favored for this
particular measure. It appears to be a function of the large preportion
of outfitted trips; about 45 per cent of the visitors reported they
were traveling with an outfitter. Persons traveling with an outfitter
generally are in essence following an itinerary submitted by the out-
fitter to the Forest Service for approval. Thus the form.of control
does not seem as unpalatable and restrictive to such persons as those
who are traveling by themselves or in small groups and‘whose itineraries
are their own prerogative.

An interesting difference in visitor acceptance of a first-come,
first-served system and a mail reservation system was found. These two
systems differ basically only in terms of convenience to the potential
user. The former system requires that an individual go to some location
to obtain his permit, the latter system.permits him to use the mail.
Both involve a limited number of’permits, however. This basic differ.
once was a sufficient factor, nonetheless, to affect response.

Over-all, the mail reservation system was considered to be the
most acceptable method of controlling use; six out of ten visitors
were in favor of it or neutral. The first-come, first-served system
ranked second; 46 per cent of the sample responded favorably or
neutrally. The greater acceptance of a mail reservation system seems

linked to the relationship between the place of residence of the

195

visitors and the study area where sampled. As an example, 52 per
cent of the visitors to the Bridger favored a mail reservation system
and only 29 per cent supported the first-come, first-served system.
In the Bob Marshall, the relative ranking of these two methods was
the same, but there was 1655 support fer the mail reservation system
(41 per cent) and greater support for the first-come, first.served
technique (35 per cent). The Bob Marshall serves a fairly large
local population, however, whereas the Bridger use population is
largely a non—local one. It seems reasonable that local residents
would tend to be more favorable to a system which required that an
individual report personally to obtain a permit than one where his
geographical advantage was offset by having to apply through the mail.

A feurth method examined was the lottery. Most sportsmen are
familiar with such a system; many big-game seasons rely upon such a
technique for allocating hunting permits. Additionally, it eliminates
many of the advantages and disadvantages associated with an individual's
location relative to the particular wilderness he desires to visit. It
is, as Hardin notes, "eminently ”Fair.”1

Over-all visitor acceptance of a lottery, however, was remarkably
low, only 18 per cent considered it favorable. The over—all figure

was depressed by the eSpecially low level of acceptance recorded in

 

1Hardin, "The Economics of'Wilderness," p. 23.

196

the BWCA; only nine per cent supported a lottery. Considering the three
western areas as a whole, 23 per cent were favorably disPosed to such a
system.

This pattern of reaponse follows a more general pattern found
throughout this portion of the study. BWCA visitors tend to reject
control measures more frequently than do their western counterparts.
Presently, a free use permit is required for all visitors to the BWCA.
Such permits are not restrictive in any sense; an unlimited number are
available and their primary use is to provide accurate use estimates.
It may very well be, however, that the inconvenience associated with
stopping at a store to pick up a permit and the idea among users that
these permits are an infringement upon their right to use the area is
reflected in their more general rejection of any type of use control.

An additional factor that helps explain the over-all low level
of acceptance is that persons may not be willing to leave the opportunity
for visiting wilderness up to chance; with the other forms of control,
the individual retains some degree of control over the outcome. He
can "get in line" early to get his permit or he can make sure his mail
application has an early postmark. In a lottery, these opportunities
are lost.

The visitor population in the BWCA is probably less well
acquainted with a lottery system as a means of allocating recreational
Opportunities than those persons visiting the western study areas.

Nearly all western states utilise the lottery in one or more of their

197

hunting seasons; at present, none of the upper mid-west states does
so.

The last use control measure examined involved the imposition
of an entrance fee. No effort was made to assess what differences in
use would occur at different prices; rather, we were concerned simply
with user attitudes about the concept of charging for what has tradi-
tionally been a free good.

As Table 33 shows, the concept of a fee met with only limited
acceptance; about one out of five persons favored such a method of
control. There was a direct relationship between the acceptance of a
fee and the percentage of each study area's sample with an income of
$10,000 or greater. It would thus appear that the acceptance of a
fee is positively related to a higher income. It is likely, however,
that other perhaps more salient factors are in operation. The Bridger
and Bob Marshall visitors consistently show greater acceptance of all
control measures while the BWCA and the High Uintas tend to be less
favorably inclined to any control measure.

The responses given by the strong purists in each study area
regarding these control measures tended to follow the same direction
of the general sample , but generally diaplayed a more emphatic posture.
There were some sharp differences between these respondents in the
different study areas , however.

Strong purists in the High Uintas were significantly more

inclined to accept a first-come, first-served permit system than those

198

in other areas. Situated only fifty miles from Salt Lake City, the
area is probably considered by many visitors , including the strong
purists, as a piece of "personal property" and a use regulation system
that compliments their proximal location is perceived as a more do.
sirable method of controlling use than systems which would ameliorate
their geographical advantage.

Nearly one-third of the strong purists in the Bob Marshall
(32.3 per cent) and one-quarter of those in the Bridger (27.7 per cent)
favored a lottery system. This response may reflect a particularly
strong level of commitment to wilderness preservation. In discussions
with wilderness visitors the author has been surprised with the number
of persons who indicate they would be willing to have a chance to go
to the wilderness once every five years if it meant they would be
guaranteed a high quality visit. The high level of acceptance of a
lottery in the Bob Marshall and the Bridger may be underlain by such
reasoning.

As was found for the over-all sample, strong purists in all
areas tended to support the mail reservation system the most strongly.
Similarly, they strongly rejected the concept of assigning where people
can visit and camp. This suggests that the quality of spontaneity and
freedom of choice is a very important element of the wilderness trip
and its importance is not diminished appreciably by a person's general

attitude about wilderness .

199

Strong purists had mixed feelings about charging a fee for the
privilege of using wilderness. Although about 45 per cent of this
group opposed the imposition of a fee in all the study areas, the
percentage favoring it varied from 23 per cent in the BWCA to 53 Per
cent in the Bridger. The pattern of acceptance was identical to the
pattern presented in Table 33 and the reasons presented in discussion
of that table are appropriate here as well.

In review, then, the strong purists consistently adopt a some-
what more positive attitude toward the concept of use regulation. This
is a particularly relevant factor for wilderness managers to consider.
It suggests these individuals are cognizant of preservation objectives
embodied within the Wilderness Act and are willing to modify their own
personal desires for unlimited access in exchange for a management
program that insures preservation of the wilderness environment. The
method by which this limitation is to be effected may be difficult to
arrive at; the decision as to whether it should or should not be

undertaken seems answered.

"Indirect" Use Controls

The controls discussed to this point involve specific and direct
impacts upon the user. It may be possible, however, to reduce the
total level of use by placing greater demands upon the user, such as

requiring greater skills , or more physical stamina.1 No potential

 

1Ibicl. Hardin argues that the best system of user allocation
is one which involves admitting persons to wilderness based upon merit.

200

measures along these lines were investigated: (1) reducing the number
of trails and signs (within the area) so that only those persons
willing to make the effert could visit the area; and (2) blocking off
the last few miles of the access roads so the trail to the wilderness

would be longer.

Modification of‘Wilderness "Infrastructure"

A management decision to reduce or eliminate trail maintenance
work and to eliminate signs, bridges, and other facilities intended for
the visitor's benefit in essence may be considered a functional
restriction. No direct restriction is placed on.who or how many may
enter. The success of this measure is related to the preposition that
some percentage of the total use would be lost if users faced more
primitive conditions of travel and where personal safety became a more
important consideration. Success is also contingent upon the user's
being aware of the interior conditions, a condition not explored in
this study.

USer reaction to this type of control tended to be distinctly
more favorable than to direct restrictions on use. As Table 34 shows,
about half of the visitors to all the study areas were either favorably
inclined to such a management action, or indicated a neutral disposition
towards such a measure. As suggested before, neutral responses are
particularly significant to persons charged with wilderness management

reSponsibilities, since such answers indicate a population whose

201

attitudes have as not yet crystallized and who are probably still

receptive to lines of reasoning supporting or rejecting the action in

 

 

 

 

 

question.
TABLE 34
VISITOR REACTION TO REDUCING NUMBER OF
SIGNS AND TRAILS, BY STUD! AREA
Study Strongly 1 Strongly
Favor Favor Neutral Oppose Oppose

‘1’“ 3 as x a a: s
BWCA 205 23.9 22.9 15.6 20.5 17.1
Bob Marshall 114 20.5 18.4 19.3 39.5 12.3
Bridger 143 23.8 23.8 21.0 21.7 9.8
High Uintas 153 13.7 20.9 19.0 30.1 16.3

Tetal 615 18.9 21.8 18.4 26.7 14.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 29.69, 12 degrees of freedom, .01 > p >.001.

Visitors to the Bob Marshall and the High Uintas showed the
least favorable re8ponse. This appears tied to the larger percentage
of’horseback riders in these two areas. Tb these groups, the presence
of trails is more necessary than for those traveling on feet. Addi-
tionally, the elimination of trails would, in essence, close off
certain areas to horses (for example, areas across which a talus slope
must be crossed) and would greatly increase the possibility of injury
to the horses. Examining this management alternative by mode of travel
substantiated these notions; only about 25 per cent of those traveling

by horseback felt this to be a favorable alternative.

202

The wording to this statement on the BWCA form was changed
slightly to read "Leave portages rough so that only those persons
‘willing to make the effort could visit the area." Surprisingly,
persons traveling with motor propelled craft tended to favor such an
action to the same degree as paddling canoeists. It had been hypothe-
sized that on the basis of'the generally lower prepensity to favor any
form of use controls, those traveling by motor would reject this more
subtle technique. Additionally, these craft, particularly the motor
boats, can be rather difficult to transport across a portage.

It is difficult to accurately assess the significance of this
finding. Several potential explanations could be developed. It may
be that the more favorable response is a result of the feeling that,
as an alternative, leaving the portages rough is better than issuing
permits. On the other hand, it may reflect a sincere belief that
portages represent an obstacle which the boaters accept as a challenge.
Or, with the availability of’portage wheels, boaters may feel that
leaving the portages rough would not represent a serious problem.

With the exception of strong purists in the Heb marshall,
this group showed a markedly higher level of favor towards reducing
the number of trails and signs than feund fer the general sample. In
the Bob Marshall, only 41 per cent favored this action whereas 55 per
cent in each of the other areas responded this way. .As has been
discussed elsewhere, the large percentage of horseback riders among the
strong purists in the Montana wilderness area certainly influenced this

pattern of response.

203

The basically receptive attitude of strong purists toward this
form of use control was to a great extent, predictable. It permits
such persons to avoid expressing favor for additional restrictions ,
but would tend to contribute toward the alleviation of a problem these
persons perceive as a serious one; that of overuse. At the same time,
it promotes a management direction probably in close coincidence with
the strong purists own concept of an area where facilities are minimal
and where opportunities for cross-country wandering are enhanced.
Gamma was . 23, indicating a moderately strong relationship between

purist score and acceptance of the alternative.

Manipulation of Access

A final method of restricting use involved making the wilderness
spatially more remote by administratively extending the length of the
entry trip. Visitors were asked their attitudes about blocking off the
access road at some point so that the trip to the wilderness boundary

....

was longer. In the BWCA, this would also entail aninnnediate portage.
\1. ~~~~ .7 ”shame:

\ ...
.4
t__»-
...—___.-.-——-- —"

Again by considering the favorable and neutr responses
together, we found about 60 per cent of the western visitors accepted
the concept. In the BWCA, however, less than four out of ten similarly
responded. Motor boaters in particular objected to such an action;
only 6 per cent favored the measure and only 11+ per cent were neutral.
Their reSponse is almost certainly related to the need of portaging

their boats and equipment under such a management policy, although their
reSponse is difficult to reconcile in light of the information obtained
in Table 34.

204

In the western study areas, backpackers tended to be more
favorably inclined toward such an action (37 per cent) than were horse-
back riders (25 per cent), desPite the fact that the bikers would be
facing some additional miles they would have to walk. Combining the
neutral reSponses to the statement by these two groups erased the
difference, however; about 60 per cent of each were favorable or
neutral.

As is true with much of our present data about wilderness
users, the underlying rationale for the responses obtained from the
bikers and horsemen is not clear, but various explanations come to
mind. The itinerary of horseback parties is more closely tied to
campsite locations than is that of backpackers; there must be sufficient
room.to put out horses and there needs to be adequate forage. Blocking
off the access road may mean a longer first day's ride to reach an
adequate camping area for the horseback rider, whereas the hiker is
much more free to camp somewhere along the way.

The effects upon esthetics of such an action may also differ
between these two groups. Backpackers would still have considerable
freedom to travel offethe-road to the original wilderness entry point
fissuming no new trail is developed from.the point where the access
road is blocked). Horse parties, however, would generally be more
restricted to following the old access road to the wilderness, especially
in areas where extensive brush and shrubbery is adjacent to the road.

A trip of perhaps 5 miles along a paved or gravel road on horseback is

205

generally not the type of esthetic experience a person going on a

wilderness trip is seeking!

mega

Separating incompatible uses in the wilderness has been cited
in various other works as a method for providing users with an Optimum
level of satisfaction.1 As was suggested in Chapter IV, it appears
that zoning in the western study areas may have only limited value in
terms of trying to enhance user esthetics. There may be, however,
important ecological reasons for zoning: areas of particularly fragile
soils may be zoned against horse use for example. In the BWCA, on the
other hand, zoning areas to exclude motor boat use seems imperative if
there is legitimate management concern with providing a high quality
wilderness experience fcr canoeists.2

User attitudes toward the concept of zoning divided clearly
along the line of study region. As Table 35 indicates, six out of ten

BWCA visitors agreed with the concept of providing areas for the

 

1For discussions on the use of zoning in wilderness, see Wild—
land Research Center, Wilderness and R________ecreation, p. 303 and Lucas, _T_h__e
Recreational Camcitz_ of th__e_ Quetico-Superior___ Area, pp. 28-31.

 

 

Chapter 1+ in Arthur H. Carhart, Plann anni_x_15_ for America's Wildlands
(Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: The Te egraph— Press, 1%}. 5, pp. 21-23 is
also useful.

ZLucas wrote, "If the goal of maintenance by the Federal Govern-
ment of one place in the United States for wilderness canoe travel is
taken seriously, this boat use (motor craft) seems undesirable since
motor boating is incompatible with wilderness canoeing, " _Thg Recrea-
tional Camcity of 3.113 Quetico-Sumrior Area, p. 29.

206

exclusive use of paddling canoeists and motor craft; in the western

areas, only 25 per cent supported a similar concept of separating modes

 

 

 

 

 

of travel.
TABLE 35
VISITOR AGREEMENT WITH ZONING ON BASIS
OF MODE OF TRAVEL, BY STUDY AREA
Study Strongly 3‘ Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

‘1‘“ 1' a: as 1 ¢ 5
BWCA 203 12.8 13.8 12.8 31.5 29.1
Bob Marshall 120 20.0 42.5 23.3 12.5 1.7
Bridger 144 19.4 30.6 14.6 22.2 13.2
High Uintas 154 21.4 35.7 18.2 18.2 6.5

Total 621 17.9 28. 7 16.6 22.4 14.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 101.02, 12 degrees of freedom, .001 > p.

The pattern of reaponse obtained appears a reflection of current
administrative practices. As was mentioned in Chapter IV, the Forest
Service currently has in effect policies which exclude motor propelled
craft from a portion of the BJCA.1 Handout recreation maps and pam-
phlets have this information on them and probably most visitors are
aware of these zones. There is in the west, however, no comparable

form of land administration. Unfamiliarity with the technique probably

contributes to the strong negative reactions toward it.

 

1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Management

Handbook, Bouniafl Waters Canoe Area, 1969. (Mimeographed.)

 

207

Mode of travel, as might be expected from some of the earlier
findings, was a powerful influence. Nearly three-fourths of the
paddling canoeists (74 per cent) favored zoning areas against motor
craft,'whereas those using motor canoes or motor'boats tended to be
negative or neutral to the concept. In the west, backpackers were
more favorable to the idea than horsemen (35 per cent and 10 per cent,
reSpectively), reconfirming the earlier statement that backpackers
tend to react more negatively towards horse parties than the reciprocal
relationship. Certainly many of the backpackers see zoning as a means
of alleviating trail dust, manure, and other relicts of horse travel
they now contend with.

Strong purists closely followed the general sample in their
reSponse. In the BWCA, nearly eight out of ten (78.6 per cent) favored
providing areas exclusively for the use of paddling canoeists. Such
an attitude clearly reflects the concern of this group for the provision
of areas that more nearly coincides with their perception of wilderness
than the present legislatively defined Boundary'Whters Canoe Area does.

In the western study areas, however, strong purists were
basically disinclined to accept zoning. About 55 per cent of this
group in each area disagreed with the statement. About one-quarter,
however, favor zoning and it seems again that the somewhat ambivalent
stance this group takes reflects their concern for the protection of
the resource on the one hand and their rejection of authoritarian

sanctions and controls on the other.

208

Party Size Limitations

ENidence presented in Chapter IV suggested that the large
parties have an extraordinary effect on both the esthetics of the
experience for those they encounter as well as on the physical re-
source. Although these groups account for only a small percentage of
the total use of wilderness, their effects are disproportional to their
size.1 One effective means of reducing these effects is to limit the
size of the party to some level that minimizes detrimental esthetic
and physical side effects.

In reSponse to the question "Do you feel there should be a
limit to the size of'parties visiting the BWCA," visitors Split almost
evenly, with 49 per cent opposing such controls and 51 per cent
favorably or neutrally disposed to such an action. Nearly 62 per
cent of the paddling canoeists, however, supported such an action;

64 per cent of those traveling with motor craft opposed a party size
limit. This again follows certain findings, both in this study and
those published elsewhere, that the paddling canoeists are more
concerned with solitude and tend to support management actions that
insure this quality.

Generally, western wilderness users showed a somewhat greater
receptivity to the idea of a party size limit. Visitors in these

areas were asked to Specify whether they preferred a limit on all

 

11m this study parties of 15 people or more comprised only 6
per cent of the sample.

209

parties, horse parties only, or backpackers only. As Table 36 shows,

70 per cent of the Bridger users favored a party size limit, with
nearly two-thirds of these persons favoring a limit on all parties.
Support for a restriction on the size of horse parties was significantly
greater in the Bridger than in the Bob marshall or High Uintas, re-
flecting the larger number of'persons traveling by stock in these

latter two areas. Between 40 and 45 per cent of the users in these

two areas do support a party size limit, however.

TABLE36

WESTERN RESPONDENT.ATTITUDES TOWARD
‘A PARTY SIZE LIMIT

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage Favoring a
Study Party Size Limit for No Limit
N O J for on No
Area Every H Only for Party Size Opinion
orseback Bac ckers
one Parties kpa
Bob Marshall 120 34.2 10.8 0.0 35.8 19.2
Bridger 144 41.7 28.5 0.0 20.1 9.7
High Uintas 154 23.4 16.9 0.6 46.1 13.0
Total 418 32.8 19.1 0.2 34.2 13.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note the virtual rejection of controls on party size for back-

packing parties only. There are few backpacking parties that have

more than four or five people in them. The response (or lack of it)

’reflects an accurate perception on the part of visitors that such a

210

restriction would do little to alleviate problems of overuse. Only
about one out of five Specifically favored a restriction on the size of
horse parties; it appears likely, however, that many of those who
favored restrictions for everyone were motivated principally by their

concern about the large horse parties.

Preferences for Party¥Size Limits

While at present there are no administrative or legislative
regulations concerning maximum party size, certain private organiza-
tions have initiated such controls. The American Forestry Association,
for example, sponsors a number of wilderness trail rides each summer:
the number of guests on each of these trips is limited to between
twenty and twenty-five. The Wilderness Society summer horse trips,
on the other hand, are limited to eighteen guests.

Extending the number of’peOple permitted per party to twenty-
five was the maximum limit for 92 per cent of the over-all sample;
in the Bob marshall, 100 per cent of those sampled felt parties should
have no more than twenty-five persons.

The primary group which a party size limit will affect is the
horse party; backpacking groups tend to be small, averaging three to
four persons. Thus the responses backpackers give to a proposed
party size limit probably are based in large part on their perceived
effect in controlling the size of horse parties. The perceived impact

of control is shifted, and in this case, probably correctly, from

211

themselves to the horse parties. Analyzing the reSponse of these two
groups supports this idea; backpackers show a significantly greater
level of support for a fairly restrictive size limit (twelve people)

than do horsemen (see Table 37).

TABLE 37

BACKPACICER AND HORSEBACK RIDER RESPONSES TO
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PERSONS PER PARTY

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage Favoring Maximum
11°C“ Party Size of :
of N
Travel 1-2 3.6 7-12 13.25 26-50 51 >
Backpacker 139 2.2 17.3 43.2 30.2 4.3 2.9
Horseback 65 0.0 3.1 52.3 41.5 1.5 1.5
Total 204 1.5 12.7 46.1 33.8 3.4 2.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 12.20, 5 degrees of freedom, .05 > p >.02.

Strong purists in all study areas tended to support the twelve
person limit slightly more than the over-all sample, 63 per cent as
Opposed to 59 Per cent, whereas moderate purists were slightly less so
inclined (57 per cent). I

Table 37 presents a paradoxical situation. Up to this point
in the discussion, we have seen strong support for solitude, solid
rejection of large parties; and a cognizance on the part of users of

the detrimental ecological effects of too may people. Deepite this ,

212

however, we still find four out of ten supporting the idea that the
maximum number of peOple per party should be at least thirteen peOple.
What this may suggest is that although users are concerned with the
general problem of overuse, there is a tendency to attempt to minimize
the effects on the individual of any control measure. An individual
may support the normative concept of a party size limit, but the
specific level of that limit is set at a point where he feels it will

not directly affect him.

An Acceptable Number of Horses

Visitors in the three western study areas were asked to also
indicate the maximum number of horses that should be permitted in one
party.

Almost three out of four backpackers (73 per cent) felt parties
should have no more than 12 head of stock in them. Among horseback
riders, however, almost 60 per cent responded that the minimum number
of horses permitted should be 12 and nearly 15 per cent felt 25 animals
should be the minimum. 1

The percentages were closely associated with the reSponses
obtained from the Bob Marshall and the Bridger (see Table 38). In the
Bob Marshall, where horseback travel predominates , there is strong

support for a more liberal maximum number of horses per party whereas

 

1The difference between backpackers and horseback riders
regarding maximum number of horses per party was significant at the
e001 levele

213

in the Bridger nearly 75 per cent of the visitors feel that horse
parties should be limited to a dozen stock animals. Interestingly
enough in the High Uintas, where horse and foot travel is evenly
divided, visitors tend to be slightly more in support of the twelve
animal limit than those in the Bridger. IMany of the horse parties in
the High Uintas are made up of family groups and friends, with few
fully outfitted trips (6 per cent of this sample). In the Bob
Marshall, 44 per cent of those sampled were traveling with a commercial
outfitter. These groups tend to be large and it appears that persons
traveling with such groups probably support a stock limit in keeping
with their own party. Note also that nearly one out of five Bob
marshall visitors supported a maximum size limit of fifty head of
stock. This is particularly interesting in that nearly all large

horse parties have at least fifty head of stock with them.

TABLE38

IMAXIMUM NUMBER OF STOCK ANIMALS PER PARTY,
BY WESTERN STUDY AREA

 

 

Percentage Favoring Maximum
Study Number of Stock at:
Area N

 

1-2 3.6 7.112 13.25 26-50 51 :-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bob Marshall 53 0.0 5.7 26.4 49.1 18.9 0.0
Bridger - 99 9.1 23.2 u1.u 20.2 9.0 2.0
High Uintas 59 10.2 27.1 37.3 20.3 0.0 5.1

Total 211 7.1 19.9 4 36.5 27.5 6.6 2.4

 

Chi square 46.72, 10 degrees of freedom, .001 '> p.

214

Proposed policy in Region One will limit the number of horses
in any one party to fifty, a fact which will apparently alter the
character of'many of these parties, but an action which appears to
have sound and broad user support.

A substantially greater percentage of strong purists in the
Bridger and the High Uintas were in favor of the twelve animal maxi-
mum than those in the Bob Marshall (74 and 82 per cent, reSpectively,
compared with 31 per cent). It is useful at this point to reiterate
that individual use characteristics unique to a particular area tend
to modify even the attitudes of the strong purists. The notion that
the purists are characterized by areal homogeneity in terms of their
management preferences seems definitely incorrect and this should be
taken into account in efforts by wilderness managers to incorporate

user opinion into poliqy formulation.

Future Controls: Necessary or Not?

The perception of resource problems and of areas of concern
differs between those charged with administrative resPonsibilities
and those who utilize the resources as individuals. Lucas1 has docu-
mented this in the case of wilderness and Hates has demonstrated it

in regard to water resources.2

 

1Lucas, "Wilderness Perception and Use," pp. 399-402.

2K'ates, Hazard.ggd Choice Perception in Flood Plain Management,

PP. [+5-103-

 

 

215

‘With this in mind, it seems appropriate to question whether or
not the need for use controls (of some form) is the result of the
peculiar perception of the resource managers, that of the users, or
both. Much of the contact managers have with users, unfortunately,
occurs in the context of a problem; the user has some complaint, he
has been charged with the violation of some regulation, etc. The
resultant selective perception.may result in a portrait of the average
wilderness user by managers that is substantially different from the
actual one. The manager interpretation of these contacts, nonetheless,
may include among other things the perceived need for some type of use
control.

On the other hand, there seems to be sufficient data, both
in this study and elsewhere, to suggest that users are cognizant of
a growing use problem in wilderness and sufficiently concerned to
support some form of control.

To provide an additional look at this question, visitors were
asked their feelings about allowing use to continue to increase, with
no consideration whatsoever of any controls.

A.most interesting pattern of re5ponse was obtained. As
Table 39 indicates, there were sharp differences between the study
areas, particularly the Bridger. There, nearly eight out of every ten
persons sampled felt use could not be allowed to continue to increase

unrestricted.

216

TABLE 39

VISITOR REACTION TO ALLOWING USE TO CONTINUE TO
INCREASE WITHOUT CONTROLS, BY STUDY AREA

 

 

 

 

St d Strongly Strongly
25:3 N Favor Favor Neutral Oppose Oppose
fl 1% 73 f 1
cha 202 10.0 12.4 23.3 29.7 24.3
Bob Marshall 118 7.6 16.9 18.6 26.3 30.5
Bridger 141 2.8 6.4 13.5 41.1 36.2
High Uintas 150 13.3 12.0 28.7 30.0 16.0
Total 611 8.8 11.8 21.4 31.8 26.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 42.60, 12 degrees of freedom, .001 > p.

The pr0pensity to recognize the need for use controls again
seems closely linked to the percentage of each study area's sample
classified as strong purists (see Table 8). The general antipathy
previously found in the BWCA and the High Uintas is again shown. A
quarter of those sampled in the Bob Marshall also expressed favor for
letting use continue to increase. It is apparent that a substantial
number of persons using this particular wilderness do not feel there
is sufficient use pressure to warrant the consideration of use control.
As Table 6 indicated, use intensity in the Bob Marshall is the least
of all the study areas (14.3 acres per visitor day). Current use
pressures give little evidence to visitors for the potential need of
use controls; it is possible, however, that those persons who did
consider use too heavy in the area have already ceased visiting it and

turned to other areas for their wilderness experience (e.g., Canada).

217

The more sophisticated and demanding visitors, the strong
purists, uniformly and emphatically reject the notion that use he
allowed to continue unabated. Their perception of a need to regulate
use further documents their great concern for the protection of‘wilder-
ness; only about one out of ten favored letting use continue to increase.
Moderate purists were about twice as likely to favor use continuing in
the absence of any controls. Gamma between the purist score and this
management alternative was .36.

Current Forest Service policy provides authority for the
Regional Forester to:

limit the number of visitors using a specific Wilder-

ness when a wilderness resource is threatened or damaged
by excessive numbers of peoPle.

The implementation, however, of restrictions on visitor num-
bers is viewed as a last-resort management effort that should be
preceded by a full consideration of other potential means of off;
setting the detrimental effects of'man's use of the wilderness. In
Chapter II, it was suggested that the construction of a definition of
the carrying capacity of wilderness was based on several propositions.
Among these was the consideration that capacity could be increased
not only by inputs of land, but by other forms of‘management investments.

The Wilderness Act provides some rather restrictive constraints

on measures that might be included under "other forms of'management

 

1U.S. Department oangriculture, Forest Service, Forest Service
Manual, Title 2300-Recreation Management, Section 2323. 12c, May, 1969.

218

investments." Man's works are clearly intended to the minimal, the
natural processes are to dominate. At the same time, there are "grey
areas" in the legislation; certain types of'deveIOpment may tend to
ameliorate the potentially more noticeable affects of'man. Also
included under this particular asPect would be the development of
measures to reallocate or redistribute use. Present knowledge of
recreational use patterns within wildernesses is scanty, but use is
almost certainly highly concentrated in most wilderness areas in only
a few locations. Obtaining a more even Spatial distribution of use
may make it possible for'wilderness administrators to avoid the need

of actually restricting use for some time, at least in.many areas.

Visitor Attitudes Toward Managerial Inputs and
Their Relation to Carrying_§§p§gigz

ReSpondents were presented with ten items (Appendix B, question
24) that dealt with various management decisions that could be made
regarding wilderness. Each of the items noted, if implemented, would
have one or more of the following results: (1) greater protection of
the physical resources; (2) a better distribution of recreational use;
(3) a better understanding of the wilderness resource; and (4) greater
visitor safety and convenience. Table 40 presents the percentages of
visitors to each study area favoring the individual items in addition
to the reSponses of those individuals classified as strong purists.
These users are identified Specifically because of the particular

relevance of their attitudes to wilderness policy decision-making.

219

TABLE 40

EAVORABLE VISITOR RESPONSE TO MANAGERIAL
INPUTS, BY STUDN AREA AND STRONG PURISTS

 

 

Percentage Favoring Adoption

 

 

Management EWCA Magggall Bridger Ugiggs :::::§s G a
Input (N=2°6) (N=120) (Nflu‘) (N=154) (3:248)

Here high quality

trails (portages). 36.6 35.0 30.8 35.1 25.9 .31

Mbre signs

indicating

place to camp.b .. 51.7 30.3 25.7 31.0 .41

Portages to lakes

presently un—

developed.° 73.4 -- -- -- 73-8 .09

More maps and ‘

pamphletS. 60.1 5107 60.“ 51+09 5’450 .05

Mbre campsites. 46.3 22.0 16.0 15.0 17.3 .39

‘Wilderness rangers. 69.8 57.5 68.0 66.5 63.3 .03

Hitching racks.b -- 26.3 4.2 a 15.7 ' 9.9 .46

Small docks at ‘

portage landings.c 24.2 -- d -- . -- 4.8 .54

Corrals.b -- 25.0 4.2 . 11.1 N 8.2 .43

Canoe rests.° 51.0 -- t -- t -- ; 42.9 .18

Simple pit toilets. 63.1 43.3 1 22.4 25.3 i 27.5 .31

‘Wooden bridges J

across

large rivers.b -- 66.7 , 64.6 ‘ 62.3 57.3 1 .14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aGamma is interpreted so that the higher the value, the
greater the tendency of strong purists to Oppose the management

alternative under consideration.

bListed on western questionnaire form only.

6Listed on BWCA.questionnaire form only.

220

The strong purists provide a framework within which managers and admini-
strators can evaluate the suitability of a given management input not
only by institutional constraints, but also by the perceptions of the

most discerning and demanding user group.

More High Quality Trails

ResPonse to management providing additional high quality trails
was fairly evenly mixed among those favoring, those rejecting, and
those neutral to such an action. Only about one out of four strong
purists, however, favored such a measure, although those in the Bob
Marshall were slightly more so inclined. This appears linked to the
greater amount of horse travel, whose access to wilderness is largely
contingent on good trails.

With the apparent maldistribution of users in most wildernesses,
managers and researchers alike are concerned with means of effecting a
redistribution. If users desire a trail standard that is high; that is,
trails that are wide, with a low gradient, and which use numerous
switchbacks when it is necessary to gain elevation, etc., then the
provision of such a development possibly would be a method to draw
persons into areas presently used below capacity.

The pattern of reSponse, however, suggests that such trails
are not regarded as appropriate by the preponderant share of visitors,
particularly the strong purists. Part of the reason for the fairly

broad Spread of reSponse between favor, neutral, and oppose almost

221

certainly stems from the undefined phrase "high quality." Nonetheless,
user attitude toward the concept of upgrading trails is generally
negative and it appears that efforts to redistribute use by providing
better trails would do little to Spread out use, but would probably
increase visitor dissatisfaction.

In the BWCA, the question was in reference to more high quality
portages. Only about one—third of the paddling canoeists favored such
an action whereas nearly half of those traveling in motor propelled
craft supported it. Such a develOpment is viewed by the canoeists as
both an inapprOpriate element in wilderness as well as an action that
would simply facilitate greater motor use of'many lakes presently
reached only'hy'very rough portages.

The results regarding high quality trails coincide closely
with those of Hendee. He feund approximately twenty-five per cent of
the visitors sampled felt that trails in remote backcountry areas
should be high standard. Over.all, this study revealed a slightly
higher level of agreement to providing high quality trails (35 per
cent), but the tendency of strong purists to Oppose such developments
was almost identical to that found by Hendee.1

Visitors to the BWCA were asked their reaction to providing

portages to lakes previously without them. As Table 40 shows, about

 

11h Hendee's study, gamma between purist score and the trail

quality item was .25; here, it was .31. See Hendee gt_al.,‘Wilderness
Users _in 3112 Pacific Northwest, p. 83.

 

222

three out of four persons favored this management action. Hewever,
paddling canoeists tended to be significantly less so inclined1 and
again it appears they perceive the effect of such an action as simply
facilitating the distribution of motor craft rather than providing

canoeists with additional Opportunities.

More Signs Indicating Places to Camp

 

The importance of the campsite to the visitor's wilderness
experience was detailed in Chapter IV. Additionally, by the very
nature of the function which these locations serve, that is, accommo-
dating visitors for extended periods of time, they are particularly
susceptible to extensive ecological damage.

The present pattern of use of wilderness campsites is probably
influenced to a considerable degree by the information provided on
handout recreation maps of the wilderness area and'by the user's own
past experience. The sum effect of these sources is a concentration
of use on a very few areas. Most wildernesses, however, abound with
locations where a small party could set up a tent and have a camping
location that would insure complete solitude. Often such locations are
close to the main trail, but such factors as topography prevent the
visitor from.locating them.easily. One method of Spreading camping

use out, to a degree, would be the placing of signs indicating the

 

1Adifference significant at the .05 level.

223

direction and location of such sites. Brown and Hunt have provided

evidence that suggests that the use patterns of auto tourists can be
modified by informational signing;1 the effects of such a measure on
wilderness recreationists remains to be tested.

Conceptually, however, the provision of directional signs to
campsite locations was not well accepted by visitors. In the Bob
IMarshall, Just over half responded favorably; this appears tied to the
predominance of horseback travel in the area (although a Similar
reSponse did not appear in the High Uintas, where horseback use accounted
for half the sample). There is some basis for horseback riders desiring
this kind of information. Visitors traveling by horse are probably
less willing to leave the trail _o_n Eh: g_h_a_n3_e there may be a camping
location nearby than persons backpacking. Perhaps more important than
this, however, is the fact that signs represent the clear and irrevo-
cable evidence of'man; in a sense, they are the antithesis of the
wilderness philosophy where modern man is given the opportunity to
emulate his pioneer forefathers. The same line of reasoning is also
relevant to the over-all rejection of high quality trails and is
supported by the fairly strong association found between the purism

score and the tendency to reject Signs.

 

1Perry J. Brown and John D. Hunt, "The Influence of Information
Signs on Visitor Distribution and USe," Journal 2; Leisure Research,
1 (Winter, 1969), pp. 79-83.

224

More Maps and Information Pamphlets

An alternative to influencing visitor use behavior by signs
would be to make available maps and information pamphlets containing
material concerning attractions, current trail information, campsites,
fishing quality, etc. Such a measure eliminates the obtrusiveness of
signs and requires that the user possess at least some minimum Skills
in map reading. Additionally, some basic interpretative data could
be provided regarding the historical, biological, or geological features
of the wilderneSS. Hendee gt 2}: and Merriam and Ammons have reported
finding visitor support for this type of guide book.1

Although there was basic agreement to the idea of providing
additional such material favorable visitor reSponse was not
eSpecialLly strong. Over-all, about six out of ten persons reSponded
favorably, with strong purists slightly less so inclined. There was
little association between reSponse and purism score.

This pattern of reSponse suggests that wilderness users,
although not in opposition to the distribution of more maps and other
information sourceS, may find the present sources adequate. On the
other hand, we found a considerable amount of extemporaneous criticism of
Forest Service maps and personal experience has Shown that many are

highly inaccurate. Also, most have only partial coverage of trail

 

1Hendee gt al., Wilderness Users _i_n the Pacific Northwest,
p. 48 and Merriam and Ammons, £13 Wilderness User i_n Three Montana
Areas, p. 40.

225

systems and many are out-ofedate. Visitor reaction to providing
additional such material may be moderated somewhat by a feeling of
"why continue mediocrity."

An additional factor that should be brought out regards the
perceived consequence of providing such material. It appears that at
least some visitors view the provision of additional maps as simply
an agent that will tend to increase total use rather than redistribute
visitors in such a manner so as to offset their present impact on
both the physical environment and upon the solitude of others. There
is probably some selfish concern here; a user may have a certain place
he always goes to and he is concerned lest others "discover" it also.
There is, however, an element of truth to concerns of such informa-
tional material tending to increase use. 'Wilderness travel should
provide an opportunity for discovery and challenge; highly detailed
maps eliminate this to some extent and also reduce the demands on
visitors. Eliminating the possible unexpected occurrence, such as
having to work one's way down a steep dangerous talus slope, might

tend to attract more peeple.

More Campsites

Visitors to the three western study areas reacted quite
negatively to this item. Some expressed confusion, since campsites
in wilderness are not developed in the sense they are in an auto

campground. Many are simply wherever the visitor decides to Spend

226

the night. Nevertheless, as was noted earlier, certain locations have
become recognized as camping locations, either through administrative
efforts or simply through prolonged use.

The inclusion of the item was made on the basis that an active
program of inventorying potential camp locations with such criteria
in mind as some minimum amount of reasonably level ground, close to
water, some minimum.distance from the trail, and so forth could be
utilized in management efforts to encourage use of new camping areas
or of entire drainages presently little used. It is clear, however,
that visitors in the western areas see little need for such action.
BWCA visitors evidence a more favorable diSposition to such an effort.
In the Canoe Country, visitors do not have the same type of flexibility
that western wilderness users have in finding a campsite. The very
heavy recreational use of the area has largely uncovered most desir.
able camping areas and many visitors are probably hopeful that addi-

tional sites can yet be found.

Wilderness Rangers

All of the areas studied have had a program of seasonal Forest
Service employees who are stationed throughout the summer season
‘within the wilderness. These individuals are charged'with a variety
of reSponsibilities, but litter clean-up and visitor contact are
probably two of the most important. Based upon the results in Table‘40

the program.appears to be fairly successful. Approximately two-thirds

227

of the reSpondents in each study area, except the Bob Marshall
favored the provision of wilderness rangers.

This is an eSpecially significant finding since it provides
the managing agency with a convenient means of enforcing possible
future use controls and also could potentially be invaluable in efforts
to redistribute use. By maintaining up-to-date information on campsite
availability, fishing quality, and so forth, the wilderness ranger
could aid in providing visitors with information that would enhance
the quality of their trip and also promote a more balanced pattern of

use.

Hitching Racks and Corrals

 

Visitors to the three western areas were asked the degree to
which they favored the provision of hitching racks and corrals for the
use of recreation stock. RSSponse to these two items was basically
negative, but showed the influence of the predominant mode of travel.

Both of these measures are largely of benefit only to the
visitor. They would help prevent much of the muddying that one now
finds around many camp areas as well as confining the manure away from
the camp. They afford little protection to the environment however;
generally, in fact, they tend to accentuate and accelerate such problems
as vegetation removal and soil compaction. Most persons traveling by
horse or with packstock hobble or picket their animals and there is

little need for Specific structures to retain their animals. It is

228

apparent that the provision of such facilities would not be cepecially
effective in motivating horse parties to use certain areas rather than

others.

Small Docks at Portage Landing and Canoe Rests

Docks and canoe rests might be considered functional equi.
valents in the BWCA of hitching racks and corrals in the west. Over-all
reaction to the facilities was somewhat mixed and interestingly enough
showed no particular relation to mode of travel. Paddling canoeists
were more favorable towards canoe rests, but not significantly so, even
though these devices are not used by motor boaters. Docks appear to be
viewed as not particularly necessary and their usefulness in terms of
providing any resource protection is minimal. Neither facility appears

to have particular relevance to management efforts to redistribute use.

Simple Pit Toilets

water quality standards and the potential problems associated
with the diSposal of human waste are important elements to the question
of carrying capacity. DeSpite all other considerations, if sanitation
problems develop in an area, it may become necessary to consider the
area has exceeded its carrying capacity.

Human health is not the only consideration here. Barton has
pointed out that in the BWCA the release of high levels of nutrients

and pollutants associated with increasing recreational use can result

229

in aquatic growth that have adverse effects on esthetics as well as
on health.1
Other wilderness studies have found an over-all favorable
visitor attitude toward the provision of simple toilet facilities.
The Wildland Research Center reported that this was the only improve-
ment desired by a majority of users; 66 per cent approved providing
sanitary facilities.2 This concurred with earlier findings by Bultena
and Taves, who reported that 78 per cent of the canoeists sampled in
the BWCA rated toilets as important.3 Hendee gt_al. found that only
about three out of ten persons opposed providing toilet facilities,
but those classified as the more purist strongly opposed the idea.“
Visitor reSponse to the provision of simple pit toilets
varied fairly substantially between the BWCA and the western study
areas, and to a lesser degree, among the three western areas. This
pattern was expected; sanitation problems are more serious in the BWCA
due to very limited soil cover and the extensive amount of water.

Current management policy in the BWCA recognizes these problems and

 

1Michaela. Barton, "Water Pollution in Remote Recreational
Areas, " Journal of Soil and water Conservation 24 (July-August,

1969), pp- 132-134.—
2Wildland Research Center, Wilderness and Recreation, p. 161.

 

3Gordon L. Bultena and Marvin J. Taves, "Changing Wilderness
Images and Forestry Policy, " Journal of Forestry, 59 (March, 1961),
p. 169.

“Hendee gt_al., 'Wilderness Users in_th3_Pacific Northwest,
p. 54.

 

230

simple latrines are provided throughout the area. In the western
areas, d15posal of human waste is more easily accommodated. There

are still some toilets in the Bob Marshall and this may help explain
the greater level of eXpressed favor for such facilities there.
Familiarity with a particular type of development appears to foster a
certain tolerance or perhaps in some cases, even an expectation for it.
The association between purist score and the rejection of pit toilets
is fairly strong, essentially matching the gamma of -.32 found by
Hendee.

Current Region One wilderness policy is closely in line with
the apparent values of users. Pit toilets will be provided in cases
where sanitation problems would otherwise arise. If and when such a
condition occurs, a hiatus between user values and administrative
policy may develop, unless users are aware of the problem and cogni-
zant of the consequences. For the time being in the west, however,
such facilities seem to offer little, either as a protection for the

resource or for the user.

Simple'wooden Bridges

Nearly two out of every three persons favored the provision
of simple wooden bridges across large rivers. The basis for this
response probably varied from one individual to another, but it is
likely that safety was a principal rationale. Such bridges also have

Special relevance to management, however, as potential techniques

231

to assisting in the redistribution of use. In certain cases, the
construction of a bridge across a river which cannot be safely forded
could serve to direct use into areas that may at present be little
used. In essence, the functional distance of such area could be
materially reduced with a more balanced pattern of use the result.1
Strong purists tend to be somewhat less favorable to such
structures and this is to be expected, since bridges obviously repre-
sent the work of man and are probably somewhat out-of-keeping with a

philosophy that keynotes an unmodified landscape.

Managerial Inputs and Carrying_Capacityz
Some Additional Remarks

Based upon the findings here substantial coincidence exists
between the preservation objectives detailed within the Wilderness
Act and the attitudes of users toward the various actions discussed
above. ‘With increasing levels of use upon the wilderness resource,
it can be expected that pressures may develop to provide certain
inputs to protect those qualities that prompted formal preservation
legislation originally.

DeSpite the fact that institutional constraints limit the
potential range of adoption, it is of interest and value to examine

the above items, particularly in terms of how they may affect the

 

1Bridges could thus be described as space-adjusting techniques
since they both "shorten the effective distance of travel" and "permit
intensification of Space employment beyond that possible on the land
surface provided by nature." Edward A. Ackerman, Geography 53 a
Fundamental Research Discipline, Department of Geography, Research Paper

 

 

No. 53 (Chicago: Department of Geography, 1958), p. 26.

 

232

Spatial organization of human use within the wilderness. Optimally,

the utilization of what has been termed "managerial inputs" should have
a sociofugal impact upon use; that is, it should encourage the dis-
persion and segregation of users. It is entirely possible, however,
that a decision viewed by wilderness managers as a means of ameliorating
or modifying man's adverse impact upon the wilderness environment

may in actuality, serve a sociopetal function, attracting persons to

a particular location, and as a consequence, intensifying the original
problem, introducing new ones, or both.

Those managerial actions which involve direct and visible
modifications of the wilderness landscape are largely rejected by all
visitors, but eSpecially by strong purists. The one exception to this
concerns bridges; it appears that attitudes toward safety override
their concern with completely replicating the experience that the
pioneers faced in the wilderness. Those actions which influence use
in a more subtle, less direct manner, however, seem.to enjoy sub-
stantial support. The distribution of better, more informative maps
and the establishment of a system.of wilderness rangers represent
two ways that adverse human impacts on both other wilderness users
and the wilderness environment could be greatly alleviated.

Given the present administrative constraints, however, as well
as the basically negative attitude of viSitors, esPecially strong
purists, toward physical modifications, it seems unlikely that

managerial inputs represent a method of appreciably enhancing

233

capacity. Additionally, claims by administrators and managers that
such developments are necessary because visitors "want this" or

"demand that" appear unfounded. The promulgation of such statements
may lie more with the administrator's perception of wilderness than

with an accurate assessment of the wilderness user's needs and desires.

 

CHAPTERVI

PATTERNS OF RECREATIONAL USE IN RELATION TO

THE PERCEPTION OF CARRYING CAPACITY

No basic objectives formulate the organization of this
chapter. First, we seek to determine the extent to which wilderness
visitors considered that use had exceeded carrying capacity. As has
previously been suggested, it is possible that the idea of overuse is
a function of the perceptions of managers rather than recreationists ,
and it is at this point we attempt to determine how users do perceive
the increasing level of wilderness recreation use. Additionally, we
shall attempt to show how the perception of an area as overused
affects the spatial behavior of the user.

Second, we shall attempt to cartographicany define these
areas within each of the study areas where it appears that the cape.
city has been reached or exceeded. Additionally, these specific

elements that contribute to the perception of overuse will be examined.

The Perception of "Crowding:

Visitors were asked to express whether or not, in their opinion,
the area they visited had seemed "crowded."1 In response to this,

 

1It was recognized that the tern “crowded" could bias response,
in the sense that it is a term with definite negative connotations
surrounding its use. However, the study was concerned with determining
whether use was generating adverse reactions on the part of visitors;
if it were not, then it was felt that the use of the term "crowding"

23”:

235

nearly one out of every four visitors replied "yes" (23.8 per cent).
In other words , a quarter of the persons sampled perceived that the
character of use encountered was such that the area or at least a
portion of it, was not providing a high quality wilderness experience,
an explicit management goal of the Wilderness Act.

As might be eacpected, response to this question varied greatly
between study areas and between different types of users. Visitors
to the Bridger again evidenced a more critical appraisal of their
surroundings; a full 33 per cent felt crowding was a problem in the
area. This despite the fact that the intensity of use in the Bridger
(see Table 6) was substantially less than that found in the BWCA or
the High Uintas.

Although the intensity of use computed in Table 6 was
admittedly a very rough index, it did show a fair degree of associa-
tion with expressed perception of crowding. In the BWCA, where use
intensity is the greatest, 28.1 per cent of the visitors felt crowding
was a problem, whereas in the Bob Marshall, with the lightest intensity
of use, only about one out of ten persons (10.8 per cent) expressed

concern about crowding. However, in the High Uintas , where use

 

would not elicit any sort of "false" response on the part of the
respondent. If conditions were such that visitors perceived the
situation in a negative vein, then it is likely they did consider the
area “crowded." A possible synom here would have been "used beyond
capacity," but this may have been a confusing phrase, with some
Judging it in the sense of whether there was sufficient space to
accommodate more people , others interpreting it in a more ecological
perspective, and still. others , from an esthetic standpoint.

 

236

intensity was nearly the same as in the BWCA, only 17.5 per cent of
the visitors complained of crowding.

Earlier findings by Lucas that paddling canoeists were more
sensitive to both increasing levels of use as well as other types of
use than other visitors in the BWCA were further documented. As
Table #1 indicates , nearly four out of ten canoeists complained of
crowding, conqaared to less than two out of ten of those traveling in

motor propelled craft.

TABLE #1

THE PERCEPTION OF CROWDING, BY BWCA VISITORS

 

 

 

 

 

Mode Was Aroa Crowded?
of N No Yes, Only in Yes, in Most Didn't
Travel a Few Places Places Notice

f i f f

Paddling Canoe 119 58.8 33.6 li.2 3.4
Motor Canoe 22 68.2 27.3 0.0 “.5
Motor Boat 63 87.3 11.1 0.0 1.6
Total 201+ 68.6 26.0 2.5 2.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 17.14, 6 degrees of freedom, .01 > p > .001.

This pattern of response is due not only to the paddling

canoeist' s greater sensitivity to use levels , but appears also related

to the greater intolerance they hold for the motor propelled type of

craft. This intolerance appears to be a non-reciprocating phenomena,

237

however: the concern with crowding expressed by the motor canoeists
and motor boaters is probably confined to a function of numbers rather
than types.

mpotheses that backpackers represent a sort of western flmc-
tional equivalent of the paddling canoeists are supported in that
backpackers did complain about crowding more than others in the west,
although their expression of concern was not as great as that found
for paddling canoeists (Table #2). This, however, is in keeping with
the less intense level of use that characterizes most of the western

wilderness es .

TABLE 42

THE PERCEPTION OF CRORDING BY WESTERN VISITORS

 

 

 

 

 

Was Area Crowded?
Mod
of. N No Yes, Only in Yes, in Most Didn't
Travel a Few Places Places Notice
f i f f
Backpacker 238 72.3 25.6 2.1 0.0
Horseback 168 83.9 13.1 0.6 2.1+
Hiker-Stock 14 85. 7 7. 1 0. O 7. 1
Total #20 77.“ 20.0 1.4 1.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi square 21.56, 6 degrees of freedom, .01 > p > .001.

It would seem, as was the case in the BJOA, that the perception

of crowding by backpackers is influenced not only by the level of use

 

238

encountered, but the type as well. Horseback riders appear to define
crowding , however, largely in terms of use levels and do not display

the adverse reactions toward other types of users (i.e., backpackers

and hikers with stock) that backpackers do.

Additionally, in the BWCA and the western study areas, the
paddling canoeists and the backpackers were disprOportionately repre-
sented among the group defined as the strong purists, and as a
consequence, it follows these groups would be more critical in their
evaluation as to what constituted crowding.

This conclusion was fully supported when purist scores were
examined as the independent variable. Strong purists perceived
crowding to be much more of a problem than any of the other purist
groups; the association between purist score and the degree to which

crowding was perceived as a problem was .42.

The Effects of W on Visitor Satisfaction

For those visitors who expressed a concern with crowding, an
effort was made to determine the effect this concern had on satis-
faction. Respondents were asked to indicate that if they felt the area
was crowded, how much did it bother them: not at all, only a little,

a moderate amount, or a lot. 1

 

1There is probably some grounds for legitimate concern as to
whether a person can be concerned with crowding and yet indicate that
it did not bother him. SemanticalJy, the word "crowded" intuitively
suggests a negative feeling (as was discussed in footnote 1 on page 23“).
his incongruity appeared to have been recognised by visitors , however:
only 7 out of 118 replied "no" to the question.

239

For the four study areas as a whole, 85 per cent of those
persons reporting crowding was a problem.indicated they were bothered,
either "a little" or "a moderate amount." Response overaa11.was evenly
divided between these two options. In the Bridger, about 75 per cent
of these persons were bothered a little or a moderate amount, and 22
per cent responded that crowding had bothered them a lot.

It seems clear that persons who perceive an area as crowded
are adversely affected by that perception. Only a small percentage
cite "crowding" in any of the study areas without a concomitant
expression.of’annoyance. This U18 especially true for the strong
purists; 36.3 per cent of this group (90 out of 2’48) reported crowding
as a problem and only one person indicated that it did not adversely
affect his satisfaction.

Additional evidence that persons traveling by motor canoe or
boat are less sensitive to crowding was found. Only 16 of the 85
persons using motor propelled crafts complained of'crowding and n of
these persons reported that although they perceived the area as crowded,
it did not adversely affect the enjoyment of their trip.

The Effects of Crowding_on Route and nggth of 3&5!

One of the principal concerns in focusing upon crowding was to
ascertain the effects of this condition upon the spatial behavior of
the wilderness visitor. IDid.conditions perceived as crowded cause
alterations in the visitor's route of travel?

2%

To determine this , those respondents who cited crowding as a
problem were asked to indicate whether crowding had caused them to
change the route of their trip, the duration of their wilderness trip,
or both. Spatially segregating oneself from an area perceived as
crowded, either by changing the planned route of travel or by actually
terminating the trip early and leaving the area , was interpreted to
be the strongest action Open to the wilderness visitor. Such a course
of action leads one to infer that the effects associated with crowding
are of such magnitude they elicit an overt behavioral response on the
part of the wilderness visitor.

It seems apparent, however, that most of the visitors simply
tolerate the situations they perceive as crowded. Over-all, 79 per
cent indicated they took no action to disassociate themselves from
areas of crowding. ‘lhe notable exception was the Bridger Wilderness
where only 68 per cent were content to put up with overuse; nearly one
out of three persons there altered their spatial behavior to offset
what they considered to be a use situation detrimental to their
enjoyment.

In the Canoe Country, only 2 out of the 16 persons traveling
in motor propelled craft who mentioned crowding as a problem indicated
this affected their itinerary. Nearly 20 per cent of the paddling
canoeists , however, responded to crowding by altering their route or
the length of their stay. This suggests that while both persons
paddling canoes and those traveling by motor may recognize problems of

241

crowding in wilderness, the effects of crowding are of less concern to
the latter group and there is less motivation to try and alleviate its
impact. For the paddling canoeist, however, crowding represents a
serious intrusion upon the enjoyment of the trip and, as a consequence,
he is more likely to undertake measures that will offset or eliminate
the problem. The small sample size makes statistical verification of
these conclusions difficult; however, the percentages involved tend

to support the general line of reasoning.

These conclusions also seem justified in light of the patterns
of responses obtained in analyzing visitor reaction to crowding by
purist score. As Table 43 indicates, strong purists were more inclined
to evidence some overt response to crowding than were any of the other
groups (ignoring the percentages for the non-purists, where sample
size is only two). Again, these persons who are most perceptive and
aware of crowding demonstrate a greater tendency to adopt measures
that ameliorate the adverse effects of crowding upon quality.

The decision to shorten one's trip probably represents a more
drastic reaction than altering its route. Although this latter action
may mean the user will not have the opportunity to visit a particular
area he was interested in seeing, he may discover some equally pleasing
new location. On the other hand, cutting short the length of one's
visit indicates the visitor apparently perceives no other alternative
to contend with crowding and, rather than continuing to be faced with

such a condition, terminates his visit. For these people the

242

“Halthusian-type of'minimum satisfaction carrying capacity" Lucas

mentioned has been reached.

TABLE'43

THE REACTION TO CROWDING BY PURIST GROUPS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P 1st Changed Changed Changed
None Length Route Both Route
Group H‘ of Stay_ of Tripp and LengE§_
i i f f
Strong Purists 90 71.1 7.8 16.7 4.4
Moderate Purists 44' 84.1 6.8 6.8 2.3
Neutralists 20 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Non-purists 2 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0
Total 1 156 78.2 5 7.1 11.5 3.2

 

‘13 includes only those who indicated they had felt at least
part of the area they had.visited was crowded.

Chi square 15.59, 9 degrees of freedom, .10 >.p >..05.

Personal experience, coupled with discussions with wilderness
visitors suggests, however, that the phenomenon of crowding is generally
a highly localized condition. Wilderness use very often tends to
become highly skewed in its distribution within any wilderness, with
many people visiting only a limited number of locations with the rest
of the area utilised very scantily. To some degree, of course, this
low level of intensity is a desirable feature for managers to maintain,

since it helps insure the production of’a high quality wilderness

 

243

experience. Nevertheless, it appears clear that in many cases , sub-
stantial portions of a wilderness area experience little or no use
whereas other areas, because of access, fishing, and the extent to
which the public is aware of them, carry very high levels of use,
levels which very often totally preclude the provision of a high
quality wilderness experience. It is the problem of "effective"
acreage cited in Chapter III.

This basic analysis of the problem of overuse in wilderness
was substantiated by visitor perception of crowding. Most visitors
who indicated they felt crowding had been a problem reported that it
was confined to only a few places . hus , the remainder of this chapter
will attempt to define those locations in each of the study areas
where visitors perceived crowding and relate this perception to the
actual use conditions encountered.

The Areal Extent of Overuse

Visitors in each of the study areas were asked to indicate
that if crowding had been a problem to note on the questionnaire those
places they felt this had been the case. From this information then,
it was possible to construct a map of each study area portraying where
visitors considered that use had reached or exceeded capacity.

To accomplish this, an index of crowding (10) was computed,
where 10 2 LT; with TC representing the total number of complaints
reported by the individuals in any given area of concern (for example,
a lake basin) and TV representing the total number of visitors sampled

 

244

who visited that particular area. This is admittedly a rather crude
index; nevertheless it accomplishes the basic purpose of permitting
the cartographic delineation of those areas which by the character of
their use are eliciting expressions of dissatisfaction from visitors
and which, because of this , represent the dishmctional organization
of space within the wilderness.

me this information then, a series of isolines were construc-
ted with the values of those lines representing the percentage of
individuals who visited a particular area and described it as being
"crowded." hus it was possible to obtain a graphic portrayal of the
areal extent of crowding and the relationship of its perception to
access, attractions, and routes of travel.1

Additionally, the relationship between the average number of
other parties encountered per day and visitors' expressions of concern
about crowding was examined as was the relationship between the average
number of other parties camped within sight or hearing per night and
complaints of crowding. Specifically, we focused on two questions
prompted by earlier conceptual findings: (1) did those persons who

encountered an average of over two parties per day while traveling

 

1There is some conceptual similarity to this approach and that
suggested by Penfold, who conceived of plotting "isoprims" or lines
connecting "points of equal degree of primitiveness. " Although the
computation of these lines was strictly a subjective effort by the
author, the concept that wilderness quality has a spatial dimension is
certainly valid. See Joseph W. Penfold, "The Outdoors, Quality, and
Isoprims , " in Wilderness: America' s Li Herit e, ed. by David
Brower (San Francisco; The Sierra Clu , 6”, pp. 109-116.

 

245

significantly differ, in regard to their propensity to complain of
crowding, from those who encountered an average of We or fewer parties
per day; and (2) did those persons who camped in sight or hearing of
at least one other My, on the average, complain of crowding
significantly more often than those who were able to find camping
locations offering complete solitude. Through such an analysis it
would be possible to assess the degree of consistency between the use
conditions visitors conceptually define as constituting overuse and
their consequent attitudes and behavior when such levels are actually

encountered.

Overuse and Crowdingfin the BWCA

As noted earlier, about 28 per cent of the users sampled in
the RICA complained of crowding. Referring to Figure 18 indicates,
however, that the areas of perceived crowding were fairly limited in
their areal extent, comprising the Moose Lake area, the Fall Lake
entrance, the Saganaga Lake-Sea Gull area, and the Lac La Croix region.
Additionally, the lake (he entry represents a problem area, but to a
lesser degree.

The principal problem areas , however, are Moose lake and the
Fall lake entry. These two large lakes lie immediately on the BWCA
boundary, only a few miles from the town of Fly which serves as the
major point of origination for many of the trips into the area. The

consequent concentration of use on these lakes is to be expected to

 

4030 of 55.! 9.5390 .0 mocoN 9.2m

 

 

\ >53! 2
«Simone 3.3 \ /,..

 

00.! m. 0.08

g
D. a. Gowns—O

9.3380 95:0 225m 33
do actuated 8.3.9.. 0:3) 8:3. .Illu
5.40238 (mad Iii-l

040: 2.4: Illul‘l
boomed

Z-

<mm< moz<o mmm...<3 >m<oznom

 

 

 

247

some extent, but it appears that it has reached such levels that many
persons must endure an initial period of dissatisfaction until they
have penetrated a few miles and use begins to disperse and drop off.

It is interesting to note that only about 10 per cent of the
paddling canoeists sampled by Lucas considered the Moose lake as
"wilderness" whereas 90 per cent of this sample defined the area as
crowded. Similarly, the area inediately adjacent to Fall lake was
considered "wilderness" by between 50 and 90 per cent of Lucas' paddling
canoeist sample, and defined as crowded by 55 per cent of this sample.1

With the exception of the Saganaga Lake-Sea Gull area and
Lac La Croix, the region of crowding is concentrated east of Ely.
Access is well developed into this area. he Fernberg Road, extending
about 20 miles east from Ely has recently been paved and greatly
improved. he provision of improved access into this area will tend
to intensify the already smed spatial distribution of use. Certainly,
use of the lakes from lake One to Lake Insula will go up, as will
complaints of overuse.

Both the Saganaga Lake-Sea Gull area and Lac La Croix were
classified as "transitional" by Lucas in terms of the relationship
between use and capacity. These lakes serve as important components
of a considerable amount of Canadian-bound traffic and as use increases

 

1Lucas, 229. Recreational Cagcitz 2f 21: Quetico-Supgrior
Area, p. 10.

 

248

in the BWCA, it seems a reasonable hypothesis that increased numbers
of‘persons will have Canada as the destination of their trip.1 Lakes
that presently accommodate a considerable amount of this northward
flow may reasonably expect future increases in both numbers of visitors
as well as complaints about overuse.

The major exception to Lucas' earlier findings concerned Trout
Lake. He defined the area as "overused"; no complaints of crowding
were found in this study. This difference appears related to the
sampling plan utilized in this study, however, rather than to an
actual decline in use of'the lake or to increased tolerance of others
on the part of visitors.

It was interesting to find that earlier observations that
carrying capacity was a function of’not only use levels, but type,
spatial locations, and depreciative behavior as well were clearly
documented. In analyzing specific comments regarding overuse in the
BWCA, it was striking the number of'persons who defined crowding in
terms of the simple presence of'motor boats. Other specific complaints
cited littering, campsite wear and tear, and the inability to find

campsites away from others.

 

in. flow of visitors, particularly paddling canoeists, to
Canada has been coined the "Northness Hypothesis." The tendency to
visit Canada has been demonstrated to be a partial function of total
distance traveled on the wilderness trip. See Ernest E. Nelson and
Jay M. Hughes, "Travel Distance and Joint Visitation to the Boundary
Whters Canoe Area and Adjacent Canadian'Wilderness " Minnesota
Forestry Research Notes, No. 185 (Jhnuary 15, 1968), 4 p .

249

Visitors were quite specific in their indications that overuse
is not uniformly spread throughout the area, but rather, tends to
become focused in certain locales. One of the principal locations is
around the portages from one lake to another, or around stretches of
streams difficult to navigate. Use normally is constricted in these
areas as travel patterns converge from a widely dispersed pattern into
a narrow flow through some point. In addition, these sones force
canoeists into contact with the motor craft which they normally probably
try to avoid. The result is almost certainly an increased level of
dissatisfaction for the paddling canoeists as well as the strong purists.

Examining the relationship between the average number of parties
encountered per day and the nmaber of complaints about crowding revealed
a highly significant difference. hose persons who encountered an
average of more than two parties per day tended to complain of crowd-
ing significantly more often than those seeing an average of less than

1 Computing the phi correlation coefficient for this association

2

two.
yielded a value of .35, also a significant value.
An examination of the relationship between the average number
of other parties camped within sight or hearing and the propensity to
complain of crowding revealed a similarly significant association.

 

1A difference sipificant at the . 001 level.

2Where chi square is significant in a two by two matrix, the
corresponding phi value is also significant. See J. P. Guilford, '
Fundamental Statistics in P cholo g; Education (New York: McGraw.
E Book Company, 1965): p. 335.

250

hose persons who camped at locations where , on the average, loss than
one other party was camped, were significantly less concerned about
crowding than those who had at least one other party nearby each

night. 1 These findings coupled together point out a fairly high level
of consistency then, between the expressed attitudes of visitors toward
use levels and their actual response to such conditions.

A notable characteristic of the areas defined by BWCA visitors
as crowded concerns their linear nature. his is in large a reflection
of topography; many of the lakes are long and narrow in dimension and
in defining areas of crowding, many visitors utilise lakes as a unit
of analysis. As will be shown in the western study areas, zones of
crowding take on a more nodal dimension, with the exception of the
Bob Marshall.

With the exception of the narrow portion of the BWCA north of
the Ftnberg Road, crowding is restricted essentially to narrow areas
along the wilderness boundary. It is apparent that with an increasing
number of portages, use declines, particularly motorised use, and there
is a subsequent decline in the number of persons who complain of
crowding. An exception can be noted along the chain of lakes between
lake One and lake Insula. Here, two factors foster an increased
extent of crowding; (1) the three portages are short and easy to move

 

1These differences were again significant at the .001 level,
with phi equal to .44.

251

motor boats around; and (2) there are essentially no other routes
which branch off the main route. This channeling effect thus tends

to contribute to the extended linear parameter of the overused sons.

Overuse and Crowding in the Bob Marshall

In the Bob Marshall'Wilderness, the largest of the four study
areas, two areas were delineated as crowded. First, an extenuated
zone along both sides of the South Fork of the Flathead River was
noted. This area has long been recognized as having a problem with
overuse, and Flathead National Forest officials recently closed several
of the camps along the river so that the damage from overuse might be
corrected. The cpen, flat nature of the country and the attractive-
ness of the river itself have served to draw large numbers of visitors
into the area for a number of’years.

A second area was located along the east side of the wilderness
in Gates Park. Like the South Fork of the Flathead River, this area
has sustained moderately high levels of use for some time. Access
into this area is either along the North Fork of the Sun River or over
Headquarters Pass from.the South Fork of the Teton River (see Figure 19).

Both of these areas are characterised by not only an apparent
problem of excess use, but from a large amount of horse use and by the
presence of administrative structures. Along the South Fork of the
Flathead River, a Forest Service Ranger Station and an airstrip are

located at Big Prairie, and another airstrip is at Black Bear. An

 

252

   
 
 
   
 

 

BOB MARSHALL WILDERNESS

Legend
MAIN ROAD
—-- AREA BOUNDARY

A lsollne Value Indicates Foroentage at
Area Sample Citing Crowding

taste In Ills.

Oil. 0 If

 

 

 

L70 KALIOPELL

e
‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘
------

 

 
 
  

Black Bear

    
     

 
 
 

 

it?
Big Salmon 1.? SHALL
Lake . i
a:
condo" i Big Prairie 3
.I- chi-1+???
o
N

 

 

(To IIOOOULA

 

Fig. I9 Zones of Crowding within the Bob Marshall

 

253

airstrip is also located at Gates Park, although it is currently being
removed. These airstrips have been restricted to administrative use;
nonetheless , they represent extremely noticeable impacts on the land
and the occasional aircraft landing or taking off can be seen and
heard from some distance away.

The pattern of use along the South Fork of the Flathead seems
characterized to a great degree by some type of southward inertia.
Travel along this route can be very heavy at times; the flat , open
nature of the area extends the individual's field of vision and it is
not uncommon to have others in sight a good share of the time during
peak periods of use. there does not seem to be, however, much use
moving up into the adjoining drainages, where fishing is good and the
opportunities for solitude are certainly much better. This suggests
that much of the travel may be "destination-oriented"; that is , a
certain location is settled upon by party members as the destination,
and the trip is carried out to that point, even if use conditions
make the enjoyment of a wilderness trip difficult. Perhaps the idea
of penetrating into the area is important, a lvpothesis somewhat akin
to the "Northness mpothes is" cited earlier in the EWCA.

The longitudinal boundary of the zone perceived as crowded
along the South Fork of the Flathead is a marked departure from the
pattern found in the other western areas. In most of the areas, lake
basins form a convenient frame of reference for users to define the
areal extent of crowding. In the Bob Marshall, however, the ridges
paralleling the river on the east and west side form the boundaries.

251*

This longitudinal aspect represents a serious impediment to
the goal of managing for a high-quality wilderness experience. As
noted earlier, the South Fork represents a major artery of travel into
the wilderness and it is clear that use conditions are such that a
considerable amount of penetration is necessary before marry users can
find a desirable experience.

Use problems appear to intensify somewhat near Big Salmon Lake
and its junction with the South Fork. The attractions of a lakeside
camping location and the opportunity for both stream and lake fishing
probably make this an especially desirable location. It is paradoxical,
however, that these attractive qualities tend to accelerate and accentu-
ate those problems which will rapidly lower the desirability of this
particular area (e.g. , littering, campsite deterioration, too many
people, etc. ).

It was suggested in Chapter IV that the sharp reaction of
Bob Marshall visitors to encountering others , particularly in the
vicinity of the campsite, might represent empirical evidence of the
relationship area size has to attitudes. This conceptual level relatim—
ship was thus examined further in analyzing the attitudes of Bob
Marshall visitors about actual use conditions encountered.

Based upon the conceptual analysis in Chapter IV, two use
levels seem critical in a discussion of carrying capacity. First,
two encounters per day seems to be the maximum number possible for at

least half the visitors to still have a satisfactory experience. In

255

analyzing the number of complaints lodged about crowding, those persons
who had encountered an average of over two parties per day complained
significantly more often than those who encountered fewer than two
per day.1
A second use level examined concerned the average number of
other parties that were camped within sight or hearing each night.
As was the case with the relationship between complaints of crowding
and meeting over two parties per day, those who had to camp near at
least one other party each night were bothered by crowding to a signi-
ficantly greater degree than others.2
It should be noted at this point that the examination of
"crowding in the Bob Marshall pertains only to the sumor-use period.
Forest Service estimations describe the wilderness as primarily a fall
use area, principally for big game hunting. It seems very likely that
both areas associated with overuse in the summer and the type of use
conditions summer visitors perceive as contributing to crowding differ

for the fall visitor.

Overuse and m in the Bridger Wilderness

The 383,000 acre Bridger Wilderness is split almost exactly
in half by an oblong zone defined by visitors as severely overused

 

1A difference significant at the .001 level. Phi equaled .6u.

2Again this difference was significant at the .001 level, with
phi equal to .55.

256

(see Figure 20). This zone centers on Island Lake and is fed by a
well-maintained trail leading in from Elkheart Park, which has a
Forest Service Information Center and a large parking lot. Consider.
able day use enters here, destined primarily for Long Lake, only a
mile from the road end.

No additional areas of overuse, although considerably smaller
in their areal extent, lie at opposite ends of the wilderness. At the
northwest end, the attraction of good fishing in the Slide Lake area
coupled with its proximity to the road and at Green River Lake,
operate to encourage heavy use. Similar conditions at the south.

eastern end create a problem of overuse in the Big Sandy Lake area.

Complaints about excessive trail traffic were inordinately
common in the Bridger. This was particularly true in the Big Sandy
area and along the trail from Elkheart Park to Island and Seneca
Lakes. ‘Ihis may be related to encounters betwun those actively
seeking an experience with the wilderness environment as opposed to
those primarily interested in a day's good fishing in a mountain lake.

This ooncem with trail traffic was reflected in the examination
of the relationship betwun the average number of parties encountered
and the tendency to conqnlain of crowding. A8 Table Mt indicates
seeing over two parties per day greatly increased the probability of
an individual complaining of overuse in the Bridger.

 

257

 

*- TO BONDURANT

BRIDGER WILDERNESS

Legend
MAIN ROAD

.. —--— AREA BOUNDARY
-:;:;.;.,..-, .. , ...... lsoline Value Indicates

'.': '33; Percentage of Area Sample
‘. =' Citing Crowding

W

   
 
 
 
     
   
 
  
 
   

 

 

nnnnnnnn

GLACIER

-----
. ......

5’27

we.
.....
eel

- ...
:‘ :neu...
'- nee-ea ""“'
e.
....

.e
''''
e’ .-

. e e-
eeeee
u',.-".ee

Me an '
U" and» FertJj-Ij
Lake {3

eIe -
......................

PINEMLE

 

BOULDER

BIG SANDY

TO FARSON
r

 

Fig 20 Zones of Crowding within the Bridger

 

258

TABLEM-l

THE RELATIONSHIP OF ACTUAL USE ENCOUNTERED TO THE

PERCEPTION OF CROWDING IN THE BRIDGER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Number Number mpressing Number not Expressing
of Parties Complaints with Complaints with Total
Seen per Day Crowding Crowding
_<_ 2.0 9 61 70
> 2.0 38 35 73
Total 47 96 1‘0
Chi square 21+.88, 1 degree of freedom, .001 > p. ¢ .- .l+2.

Only slightly less significant was the relationship found
betwoen complaints of overuse and those who camped on the average near
more than one other party and those who camped near none (Table 45).
The relatively strong negative disposition to even fairly low inten-
sities of use is in keeping with earlier conclusions that Bridger
visitors hold an image of wilderness that is quite "pure" in its
content. This was, of course, also reflected in the large percentage
of Bridger visitors classified as strong purists.

In defining capacity, in part, as the ability of an area to
provide a high quality wilderness experience, it became necessary to
examine one additional aspect in the Bridger. Under the terms of the

Wilderness Act:

. . . the grazing of livestock, where established prior
to the effective date of this Act, shall be permitted

259

to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as
are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture.1

TABLE #5

THE RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PARTIES CAMPED NEARBY AND THE
PERCEPTION OF CROHDING IN THE BRIDGER

 

 

 

 

Average Number Number Expressing Number not Expressing
of other Parties Concern with Concern with Total
Camped Nearby Crowding Crowding
_<_ 0.1+ 15 54 69
> 0.5 33 #1 7#
Total #8 95 n+3

 

 

 

 

¢ Chi square 8.36, 1 degree of freedom, .01 > p > .001.
:2 .24.

Currently in the Bridger there is an extensive amount of sheep
grazing. Allotments have been established to hold numbers of sheep
in line with grazing capacity, but it is apparent from.data obtained
in this study that the animals are contributing to a serious decline
in visitor satisfaction. There are at least three main sources of
friction: (1) the damage caused by sheep grazing on alpine meadows
and the consequent effect upon esthetics: (2) other evidence of the
sheep's presence, such as odor, manure, and dust: and (3) competition

for forage with recreational pack stock. Sheep grazing is declining,

 

1:122 Wilderness A2, p. 6.

260

however; personnel on the Bridger Forest indicate over a 50 per cent
decline between 1940 and the present.1 Increasing costs of such gra-
zing will probably continue this decline. Until its elimination,
however, it can be oXpected to remain a serious source of dissatis-
faction to the visitors and its impact upon carrying capacity will
remain great. As one visitor commented in his questionnaire: "The
sheep, of course, lent their noxious presence to an otherwise superb
area. "

As was found in the other western study areas there is an
increase in the level of complaints about crowding in the latter
portion of the summer that is considerably beyond what would normally
be expected from the general upswing in use. This appears related to
two major causes in the Bridger. First, there is an intensified
amount of day use along the peripheral area of the wilderness , but in
some cases extending into the area for several miles. Fishing and
general outdoor enjoyment appear to be principal motives for much of
this use. Its effect, however, is to create a situation of frequent
encounters along the trunk trails leading into the area. The levels
are apparently high enough to offset the generally greater level of
tolerance for other users on the trails and at the periphery of the
wilderness found in Chapter IV as well as to prompt marry persons who
normally are not concerned about overuse problems to lodge complaints .

 

1Bridger National Forest, Wilderness Patrolman Handbook.
(Typewritten.)

261

Secondly, complaints are also prompted by the accumulated
evidence of visitors from.the earlier portion of the use season.
Comments from.visitors contacted in late August and early September
such as "looked heavily used" and "lots of evidence of'heavy use"

tend to strengthen this conclusion.

Overuse and Crowding in the High Uintas

Visitors identified three major units in the High Uintas
'where use had reached sufficient proportions to elicit complaints of
crowding. .As Figure 21 shows these areas are closely associated with
both clustering of lakes as well as relative closeness to access points
into the primitive area.

It should again be pointed out that "crowding" is not nece-
ssarily defined by visitors in quantitative terms only; numerous
persons indicated that a particular area was "crowded" in terms of
seeing a large Scout party, horses, or litter scattered about.

Just over one out of every ten persons camping in Naturalist
Basin and the Brinton meadows area folt crowding was a problem; in
the Brown.Duck area, however, this rose to #0 per cent. Perception of
crowding at individual lakes rose in all three areas. This was to
be expected since most persons indicated lakes as overnight camping
areas, and earlier discussions had clearly indicated the reduced

tolerance of other users around one's campsite.

262

 

4§§%§§7‘Zztz;==-—'

HIGH UINTAS PRIMITIVE AREA

Legend

MAIN ROAD

--— AREA BOUNDARY

-— Isoline Value Indicates Percentage of

Area Sample CitIng Crowding
Icele In lites

0'23450 I2
“—

II

 

 

, LTD SALT LAKE CITY

  
 
 
  

,‘Lre svmsrou

Garfield leeln "'~‘~,
Five Her -
0 Lela F"

   

UINTAS

     
 

Otteecn leele

 

/' ,- TO STOCKMORE

 

Fig. ZI Zones of crowding within the High Uintas

 

263

Several persons commented they felt the first few miles of the
access trails were crowded, particularly along the Highline trail, but
“this was to be expected. "A This type of response suggests that a
person can notice some dissonant elements in his mediate environment ,
but due to mitigating forces related to the particular spatial location
of the event not suffer any special deleterious effect. It also concurs
with the earlier conclusion, based upon a more conceptual level investi-
gation, that users appear to zone wilderness into some sort of
"peripheral" area and a "core" area. kpectation of encounters with
others is higher in this peripheral zone and visitors appear to be
more willing to accept others in this area than in the core area. No
one, for example, indicated that seeing too many people near their
campsite did not bother them.

Concomitant with the observation that the perception of
crowding is restricted to three rather distinct areal units is the
reciprocal conclusion: A substantial proportion of the area does not
experience the level or type of use visitors perceive as crowded. As
suggested earlier, wilderness use is highly skewed in its spatial
distribution (and temporal, as well). It is interesting to note that
the three areas of crowding are all immediately adjacent to the
Primitive Area boundary, and in the case of Naturalist Basin, a major
state highway lies within a few miles of the area. Hence, it seems
probable that internal meldistribution of wilderness use may be

closely associated with the extent of external access to the area.

264

Also relevant to this matter is the fact that all three areas
possess a number of lakes which provide good fishing opportunities.
The chance for good fishing, coupled with nearness to the road end,
but in an environment still largely unmodified by man, is a powerful
attractant to the potential recreationist. The level of concern for
overuse, however, suggests that the very qualities that lend attract-
iveness to the area may be operating simultaneously to create a condi-
tion of reduced quality.

The high alpine basins in the primitive area are focal points
of activity. Here is where the lakes and their fishing resource are
found; here is where considerable horsefeed is located. As a
consequence, the perceived extent of crowding coincides to a large
degree with physiographic boundaries, and as Figure 21 indicates, it
takes on a more circular, nodal appearance. Interestingly enough,
little use seems to be occurring along the major streams in the area;
the attraction of high.mountain lake fishing apparently accounts for
this.

Preposals for including the High Uintas Primitive Area in the
National‘Wilderness Preservation System have included a substantial
acreage addition at the eastern end of the present area. The inclusion
of this area will prdbably have little effect in terms of offsetting
present overuse problems for two reasons: (1) the present problem
areas are located some distance away from.the proposed addition and

east-west trail development is poor; and (2) the d: facto area

265

preposed for addition is almost certainly supporting a considerable
amount of use at present.

As mentioned above, wilderness use is highly skewed in its
temporal distribution. The consequence of this is that visitor concern
with crowding may actually be limited to fairly brief intervals of
time, when use reaches especially high levels. This certainly appears
to be the case in the High Uintas. Between August 19 and September 1 ,
39 per cent of the total sample was contacted in the area. In this
same period, however, over 60 per cent of the total number of complaints
about crowding were received. A more complete conentary will be made
on the relevance of this finding in the last chapter: for the time
being it will suffice to note that efforts directed at a temporal
redistribution of use, given the constraints of inclement weather and
so forth, may offer substantial returns in management concerns with
the question of carrying capacity.

The relationship beWeen the actual level of use encountered
and visitor expressions of dissatisfaction with crowding closely
followed earlier conceptual findings and those in the other study
areas. Analyzing the average number of parties encountered per day
compared to the number of expressions of crowding revealed a fairly
significant relationship (p > .05). mcountering an average of over
twa parties per day yielded a markedly greater level of visitor
dissatisfaction with crowding than for those persons seeing an average

of no more than two.

266

An almost identical relationship was found betwoen the average
number of other parties camped within sight or hearing of an individual
and his propensity to complain about crowding. Only 4 persons out of
the 51 sampled who reported no other camps within sight or hearing of
their own complained about crowding. 1 However, 21 out of 101 persons
who camped near others were motivated to complain of crowding, a
difference significant at the .05 level.2 Phi equaled .16.

Thus in the High Uintas actual eXpressions of dissatisfaction
and concern about crowding appear to be significantly linked to concep-

tual expressions previously determined.

Wilderness and Overuse: Some Concluding Comments

Each of the four areas studied proved to have certain areas
perceived by visitors as crowded and, as a consequence, incapable of
fully providing the type of experience for which they were designated.
Mapping these areas thus provides an image of the areal extent of the
hiatus betwun managerial intent and management goal realization.
Zones of crowding tend to take on a linear or nodal dimension which
in turn appears linked to the configuration of the surrounding

 

1These complaints generally were focused upon the consequences
of past use, such as litter, damaged vegetation, and so forth, further
indicating the broad connotative definitions assigned to the term
"armada '1

2Sample size here is 151 compared to 1514 on other tables.
Three persons indicated camping locations outside the Primitive Area
boundary and were thus excluded from this tabulation.

267

phySiography. This is not to suggest that pm'Siography determines the
extent of crowding; rather, it simply serves as a convenient frame of
reference for the user to express boundaries for areas he perceives

as crowded.

Visitor expressions of crowding were not limited to situations
of excessive use; numerous complaints were recorded in all areas about
littering, the presence of large parties, and in the case of the BWCA,
about motor boats . In addition, there was considerable visitor dis satis-
faction about normormative behavior in the wilderness (e.g. , loud,
noisy groups) and it is apparent this form of depreciative behavior is
an important source of visitor dissatisfaction.

Theo factors are associated with the problem of crowding.
First, well-developed access, both exterior (that is, up to the wilder.
ness boundary) and interior (the transportation network within the
wilderness boundary) tends to focus use at certain locations. With
word of mouth serving as an apparently important source of information
regarding locations to visit within wilderness , those areas with
presently the highest levels of use probably tend to attract a dis-
proportionately large segment of those visiting the area for the first
time. This effect, however, might be mitigated as use reaches such
levels so as to create more obvious and serious problems .1

A second major factor concerns fishing. Considered as the
primary objective or as an incidental activity, fishing is undoubtedly

an important facet of the wilderness trip. Even in those situations

268

where it is a secondary objective, its presence (or absence) is a
salient fictor in an individual's trip plan. In lakes and rivers

that lie in proximity to the wilderness boundary, the presence of'good
fishing is a powerful attractant, not only to those concerned with a
wilderness experience, but to those who simply are looking for good
fishing. One possible technique fer dealing with the problem would
be some type of "subsistence limit"; that is, limit the catch to only
those that will be used for food on the wilderness trip itself.

Tb this point in the discussion, we have analyzed conceptual
definitions of carrying capacity, possible methods of restricting or
reallocating use, and the specific extent of overuse in each of the
four study areas. How does this information, however, relate to the
task of establishing a carrying capacity for wilderness? In Chapter VII,
'we turn to a discussion of the management relevance of the information
uncovered so far and the manner in which it relates to the over-all

problem of resource decision-making.

CHAPTER VII

MANAGERIAL AND CONCEPTUAL SOLUTIONS TO
THE CARRYING CAPACITY PROBIFM

In this final chapter we return to the initial impetus under.
lying the origin of this study. Given our present understanding of
the multifaceted nature of wilderness recreation carrying capacity,
how can this data be codified into a Work which the wilderness
manager can utilize to formulate a carrying capacity policy?

Like virtually all resource decisions, such a task will involve
a consideration of values . Thus , to adequately approach the problem
we initially turn to a discussion of the role of values in resource

decision-making.

The Role of Values in Resource Decision-Making

A growing number of studies of natural resources have eXplicitly
investigated the role of public attitudes and values upon resource
utilization and policy formulation. Geographers have made a particularly

noticeable contribution to these efforts . 1

 

1Recent examples include Louis Hamill, "The Process of Making
Good Decisions About the Use of the Environment of Man, " Natural Ea.
sources Journal, 8 (April, 1968), pp. 279-301; Roger E. Ka8person,
"Political Behavior and the Decision-Making Process in the Allocation
of Water Resources Between Recreational and Municipal Use," Natural
Resources Journal, 9 (April, 1969), pp. 176-211; and Gilbert F. mite,
"Formation and Role of Public Attitudes , " in Environmental Quality _in
2 Growing Econo , ed. by Henry Jarrett (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
Press, 1963), pp. 105-127. Additional works may be found in the
University of Chicago, Department of Geography Research Series.

269

270

One element in resource decision—making seems clear. The
degree to which the decision relative to some path of action regarding
a resource is judged as a success is directly related to the degree it
is in coincidence with the values that resource users hold for that
resource. Ultimately then, resource decision-making becomes a matter
of value judgment.

Value judgment is generally conceived of'as a somewhat less
than desirable method of selecting some course of action. The infer.
once is often that such decisions are marked by personal biases,
prejudices, and other shortcomings. In a recent monograph, however,
Meehan has rigorously demonstrated that value judgments are the only
tool at man's disposal for dealing with the environment.1 value
judgments, Meehan argues, represent one of four basic instruments for
achieving human goals with reference to the environment. This group
includes description (the organization of'perceptions into classes and
the establishment of linkages between these classes), forecasts (the
creation of’anticipations about future events in the environment, but
lacking EEZLevents occur), explanation (the generation.not only of
expectations about change, but also ways in which variables interact
to produce these changes), and finally, value judgment (the expression

of preference among real options).2

 

1Eugene J. Mbehan, value Jud ent g£§_Social Science (Homewood,
Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 95, p. 3.

2Ibid., pp. 19-21. Emphasis added.

271

Value judgments , by their very nature , are prescriptions of
future action. Resource managers then, must examine their decisions
regarding some course of action (or inaction) in light of the conse-
quences it will bring to bear upon the society of tomorrow. Again
turning to Meehan, consequences become the operational basis for a
more detailed de finiticn of value judgment :

Value judgment involves a choice among alternative

sets of consequences for human beings that can be
generated by human action or behavior in a given situa-
tion. The choice is judged by its consequences. . . .1

How then are consequences measured? The ranking of a series

of alternative consequences must be tied to the objectives that the

decision-maker has identified and defined.2

The decision—maker, in
this case, may be either an individual or some aggregate body, such as
a federal agency.

The relationship between values , consequences , and objectives
is complex and interwoven. Objectives most certainly reflect the
value systems within which they are to be made. As noted above , the
consequences of actions are judged by the extent to which they meet
objectives , and as logically follows , by the extent they coincide with
expressed values. I

There are at least twa sources of weakness in this scheme.

First , evaluating consequences where the temporal interest is in the

 

1Ibid., p. 40.

2mm, "The Process of Making Good Decisions About the Use
of the Environment of Man," p. 290.

272

future presupposes some understanding of the values considered rele.
vant by future generations. As Price has noted:
Questions involving the conservation of’natural
resources hinge on the concepts and values of the future.
Both are elements of culture; the values always, and the
concepts often, lack objective foundations which are
free from.the thought patterns of a particular society.1
One obvious solution to this problem lies in adopting a
strategy that does not preempt the alternatives or Options available
to future generations. This path underlies much of the current
interest in option demand, which ascribes certain economic values to
retaining future Options regarding resource decisions.2 .A corollary
to this line of reasoning is a consideration of consequences that will
not unduly risk mture levels of living; that is, an espousal of a
value system which.minimises risk and uncertainty for future
3

generations.

 

1Edward T. Price, "values and Concepts in Conservation, " Annals
of the Association of.American Geo ra hers, XLV'(March, 1955), p. 35.
Intertemporal differences in values m3 the problems of relating values
advanced by past societies to the problems experienced by present
societies is discussed in Barnaby C. Keeney, "The Bridge of'Values,"
Science, 169 (July 3, 1970), p. 27.

2Option demand is discussed cogently by Krutilla in "Conserva-
tion Reconsidered," pp. 780-782.

3This point is examined, albeit briefly, ‘by Philip M. Hauser,
"The Crucial value Problems, " in Perspectives on Conservation: Ess
on America's Natural Resources ed:*by Henry Jarrett (Baltimore: The
33hr? H'op' 1dn"s‘1>r_"ess, 1958), pp. 102.103. It is also cited as a
justification of’a greatly reduced rate of population growth rate by
Paul R. Erlich in The P0 ulation Bomb (New‘York: Ballentine Books,
Inc., 1968), pp. 197-153.

273

A second, more critical problem, briefly noted in Chapter II,
concerns the multiplicity of values that exist regarding the environ-
ment. In developing courses of action, whose values are utilized to
guide management decis ion-making? As has been demonstrated here, a
wide range of value systems are found among the wilderness visitors.
Additionally, there are others whose value system regarding wilderness
would call for total elimination of such areas.

The answer would appear to lie in the identification of what
is relevant. Relevance, in turn, is measured by the objectives
settled upon by the decis ion-maker. That which serves to meet stated
objectives thus becomes the foundation from which management decisions
can be directed.

This brings us to the point where we can relate this conceptual
scheme of the relation of values to resource decision-making to the
empirical effort reported in this study. Three steps need to be
examined: (1) whose value systems will be considered in the computation
of wilderness recreation carrying capacity; (2) what objectives are we
striving to fulfill: and (3) what are the probable consequences

stemming from (1) and (2).

The Relevant User Value System

In Chapter III the value of segmenting the wilderness user
population was reviewed. The task of attempting to maximize the

benefits (which are a function of the individual's value system) to

271+

each and every wilderness visitor is a physical and mathematical

inpossibility. 1

As an alternative, striving to accomplish the widest
possible use would certainly result in the deterioration and eventual
destruction of a system of areas where the display of natural forces
is the preeminent management objective.

Concern with this latter possibility, then, underlies the
rationale and motivation of the purism scale. By selectively consider-
ing the attitudes and perceptions of a population which has the most
highly developed appreciation of wilderness values recreation use may
be maintained at a level consistent with the preservation objectives
of the Wilderness Act while also insuring the availability of a high
quality wilderness experience. Thus , in examining the question of
wilderness recreation carrying capacity, we will focus attention on

the strong purists.

The Objectives of a Wilderness Recreation CarryinLCapacity Poligz

The objectives of a policy concerning wilderness recreation
carrying capacity are expressed within an institutionalized format
(the Wilderness Act) as well as within the value systems espoused by
the strong purists. There is , of course, a reciprocal relationship

involved here: the Wilderness Act was created out of a consensus of

 

10rris C. Herfindahl, What is Conservation‘i', Resources for the
Future Reprint No. 30 (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Riture,
Inc., 1961), p. 2. Although the possibility of maximizing the
aggregate value to a subset of users should not be summarily dismissed
at this time.

275

values held by persons strongly concerned with preserving some
remnants of primitive America and the Act, in turn, legislatively
protects and guarantees the values which strong purists deem as
desirable (examples of the primitive landscape, solitude, etc. ).

This consensus between the objectives embodied within institu-
tional policy and the objectives espoused by the strong purists pre-
sents an unusual but fortuitous circumstance to the wilderness manager.
However, while the general goals may be similar, unquestionably there
remain significant differences regarding means. Solicitation of user
attitudes and objectives thus remains an important method of minimising
resource manager and resource user differences regarding the appropriate

techniques and alternatives for attaining a common objective.

The Consequences of “W

Earlier reference was made to Hardin' s evaluation of the three

options cpen to wilderness managers regarding future use. 1 Given

 

institutional constraints , both legislative and administrative , as well
as the constraints endorsed by the strong purists, it is clear that a
carrying capacity mist be instituted for the elements of the wilderness
system. The consequence of inaction on this matter is clear: the
gradual deterioration of a system of primitive lands capes where soli-
tude is a salient quality. The implementation of a carrying capacity

 

1Hardin, "The Economics of Wilderness," pp. 21-22. See
footnote 3, p. 57.

276

policy, however, will also have certain consequences that should be
briefly noted.

First, it will be a necessary step in fulfilling the object-
ives of the Wilderness Act. (holy through the implementation of a
policy that weighs esthetic and plus ical capacity considerations in
light of these objectives can the system be maintained. Any other
action (except, perhaps, total closure) can only yield a series of
disparate units , characterized by varying degrees of human influence,
and varying levels of inability to provide high quality wilderness
recreation experiences.

A second consequence is that the develoment of a carrying
capacity policy based upon the attitudes and perceptions of strong
purists will mean a level of use somewhat less than what is deemed
"full capacity" by many persons. One almost certain result of this
will be increased pressure on the managing agencies to maximize recrea-
tional output from these lands by admitting more people. This will
demand the dissemination of wilderness management objectives not only
to wilderness users, but to other outdoor recreationists, industrial
interests, and the general public, along with the manner in which
such objectives mesh with over-all resource management objectives
and plans.

A consequence closely tied to the above discussion will
involve the provision of other opportunities for those seeking the

more primitive styles of outdoor recreation. Included would be not

277

only wilderness but areas where an emphasis would be placed on providing
recreation experiences in a natural type of environment. In such

areas many of the improvements discussed in Chapter V under managerial
inputs would be entirely appropriate. It may be expected that demand
and support for such areas will increase, with an accompanying
crystallization in attitudes among the public and managing agencies
about apprOpriate areas for such.management, types of facilities, and

so forthfil

Assuming then that the wilderness administrator undertakes the
task of establishing the carrying capacity of an area under his juris-
diction, what steps and considerations might be undertaken to enhance
the ability of the wilderness to provide a high quality experience?

Two broad alternative courses of action appear to be avail-
able. First, there are a variety of actions (for which there exist
sufficient data to support and administrative authority to act now)
that would eliminate or ameliorate current sources of visitor dissatis-
faction. Secondly, the decision can be made to restrict the number of
wilderness visitors at some point. These actions are not, of course,
mutually exclusive. To examine them in.more depth, however, let us
detail some specific steps that might be undertaken under the first

item.

 

1Considerable interest has already developed for such units
called variously "pioneer," "frontier," and "backcountry" areas.
Several preposals are currently under study by the Forest Service and
a number of such areas have been administratively designated under

Regulation U-3(a).

278

Measures to Increase Capacity

Below are twelve broad areas of action in which wilderness
managers should initiate action as soon as possible. Each of these
courses of action lie within the constraints of the Wilderness Act
and are endorsed by strong purists. Their implementation would
markedly improve the ability of”wilderness to provide a high quality
experience to the user while insuring the management objective of
resource preservation and thus postpone the time when rationing will

be needed.

Control Party Size

The extraordinary impact of large parties on visitor satis-
faction and'wilderness ecology and the adverse effect of such groups
on both.managers' and users' objectives clearly warrants restrictions
on the number of'persons and stock. A.party size limit of twelve
individuals appears to be (bout the largest group possible consistent
'with protecting the quality of the experience for others such a party
might meet.

Stock numbers must also be controlled. A.party of twelve
people traveling by horse presently require an additional 15 to 20
animals for packing purposes (assuming a one week trip). Administrators
should cooperate with commercial outfitters to limit pack stock to
about one animal for each guest. The adoption of some of the new,

light camping gear currently available would greatly facilitate this

279

effort. ‘Whenever feasible, the pack animals should travel separately
from the main party, Joining with them only at the campsite. It would
be preferable that the two groups travel by different routes, and in
many cases, this is already done. This would tend to reduce both the
impact on the physical environment as well as on other parties that
might be encountered. The spatial diffusion and reduction of eco-
logical and esthetic impacts should be encouraged.

Commercial outfitters operating on National Forest lands are
presently regulated in terms of itineraries and number of stock
allowed through the issuance of'special—use permits. Such a system
provides a convenient framework fbr'wilderness managers to further
offset the deleterious effects of large parties. When.mere than one
large party is in the wilderness at the same time; it would seem
advisable to keep them separated by at least one day's travel (10 to
15 miles).

There does not appear to be a similar convenient opportunity
for dealing with the large private horse parties. There'would need
to be a concomitant effort by wilderness administrators to encourage
these groups to visit ranger stations before starting a trip so that
itineraries would not unduly overlap those of commercial outfitters
or other private groups. If it appears that such a pattern could not
be arranged, then groups should be directed to other alternatives
(adjoining 92.32232 wilderness, for example) or requested to delay
starting their trip until such time that they could be accommodated in
the area with a minimum impact on other parties.

280

Elimination and Control of Littering

The presence of litter is a serious source of dissatisfaction
to all wilderness visitors. Therefore, effort should immediately be
directed along two lines. First, clean-up of residual litter coupled
with a continuing program of clean-up should be undertaken. As
suggested earlier, the presence of litter may contribute to continuing
accumulation. With the removal of past accumulations , however , future
problems may diminish greatly.

Secondly, a strict program of enforcement should be undertaken.
Present legal mechanisms for dealing with a person observed littering
in a wilderness are unwieldly and time-consuming, with the person who
observes the violation presenting evidence to the District Ranger who
in turn takes the case to a Federal Commissioner. A summons is then
issued and the case is finally brought to court.

It seems likely this process may discourage the vigorous
prosecution of offenders. A more reasonable process would be to
provide wilderness rangers and others normally working in the wilder-
ness with authority to is sue summons at the scene of the violation.

The case could then be brought immediately before the Federal Commissioner
for a ruling. This process is similar to current practices by the
National Park Service and has proved to be an expeditious and effective
method of dealing with such problems as speeding and littering in the

National Parks .

281

Provide Wilderness Users a Greater Basis fer Choice

The skewed nature of the distribution of wilderness recrea-
tionists within any area has been cited. Certainly part of this is
related to patterns of'exterior access and this will be discussed
shortly. However, it appears that present use patterns are also
related to the information concerning alternative opportunities and
attractions that the visitor possesses. The decision as to where to
go and what to do for many peeple has become what White calls "the
most elementary form.of’choice-the reaffirmation of the past."1
That is, many persons probably tend to simply follow past routes with
which they are familiar.

It is clear that additional sources of information may be one
method of effecting new use patterns. Such data as attractions, fishing
Opportunities, eSpecially scenic hikes, campsites that provide complete
solitude, available horse feed, and so forth should be made available
to the users through new, improved maps and/or guidebookS.

Such publications would have two important functions. First,
they could represent an important management tool, particularly if it
can be demonstrated that patterns of use can be influenced through the

input of additional information relevant to the wilderness visitor.2

 

1Gilbert F. White, "The Choice of Use in Resource Management,"
Natural Resources Jburnal, 1 (March, 1961), p. 28.

2This possibility may be explored in 1971 in the Spanish Peaks
Primitive Area. An effort will be made to develop a recreational map
providing a comprehensive store of information for distribution to the
public. Use patterns will then be obtained through a mail questionnaire

282

Secondly, such publications represent a potential means of
enhancing visitor satisfaction and understanding of wilderness. By
providing data concerning the area's diversity as well as information
concerning the nature of the biological and geological elements of the
environment , the total quality of the experience can probably be
enhanced.

An additional aSpect that warrants attention here concerns the
provision of information about other wildernesses and about wilderness-
like areas. Nearly one out of five in this study's sample were
classified as "neutralists" or "non-purists. " Obviously these persons
seek the type of experience and opportunity associated with areas
other than wilderness. Another #0 per cent were defined as "moderate
purists" and the type of experience they desire could probably be
largely met in areas managed for a primitive kind of recreation, but
outside the constraints of the Wilderness Act. Providing such
information will require the utilization of media other than the maps
or guidebooks suggested above. Literature describing details about
alternative opportunities and readily available to the public should

be developed.

Eliminate Motor Craft in the BWCA

Despite their protected position within the Wilderness Act, it
is imperative that if the objective of providing outstanding opportunities

 

and compared to patterns obtained from a current study. Allowing for
variations in weather conditions between the twa years , it should be

possible to obtain some measure of the effect of such information on

patterns of use.

283

for solitude in a primitive environment is an important goal of the
Wilderness Act, motor craft in the BWCA be eliminated. Lucas noted
almost ten years ago that elimination of motor craft beyond the second
lake from the boundary would greatly increase capacity1 and his
observation seems even more pertinent today.

It is in a sense paradoxical that in an area designated as a
"Canoe Area, " the objective of providing an opportunity for primitive
canoeing and camping is hampered by the presence of motor beats. fine
resolution of this conflict will be difficult, given the legislative
recognition of motor craft as permissable in the BWCA, but efforts
should be directed to amending the Wilderness Act to phase out their
presence. Their continued presence will only result in a much earlier
need to place absolute restrictions on the number of persons permitted

to visit the area, a fact which should be stressed by administrators.

Critically Examine the Extent and Qualith Access at
the Wilderness Boundary

There has been a tendency within the Forest Service to perceive
the wilderness boundary as an effective barrier to potentially deleter.
ious effects stemming from management decisions on lands outside the
wilderness. This is particularly true in terms of the development of

roads adjacent to the wilderness boundary. Too often the areal

 

1Lucas, 211: Recreational Capgcity 2f t_h_e_ Quetico-Superior Area,

p. 25.

281+

repercussions of such roads have been underestimated or apparently
not considered at all.

Certainly part of this problem stems from the lack of crystal-
lized and definitive policy guidelines regarding wilderness. Manage-
ment decisions regarding road construction near wilderness hue often
been guided by principles more applicable to mass recreation facilities
where providing means for large numbers of persons to get to the area
are important. As has been discussed several times previously, how-
ever, the objectives of management for wilderness call for the provision
of a Special type of opportunity that is difficult to achieve under
heavy pressures of use. The improvement of the Fernberg Road in the
WCA is a case in point. Past use records indicate that lakes adjacent
to the road, particularly Fall Lake and Moose Lake, have sustained very
high levels. It was generally recognized by Forest Service officials
that use was excessive. But, in response to this, access was improved
on the rationale of accommodating the heavy traffic. The improvement,
however, will only make it easier for additional traffic to move into
the area and the use problems on Fall Lake and Moose Lake will be
further aggravated. The idea that the last few miles of driving could
be a prelude , a slowing down from the conventional world needs
consideration.

There would appear to be three actions available to managers to
offset the heavy use conditions that may develop along the wilderness

boundary. First, future tranSportation plans should call for the

285

termination of road ends about two miles from the wilderness
boundary.1 Where roads are presently immediately adjacent to the
boundary, serious consideration should be given to blocking off the
last few miles. If it proves necessary for roads to be built into this
zone (for example, to harvest timber) these roads should be closed to
public use.

Although terminating roads away from the wilderness boundary
would tend to reduce the impact of casual visitors upon the physical
elements of the wilderness environment, the problem of congestion would
simply be displaced outward. Thus a second action would involve the
provision of trails with branches leading off from them. By providing
trails that branch off from the main trunk route, use could be more
readily disPersed and the dissatisfaction the wilderness visitor
experiences from encounters reduced. There would often be phySical
limitations to the extent this could be done: however, where feasible
it offers an effective means of lowering the probability of encountering
others without actual restrictions on use.

A third action involves efforts to obtain a more equitable
distribution of use between access points. This is an area careful

consideration must be given; moving use from one area to another may

 

1am .11.: would generally mean about a one hour hike to the
wilderness boundary, sufficient to substantially reduce nest day use
in the wilderness proper.

‘.‘U.

286

only Spatially relocate the problem rather than eliminate it. 1 The

highly skewod nature of visitor concentration at the access point,
however, certainly warrants an effort to effect some redistribution.
Such a result could be obtained from developing or improving access
to areas presently not utilized (keeping in mind factor one discussed
above). Included under this action would be developent of overnight
facilities at the trail head or the provision of facilities designed
especially for horse parties (corrals, stock unloading ramps, etc.).
vaiding better information to visitors regarding alternative access
locations is another alternative. Better maps and road signs are
obvious but often neglected methods of doing this. Always to be kept
in mind, however, is the fact that redistributing use at the access
points will have a consequent inpact upon levels and patterns of use

within the wilderness.

Elimination of Structures

This recomendation is simply a reaffirmation of the legis-
lative direction provided by the Wilderness Act. 2 All structures
which are not necessary for the administration of the Wilderness Act
should be renoved at the earliest possible time. The Act provides

 

1Perhaps simulation studies of traffic flows could be developed
as management tools to test results of proposed redistributing measures
in advance to avoid this problem.

2See Section ‘4», Part C. "Prohibition of Certain Uses,"
Appendix A.

287

rather Specific guidelines on this matter and evidence from.Chapter V
suggests that strong purists are largely in agreement with institutional

constraints.

Continuation of’the Wilderness Ranger Program

The stationing of seasonal personnel within the wilderness
boundary appears to be a satisfactory means of providing wilderness
administrators with up_to-date information regarding use problems.

They are also an effective agent in helping clean up litter and provid-
ing information to visitors. Their presence is supported by strong
purists and as long as they continue to be perceived as performing an
important function (in protecting the wilderness resource and its
ability to provide a high quality experience), visitor support will
probably continue. In wildernesses where such a program.is not
currently underway, efforts along this line sheuld.be undertaken

immediately.

Cooperation With State Fish and Game_Agencies in the
Establishment of Harvest Regulations

Fishing is unquestionably an important component of the recrea-
tional use of wilderness. The Opportunity to fish in a natural setting
where chances of success are usually quite good is a powerful attractant
to many people. This is particularly true when the stream.or lake
lies close to the wilderness boundary'within.easy'traveling distance

to the day hiker. The consequence of this is increased trail traffic
and accelerated deterioration of the physical environment.

288

Much of this dayause pressure could be reduced or eliminated
by modifications of creel limits. Presently many states have a ten
fish a day or twenty in possession limit. Under the terms of the
‘Wilderness Act, fish and game regulations remain under the jurisdiction
of the reSpective state. Through soaperative efforts, however,
between state and federal agencies, limits on lakes and streamS‘within
wilderness could be readjusted to permit only the taking of fish for
use on the wilderness trip itself. Such a policy would discourage
use of the wilderness by the casual visitor interested only in catching
the limit, but would permit the continuation of fishing as an important
part of the wilderness trip. EnfOrcement poses some problems here,
but should not be viewed as an insurmountable constraint.

The hunting situation appears to be quite different. There is
probably less of the casual, one day type of use that characterizes
fishing. Additionally, big game seasons normally occur in the fall
'when weather is worsening and the intensities of use in most areas
do not approach those found in the Spring and summer fishing period.1
Whereas fishing use is concentrated along stream.and lake shores,
thus accelerating resource damage, hunting use is probably disPersed

quit. Vid‘he

 

1This does not necessarily mean carrying capacity becomes an
irrelevant issue during the hunting period. The entire manner in
which capacity is defined as well as the geographical location of the
problem.are prebably quite different for hunters. This topic will be
the focus of a future research effort by the Wilderness Research
Project.

289

Encourage "Off-Season" Use of Wilderness

Overuse and crowding evidence cons iderably periodicity. In
most of the western wildernesses, the month of August, particularly
the middle portion , experiences a disproportional amount of the total
use, with a consequent rise in the extent of crowding. A management
alternative that should be pursued involves an attempt to temporally
redistribute use into periods where use is presently law.

’ One method of doing this would involve an information and
education program designed to convey to potential visitors the
opportunities "off-s eas on" use would have. Greater opportunities for
solitude , fall coloring , wildflowers , the migration of wildlife , and
other features could be stressed as values which "off-season" use
could provide. Such information could be provided through brochures,
personal contact , or through the various conservation and outdoor
recreation organisations .

A second method would again involve worldng through state
fish and game associations. By manipulating the opening and closing
of various seasons, some temporal redistribution could be effected.
This would be particularly true of hunters. By delaying the opening
of the big game season (primarily elk, moose, goat, and sheep) fall
use in some areas could be entirely eliminated. Conversely, an early
opening would increase the level and duration of use in an area.
Staggering seasons might Spread out peaks in use.

290

There would also be Opportunities to Spatially shift use.
Where physical resource damage may accompany extended use in some
drainage or larger area, an early closing or even total closure to
hunting could be utilised to protect the resource. This would.be
particularly important where early full rain or snow aggravates soil

instability or other physical conditions.

Zoning

It was noted in Chapter V that the use of zoning in the
western wilderness areas may be an important management tool in
alleviating resource damage and enhancing visitor satisfaction.
Opportunities to both Spatially and temporally redistribute use would
be available.

Certain areas in many of the mountain wilderness areas are
incapable of withstanding horse use in the early part of the use
period. .As snows melt off and Spring and early summer rains occur
the chances of excessive resource damage to saturated soils are greatly
increased. These areas could be zoned against horse travel, perhaps
for the entire season or for those periods when chances for damage
are greatest.

There would seem to be little purpose in zoning areas against
backpacker use. Little resource damage is associated with these
persons and they appear to have little impact upon satisfhction of

horseback riders.

291

On the other hand, there is strong justification for entirely
closing off some areas to all visitors, at least for a portion of the
use season. An example can be cited in the BWCA. Evidence has been
presented demonstrating that the presence of visitors on islands in
the BWCA is a major factor in nest abandonment by loons.1 The
critical nesting period for these birds is between mid-May and mid-
June. This is also the period of considerable fishing pressure,
particularly by local residents. The resulting conflict has resulted
in a steady decline in hatch success.

The problem is complicated by two other factors. Loons are
quite territorial in their nesting behavior, with generally no more
than one nest per small lake. Additionally, they nest throughout the
BWCA. Closing the entire area may not be feasible: however, it does
appear that if the loon is deemed an element of the wilderness
environment worth preserving , some protection must be provided.

One solution would lie in closing off at least some areas
within the BWCA to use until after the middle of June. This would
afford some of the locus adequate solitude from humans to successfully
hatch their eggs. A second, related solution would be to delay opening

the fishing season in some areas. This would be tantamount to closing

 

1Catherine H. Ream, Research on Ip_p_n Productifilzy_ and Pesticide
Residues, Report to the Bureau of Spar-t_— Fisheries and Wildlife
(Depafient of the Interior, Washington, D.C.: May 15,1968), 25 pp.

292

an area to all use in the early part of the use season, but would

eliminate the need to actually impose physical restriction on travel.

The Closure of Damaged Camites

Terminating use on sites damaged from overuse is a mandatory
action in light of the requisites of the Wilderness Act as well as in
terms of their effect upon quality. As was noted earlier, such an
action has been carried out in the Bob Marshall; personal eXperience
in the other study areas suggests further closures are needed.

A program of campsite closures will need to be complemented
by an effort to provide visitors with information regarding what sites
are closed as well as alternative camping locations. Such information
could be provided through the ranger stations , trail registration boxes ,

the wilderness ranger, or all of these.

Strive to Comunicate the Ob jggtives of the Wilderness System

Perhaps one of the most significant actions that could be
undertaken by administrators in their effort to enhance capacity is
to attenqat to upgrade public understanding of the objectives of a
wilderness system. The manner in which the preservation objectives
mesh with over-all. resource conservation planning should be stressed;l

In particular, the concept that wilderness represents one type of

 

1For a good statement on the relationship of preservation to
conservation, see Charles A. Connaughton, "Preservation and Conserve-
tion," American Forests, 75 (March, 1969) , p. 8.

|

293

opportunity along a continuum of environments evidencing varying
human influence must be amplified.

Along these lines , more effort could be directed at comuni-
cating norms of wilderness behavior. It was noted earlier that many
complaints were made concerning behavior perceived as inappropriate
in the wilderness environment. Modifying human behavior is a difficult
task, but a clearer public understanding of the purposes of the
wilderness system may be one method of achieving such a change. Such
an understanding will require a comprehensive program of public edu-
cation, utilizing the talents and eXpertise of persons trained in
communications theory and public Opinion analysis. Failure to pursue
such a program may lead to a growing diSparity between public percep-
tion of the purposes of wilderness and management objectives and

intent.

The Decision to Restrict Use

Implementation of the preceding twelve items would effectively
eliminate a variety of conditions that presently restrict the ability
of wilderness to yield an optimum experience for strong purists.
Nonetheless, these measures must be regarded as basically short-range
in nature. If the projections and predictions of future increases in
wilderness recreation use are accurate or even partly so, the necessity
of restricting use in most wilderness willeventually arrive. Do we

presently have the kinds of information to deal with this eventuality?

294

Like so many questions in conservation and resource management, the
answer lies somewhere betwoen "yes" and "no." Based upon the data
herein, however, we now appear to be at a point where construction of
a model fer estimating carrying capacity can be outlined, at least in

a crude fashion.

A Probabilistic Model for the Calculation
of Cardrvlng Capacity1

In the absence of rigidly controlled itineraries required for
all visitorS, it will be possible to maintain an experience of soli-
tude or near solitude for wilderness visitors only in a probabilistic
sense. With our knowledge of the differential esthetic impact of
various kinds of groups on wilderness visitors, it appears that
administrators should strive to achieve a situation, for example, where
the probability is that any party will encounter a maximum of two other
parties per day. This is an extremely complex task for administrators,
however. The following discussion suggests a methodology for determin-
ing the relationship between total use in any wilderness , the prob-
ability of encountering others , and satisfaction.

The objective is to maximize aggregate utility for the wilder.
ness user. For the purposes of this study, the "utiles" are units of

satisfaction and the wilderness users of relevance to managers are the

strong purists .

 

11 am indebted to Robert C. Lucas and John V. Krutilla for
their thoughts and suggestions in the development of this methodology.

295

There are We steps in this methodology. First, it is nece-
ssary to determine the percentage of full satisfaction experienced by
each strong purist for no encounters and the extent of change experi-
enced with one encounter, two, and so forth. Theoretically of course,
it would be necessary to gain this type of data for a variety of
situations; for the reactions about backpackers and horseback riders ,
for encounters on the trail and those at the campsite, etc. This
type of information was approached in question 16 (see Appendix B),
but there is a critical difference. We have determined in this study
the direction of attitude change associated with varying numbers of
encounters, but we are unable to assess how 9112.1}. satisfaction is lost
or gained. Our present information is ordinal in level; we must
elevate it to an interval measurement.

Fortunately recent findings in the field of psychophys ics
provide a methodology for doing this. Stevens has outlined substantial
empirical evidence demonstrating that a technique called "magnitude
estimation" is capable of gauging consensus about various subjective
dimensions. 1 By allowing the reSpondent to assign any arbitrary value
he desires to an initial stimulus, then assign values to other stimuli
that exhibit proportionately greater or lesser impact on the observer,
one is able to obtain a series of attitude judgments measured at a

 

13. 3. Stevens, "A Metric for the Social Consensus, '1 Science,
151 (February 1}, 1966), pp. 530-541. A substantial bibliography on
relevant work is included.

296

true interval level. Testing the results gained in such a fashion
against more common attitude scales, such as Thurstone's, yields a
high degree of correlation.

Utilizing such a technique would make it possible, then, to
gain a measure not only of whether one encounter heightened or
depressed visitor satisfaction, but also how much it was heightened
or depressed. The present difficulty lies in developing a method of
eliciting such information from the visitor. It requires a consider-
able degree of abstraction on the reSpondent's part. Stevens"work
and that of other social scientists utilising magnitude estimation,
however, suggests such an effort should be undertaken in connection
with the problem.of’determining carrying capacities for wilderness
recreation.

The second step necessary to provide a model for estimating
wilderness recreation carrying capacity involves the development of
a simulation model that will provide the probabilities associated
with encounters with different kinds of parties, the number of
encounters with each.different kind of group, the locations of these

encounters, and so on.1 This is a major hurdle but its potential

 

1Substantial progress has been made in the application of
computer technology and systems theory to the study of recreation
systems. See, for example, Roy I. Wblfe, Parameters of Recreational
Travel in Ontario: 5 Progress Remrt. Report to the Ontario DepaFE-
mnE Of Highways’ DeHeOe Report R311 , Ontario, cum, March, 1966
(Ontario, Canada: Department of Highways, 1966), 37 pp., and by the
same author, _A_ Theo _o_f Recreational Highway Traffic,. Report to the
Ontario Department—flof Highways , D. H. 0. Report WEI—Ontario , Canada,
May, 1967 (Ontario, Canada: Department of Highways, 1967), 45 pp.;
J. B. Ellis, 5 Systems Model £95 Recreational Travel _i_n_ Ontario:

 

297

impact upon wilderness management is so great that attention must be

directed at compliling the kinds of information necessary to the

construction of such a model.“l

A critical first step is determining the necessary input to
such a model. It would be necessary to have a reasonably accurate
estimate of a number of items, including among other things:

The distribution of each different type of party at
each access point into the wilderness.

The distribution (use pattern) of each type of group
within the interior wilderness.

A reasonably accurate estimate of variations in week.
day and weekend flows of traffic within the wilderness.
(In some wildernesses marked increases in weekend use
will be found whereas some areas will show little
variation in flow throughout the week.)

A frequency distribution of the length of stay for

each type of party. (How many stay only one day,
how many for two days, and so forth?)

A reasonably accurate estimate of oft-trail traffic:
Generally, determining the travel patterns for
developed arteries will account for nearly all use,
but in some areas, off trail traffic may be signifi.
cant.

 

Report to the Ontario Department of Highways, D. H.O.

523, Ontdrio, Canada, July, 1967 (Ontario, Canada: Department
ofp0 Highways, 1967), 32 pp.: J. B. Ellis and C. S. VanDoren, "A Compara-
tive Evaluation of Gravity and System Theory Models for Statewide
Recreational Travel Flow, " Journal o_f_ Regional Science, 6 (Winter, 1966),
pp. 57-70: David N. Milstein, Leslie M. Reid, et al., Michigan Outdoor
Recreation Lemand Study, Vols. I and II, Technical Report No. 6 to the
Miching Department of Conservation and Michigan Dopartment of Commerce
(June, 1966): and Frank J. Cesario, Jr. , "Operations Research in Outdoor
Recreation, " Journal 93: Leisure Research, 1(Winter, 1969), Pp. 33-51.

1Currently the Wilderness Research Project is exploring a
collaborative effort along these lines with Dr. John V. Krutilla and
his staff at Resources for the Future.

 

 

   

298

Utilizing this type of information, it would be possible to
generate recreation traffic flows along travel corridors throughout
a given wilderness. Based on these flows for any assumed number of
recreation days-wand their distribution both Spatially and temporally
( for any given management policy)-the probability of various number
of encounters could be estimated. From these probability estimates
coupled with data obtained from step one the eXpected value of the
wilderness resource could be calculated for any given number of visitor
days. By varying the postulated number of recreation days permitted
the carrying capacity which maximizes the expected value of the
wilderness could be computed.

There remains, of course, a great deal to be done before such
a model becomes Operational. However, as was noted earlier, if we
consider the maximization of utility as an important goal of wilderness
management, then the ends not only justify, but necessitate the means.
The above methodology outlines a means of quantitatively evaluating
the trade-off between the decision to allow some increase in the level
of use and the average level of satisfaction. An additional benefit
of this procedure is a reduction in the problem of interpersonal
utility. If we established the PBS (percentage of full satisfaction)
value based on the responses of the entire visitor population, we

would face . the problem of weighing a number of different value systems.

299

Instead, we concentrate on the strong purists whose value system in
regard to wilderness is much.more similar.1
For initial purposes of testing, it would seem to be useful
to operationally assume all parties in the system are small, backe
packing groups. This would insure a higher degree of'unifbrmity in
terms of the effect of the group encountered upon satisfaction. Any
operational model will need to account for the variable impact between
different kinds of'parties, different sizes, and so forth. Probably
the most sensitive differences will be found between those encounters
which occur on the trail as opposed to those which occur near the
campsite. Intuitively, it seems that the maximum utility for encounters
in the purview of the campsite may represent the critical measure for
carrying capacity.2 Perhaps some composite PFS value, differentially
weighing the different types of encounters and their varying spatial

occurrence may have to be developed.

Addendmn

In the continuing effbrt by geographers to understand man's
use and occupance of the environment, attention has turned to the

 

1Interpersonal utility problems commonly arise when dealing
'with different levels of income: a $5 expenditure for a person earning
$5,000 a year obviously has a different significance than for a person
earning $50,000. The problem is similar here except value systems
rather than income levels are involved.

2This'wouldbe so since the PFS value would probably tend to
be depressed at a much steeper rate than under any other condition.

300

methodologies and theoretical concepts developed within a broad

range of social sciences. The result of this action has been an
enhancement in the explanatory fimction of geography. The gradual
merging of what once were sharply delineated disciplinary lines has
been, on the whole, a healthy process. Geograpl'g, however, remains
distinguished as a discipline of integration and synthesis, organized
about a common concern with spatial phenomena.

This characteristic lends itself well to the study of man and
environment, as is reflected in both a review of the published litera-
ture as well as an examination of the expanding areas of geographic
investigation. And, it is this multidisciplinary nature of geographic
methodologies applied against a spatial backdrop that suggests the
discipline holds considerable promise for studies of resource management
and conservation.

The tepic of concern in this study has been wilderness--a form
of land use with which severe institutional constraints are associated
as well as widely varying perceptual definitions. The basic problem
to which this study has been addressed is to explain the extent of
discrepancy between institutional objectives and the patterns of
visitor utilization and to formulate means by which these two aspects
can be related.

It is clear that the issue of carrying capacity in the wilder.
ness context has been brought to the attention of administrators

because of twa factors: ( 1) the actions of visitors which lie contrary

301

to institutional objectives; and (2) the use patterns of visitors
which tend to accentuate problems of congestion in certain locales.
The alleviation of both these problems lies in the alteration or
manipulation of human behavior.
Although any social scientist may look upon his research as
an objective reporting of facts, he nevertheless must also account
for a certain responsibility in its application. Virtually all social
science research today has implications , implicit or explicit, for the
manipulation of behavior. Attempts to influence behavior may be "good"
of "bad," but they are always issues of ethics. This problem is per.
haps especially noticeable in the wilderness situation, which may
would see as the arena where one enjoys the fullest range of personal
discretion.
Kelman has reflected upon this problem and concludes:
In order to promote the enhancement of freedom of choice
as a positive goal, research will have to focus on the condi...
tions favoring a person's ability to exercise choice and to
maximize his individual values . 1
In terms of the relevance of his statement to the research
reported here, it seems desirable that the wilderness user be viewed
as the primary agent of change rather than the administrator. Influ-

ence is still being exerted (for example, by providing more information

 

1Herbert Kelman, A Time to S ak (San Francisco: Joseey-Bass
Inc. , 1968), p. 31. The Eu-E'os iorofa—manipulating human behavior is
the focus of a preposed symposium by the American Academy for the
Advancement of Science late in 1970. See William A. Hunt, "Human
Behavior and Its Control," Science, 169 (August 28, 1970), pp. 901..
902.

302

to the visitor), but individual choice is maintained. To the extent
that this situation can be maintained in conjunction with the preserva-
tion goals of the Wilderness Act, it should be pursued with vigor.
However, to fulfill the obligations to future generations imposed by
the Wilderness Act (to insure them a maximum degree of choice), it may
prove necessary to elevate the extent of manipulation of present users.
If wilderness preservation is deemed a social good, such manipulation
will be justified.

Over 1+0 years ago Aldo Leapold commented that the primary
threat to wilderness lay not with the timber or agriculture interests,
but rather with the decimation associated with increasingly large
numbers of recreationists.1 Based upon the rapid increases of recrea-
tional use in wilderness experienced in the past two decades, his
prophecy may be approaching realization.

To avoid such a conclusion the effort described herein has
attempted to provide a framework of information within which decisions
could be formulated that would optimise the relation between man and
resource. The establishment of priorities of actions and the enactment
of decisions remains the prerogative of the policy maker. Nevertheless ,
continuing efforts by geographers and other social scientists are
needed to enhance our understanding of man and his relationship to
natural landscapes and to elevate decisions regarding this relationship

from their intuitive, subjective past.

 

1Aldo Leopold, "Wilderness as a Form of Land Use, " Journal a;
Land 929. Public Utility Economics, 1 (1925), p. lIvOZ.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

THE WILDERNESS ACT

Public Law 88-577
88th Congress. 8. 4
September 3. 1964

Smart

To establish a National Wilderne- Preeervattou System for the permanent 3000
of the whole people. and for other purposes.

3.3 it enacted by the Senate and Home of Representatives of the
Umted States of America in Congress assembled, H1 ldemese not.

amour mu:
Sec-now 1. This Act may be cited as the “Wilderness Act”.

WILDERNESS arm ISTAEIJBHID "AWN? 0’ POLICY

Ste. 2. (a) In order to assure that an increasing population, accom-
panied by expanding settlement and rowing mechanization, does not
occupy and modify all areas within t 0 United States and its posses-
sions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in
their nature condition, it 18 hereby declared to be the polic of the
Congress to secure for the American people of present an future
fight-rations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For
t 1s pu e there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preser-
vation ystem to be composed of federally owned areas designated by
Congress as “wildernem areas”, and these shall be administered for
the use and enjoyment of the American ple in such manner as will
leave them unimpaired for future use an enjoyment as wilderness, and
so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of
their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of
information neg‘erding their use and enlo ment as wilderness; and no
Federal lands 8 all be designated as “Wilderness areas” except as pro-
vided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act.

(b) The inclusion of an area in the National Wildernem Preservation
System notwithstanding, the area shall continue to be managed by the
Department and agenc having jurisdiction thereover immediately
be ore its inclusion in t National Wilderness Preservation System
unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. No apgpopriation :shall
be available for the payment of or see or salaries or the adminis-
tration of the National Wilderness reservation System as a separate
unit nor shall any appropriations be available for additional personnel A 0
stated as being required solely for the purpose of mana ng or 78 sur. 891.
administerin areas solely because they are included wit in the
National Wi demess Preservation System.

DEFINITION OF WUDIRNUB

(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his
own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recogmzed 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
wilderneu is further defined to mean in this Act an area of unde-
veloped Federal land maining its primeval character and. influence,
without permanent improvements or human habitation, which 18 ro-
tected and managed so as to premrve its natural conditions and w ch
(1) generally appears to have been affected rimaril by the fpnces of
nature, with the imprint of man’s work substanti ly unnotnceable;
(2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a pnmntive and un-
confined t of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land
or is of cient size as to make racticable its preservation and um In
an unimpaired condition; and 4) may also contain ecological, geo-

303

Classification.

Presidential
rec-enht ion

to Congress.

Gena-easierml
approval.

70 STAT. 092.

304
Pub. Law 88-577 - 2 - September 3, 1964
lrfiicd, or other features of scientific, educational, sonic, or historical
v us.

NATIONAL m MANOR arm—mam 0!’ am

See. 8. ( a) All areas within the national forests classified at lead. 80
days before the eflective date of this Act by the Secretary of Agricul-
ture or the Chief of the Forest Service as “wildernem “wr d”, or
“canoe” are hereby designated as wilderness areas. m Secretary of
Agriculture shall—

(1) Within one year after the effective date of this A file a
map and legal descri ion of each wildernem area with t In-
tenor and Insular A airs Committees of the United States Senate
and the House of Re resentatives, and such descriptions shall
have the same force an efi’ect as if included in this Act : Provided,
however, That correction of clerical and typographical errors in
such leg: descriptions and maps mav be made.

2) intain, available to the public, records pertaining to said
wi dernem areas, including maps and legal descriptions, copies of
regulations governing them, copies of public notices of, and re-
ports submitted to Congrem regardi pending additions, elimina-
tions, or modifications. Maps, legal escriptiona, and regulations
pertaining to wilderness areas within their ive jurisdic-
tions also shall be available to the public in the cos of regional
foresters, national forest su rvisors, and forest rangers.

(b) The Secretary of Agricu ture shall, within ten years after the
enactment of this Act, review, as to its suitability or nonsuitability for
preservation as wildernem, each area in the national forests classified
on the efiective date of this Act by the Secrets? of Agriculture or the
Chief of the Forest Service as “ rimitive” an report his findings to
the President. The President all advise the United States Senate
and House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to
the designation as “wilderness” or other reclamification of each area on
which review has been completed, together with maps and a definition
of boundaries. Such advice shall be given with respect to not lam than
one-third of all the areas now clamrfied as “primitive” within three
years after the enactment of this Act, not lam than two-thirds within
seven years after the enactment of this Act, and the remaining areas
within ten years after the enactment of this Act. Each recommenda-
tion of the President for designation as “wildernem” shall become
e active on y r so ‘p‘rovided by an Act of Congrem. Areas clamifierl
as “primitive” on e efiective date of this Act shall continue to be
admrnistered under the rules and regulations afiect' such areas on
the effective date of this Act until Congrem has determined otherwise.
Any such area may be increased in size by the President at the time
he submits his recommendations to the Congress b not more than five
thousand acres with no more than one thouaan two hundred and
eighty acres of such increase in any one compact unit; if it is :roposed
to increase the siss of any such area by more than five thousan acru
by more than oneothoumnd two hundred and sigh acres in any one
compact unit the increase in eise shall not become a active until acted
ppon by Congress. Nothing herein contained shall limit the President
rn preparing, as of his recommendations to Congrem, the altera-
tion 0 ndaries of primitive areas or recommending the
addition-of any contiguous area of national forest lands predominantly
of wildernem value. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the
Act, the Secretary of Agriculture may complete his review and delms
suchareaasmaybenecessa butnottoexceedesven decree,
fmmtheeouthsrntipofthe Range-EagleafiedPrimitiveArea,

305
September 3. 1964 - 3 - Pub. Lew 88-577

Colorsdo, if the Secretery determines thet such ection is in the public
intend.

(c) Within ten yesre eftsr the effective dete of this Act the Secretery mp": t.
of the Interior shell review every rosdleu eree of five thousend con- President.
tifuous ecres or more in the netionel perks, monuments snd other units
0 the nstionel syuem end every such sres of, end every rosdless
islend within, t netionel wildlife refuges end genie renges, under his
'urisdiction on the eflective dete of this Act end shell report to the

'dent his recommdetion es to the suitsbilit or nonsuitebility
of esch such eree or islend for preservetion es wil erneu. The Presi- Pnsieontiei
dent shell sdvise the President of the Senste end the Spesker of the nee-amuse
House of Representetives of his recommendetion with respect to the to coast-cu.
desi etion es wilderneu of eech such eree or islend on which review
hes an mpleted, together with e rnep thereof end s definition of its
bounderies. Such edvice shell be given with respect to not less then
one-third of the erees end islends to be reviewed under this subsection
within three yesrs sfter enectnient of this Act, not lea then two-thirds
within seven yesrs of ensctrnent of this Act, end the remeinder within
ten yesrs of ensctment of this Act. A recommendstion of the Presi- Congressiornl
duit for designstion es wilderneu shell become efl'ective only if so pro- Ippml.
vided by en Act of Nothing oonteined herein shell, by
im licstion or otherwise, contrued to lemen the present ststutory

ri of the Secretsry of the Interior with to the msinte-

nence rosdleasresswithinunitsoftheneti rksystein.

(d) (l)’ The Secretsry of Agriculture end the of the Suitebiiity.
Interior shell, prior to submittin eny recommendstions to t Presi-
dent with respect to the suitebi ity of eny eree for preservetion es
wilds!!!“—

(A) give such public notice of the proposed ect ion es thev deern Pubnestton in
sppropriste, including publicetion in the Federsl Register end in Pod-1‘1 lid-tor.
e newspsper heving generel circuletion in the eree or srees in the
vicinity of the sflected lend;
(B) hold s public hesring or heerings st e locstion or locetions Rosw-
convenient to the eree elected. The heerings shell be ennounced
such nieens es the respective Secreteries involved deem
eppropriete, includ' notices in the Federsl Register end in museum in
newsps rs of gene circuletion in the eree: Provided. Thet if Pod-rel Meter.
the involved ere locsted in more then one Stste,-et lee‘ one
hesring shell be held in esch Stete in which e portion of the lend
15.; is 31m. 092.
(C) st lest. thirty deys before the dete of e hes ' sdvise the II "I" "5'
Governor of esch Stete end the governing boerd of sec count , or
in Alesks the borough, in which the lends ere locsted, end F ersl
depertinents end egencies concerned, end invite such oficiels end
Federsl egenciu to submit their views on the proposed ection et
a}: Mghesring or by no leter then thirty deys fol owing the dete of
t .
(2) .Any views nibuiitted to the sppropriste Secretsry under the
revisions of (l) of this subsection with respect to eny eree shell be
uded with eny recommendstions to the President end to Congre-
with respect to such eree.

(e) Any modifiestion or sdjustnient of boundsries of eny wilder- Proposed sodi-
ne. eree shell be recommended by the s propriets .Secretsry efter 1’10“!!!»
public notice of such 1 end pubic hesring or heerings es
provided in subsection d) of this section. The proposed modificstion
orsdiustrnentshsllthenbsiecoinrnsnded withnis end descri ion
thceof to the Pruident. The President shell vise the nited
Stetss Busts end the House of Bepresentetives of his recommende-

ticnswithreqeettoncheiodifiaticnorediumntsndsuchreeein—

16 050 475.
16 USC 526-631.

16 USC 577-577bo

is use 571°.5'nh.
16 use 5174-1,
5773-1, 57m.

39 sue. 535.
16 use i g 23-

49 Stl$. 038.

76 STAT. 694.

306

Pub. Law 88-577 - 4 - September 3, 1964

mandations shell become efl'ective only in the same manner as pro-
vided for in subsections (b) end (c) of this section.

‘UIB or'vnnsnuussss.annss

Sec. 4. (a) The pu of this Act are hereby declared to be within
end supplements] to e urposes for which national forests and units
of the national perk an national wildlife refuge systems are estab—
lished end administered and—

(1) Nothing in this Act shell be deemed to be in interference
with the urpose for which national forests are established as set
forth in t e Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stet. 11), and the Multiple-
Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12 1960 (74 Stat. 215).

(2) Nothing in this Act shell in if; the restrictions and pro-
visions of the Shipsteed-Nolen Act ( ublic Law 539, Seventy-
first Con Ju y 10, 1930; 46 Stat. 1020), the Thye-Blatnik
Act (Pub ic Lew 733, Eightieth Congress, June 22, 1948; 62 Stet.
568), and the Humphrey~Thye-Blatnik-Andresen Act (Public
Law 607, Eight -fourth Con ress, June 22, 1956; 70 Stat. 326)

as agp‘lying to t e Superior etional Forest or the regulations of
the retery of Agriculture.

3) Nothing in this Act shell modify the statutory authorit
un er which units of the national park system are crested
Further, the designation of any area 0 any perk, monument, or
other unit of the national park system as a wilderness area
pursuant to this Act shell in no manner lower the standards
evolved for the use end preservation of such park, monument, or
other unit of the nations park system in accordance with the Act
of August 25, 1916, the statutory authority under which the area
was crested, or any other Act of Congress which might pertain
to or effect such area, includ' but not limited to, the Act of
June 8, 1906 (84 Stet. 225; IWSC. 432 et seq.); section 3(2)
of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(2)) ; and the Act of
A 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.). .

(b) xcept as otherwise provided in this Ac each agency edmin-
istering any area designated as wildernem she be responsible for
preserving the wilderness character of the area and shell so administer
such area for such other purposes for which it may have been estab-

' also to preserve its wilderness charecter. Except as other-
wise provided in this Act, wildernep areas shell be devoted to the
public pu of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conser-
vation, an historical use.

IIIOEHIIIUOII OU'CHIIRAIlflfllIl

(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to
existing privete rights, there shall be no commercial ente rise and no
permanent road within any wilderness area designated y this Act
and, except as necemary to meet minimum requirements for the admin-
istration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures

ired in emergencies involving the health and safety of rsons
within the area), there shall be no tem rary road, no use 0 . motor
vehicles, motorised equipment or moto no landing of aircraft,
no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation
within any such area.

307
September 3. 1964 - 5 - Pub. Law 88-577

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

(d) The following special provisions are hereby made:

. (1) Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of
aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become estab-
lished, may be rmitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the
Secretary of griculture deems desirable. In addition, such meas-
ures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects,
and diseases, subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems
desirable.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilder-
ness areas any activity, including pros ting, for the purpose of

hering information about mineral or ot er resources, if such activity
is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the
wilderness environment. Furthermore, in accordance with such pro-
gram as the Secretary of the Interior shall develop and conduct in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, such areas shall be
surveyed on a planned, recurrin basis consistent with the concept of
wilderness preservation by the (geological Survey and the Bureau of
Mines to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present;
and the results of such surveys shall be made available to the public
and submitted to the President and Congress.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, until mid- Mineral leases,
night. December 31, 1983, the United States mining laws and all laws claims. etc.
pertaining to mineral leasing shall, to the same extent as applicable

rior to the effective date of this Act, extend to those national forest
ands designated by this Act as “wilderneS areas”; subject, however,
to such reasonable re lations governing ingress and egress as may
be prescribed by the ecretary of Agriculture consistent with the use
of the land for mineral location and development and exploration,
drilling, and production, and. use of land for transmission lines, water-
lines, telephone lines, or facilities necessary in exploring, drilling,
producing, mining, and processing operations, inclu ing where essen-
tial the use of mechanized ground or air equipment and restoration as
near as practicable of the surface of the land disturbed-in performing
prospecting, location, and, in oil and gas leasing, discovery worlr,
exploration, drillin , and production, as soon as they have served their

urpose. Minin ocations lying within the boundaries of said wrl-
Semess areas she I be held and used solely for mining‘or processing
operations and uses reasonably incident thereto; and ereafter, sub-
ject to valid existing rights, all patents issued under the mining laws
of the United States afiecting national forest lands designated by
this Act as wilderness areas shall convey title to the miners.- deposits 75 5”“ 394-
within the claim, together with the right to cut and use so much of the 78 STAT. 895.
mature timber therefrom as may be needed in the extraction, removal,
and beneficiation of the mineral deposits,_if needed timber is not
otherwise reasonably available, and if the timber is cut under sound
principles of forest management as defined by the national forest
rules and letions, but each such atent shall reserve to the United
States all tit e in or to the surface 0 the lands and products thereof,
and no use of the surface of the claim or _the resources therefrom not
reasonably required for carrying on mining or prospectrn shall be
allowed except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act: . resided,
That, unless hereaftemificelly authorised, no patent within wil-
derness areas dedgn by this Act shall issue after December 31,
1983, except for the valid claims existrn on or before December 31,
1983. Mining claims located after the .e ectrve datepf this Act within
the boundaries of wildernem areas designated bathrs Act shall create
no rights in excess of those rights which may patented under the

Hater resources.

78 STAT. 895.
78 STAT. 896.

Transfers, re-
strict ton.

308
Pub. Law 88-577 - 6 - September 3. I964

provisions of this subsection. Mineral leases, permits, and licenses
covering lands within national forest wilderness areas decimated b
this Act shall contain such reasonable stipulations as may be prescri
b the Secretary of Agriculture for the protection of the wilderness
aracter of the land consistent with the use of the land for the pur-
poses for which they are leased, permitted, or licensed. Subject to
valid rights then existing, effective January 1, 1984, the minerals in
lands designated by this Act as wilderness areas are withdrawn from
all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition
ulr‘ider all laws pertaining to mineral leasing and all amendments
t ereto.

(4) Within wilderness areas in the national forests designated?
this Act. (1) the President may, within a s ific area and in acco -
ance with such regulations as he may earn desirable, authorize
prospecting for water resources, the establishment and maintenance
of reservoirs water-conservation works, power projects, transmission
lines, and ot er facilities needed in the public interest, includin the
road construction and maintenance essential to development an use
thereof, upon his determination that such use or uses in the specific
area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people
thereof than will its denial; and (2) the ing of livestock, where
established prior to the eflective date of t is Act, shall be permitted
to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed
necessary by the Secretarv of Agriculture.

(5) Other provisions of this Act to the contrary notwithstanding,
the management of the Bounds? Waters Canoe Area, former] desig-
nated as the Superior. Little ndian Sioux, and Caribou oadlea
Areas, in the Superior National Forest. Minnesota, shall be in accord-
ance with regulations established by the Secretary of Agriculture in
accordance with the general purpose of maintaining, without unneces-
sary restrictions on other uses,‘ including that of timber the primitive
character of the area, articular-1y in the vicinity of lakes, streams,
and portages: Prom' , That nothing in this Act shall reclude the
continuance within the area of any already establi ed use of
motorboats.

(6) Commercial services ma be performed within the wildernem
areas designated this Act to the extent necessary for activities which
are roper for rea iaing the recreational or other wilderness purposes
of t e areas.

(7) Nothing in this Act shall constitute an expreu or implied claim
gr denial on lthe part of the Federal Government as to exemption from

w r aws.

(8 Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the 'uris-
diction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to ' dlife
and fish in the national forests.

STAJ1B.ASHDIPIIVAHHB LAJWDS ‘VITTIUN ‘VILDMIH'ISS AJHUHB

Sec. 5. (a) In any case where State-owned or dprivately owned land
is completely surrounded by national forest lan within areas desi -
nated y this Act as wilderness, such State or private owner shall
given such rights as may be necessary to assure adequate accem to
such State-owned or privately owned land by such State or private
owner and their successors in interest, or the State-owned land or
privately owned land dial] be exchanged for federally owned land in
the same State of approximately equal value under authorities avail-
able to the Secretary of Agriculture: Provided, however, That. the
United States shall not transfer to a State or private owner any
mineral intends unlem the State or private owner relinquishes or

309

September 3, 1964 - 7 - Pub. Law 88-577
78 STAT. 896.

causes to be relinquished to the United States the mineral interest in
the surrounded land.

(b) In any case where valid mining claims or other valid occu-
pancies are wholly within a designated national forest wilderness
am the Secretary of Agriculture shall, by reasonable regulations
consistent with the preservation of the area as wilderness, permit
ingress and egress to such surrounded areas by means which have been
or are being customarily enjoyed with respect to other such areas
similar] situated.

(c) ubject to the appro riation of funds by Congress, the Secre-
taryl of Agriculture is aut orized to acquire privately owned land
wit in the perimeter of any area designated by this Act as wilderness
if (1) the owner concurs in such acquisition or (2) the acquisition is
specifically authorized by Congress.

mm, MUM, AND CONTRIBUTIONS

Sec. 6. (a) The Secretary of A iculture may accept gifts or bequwts
of land within wilderness areas esignated by this Act for preservation
as wilderness. The Secretary of Agriculture may also accept ifts or
bequests of land adjacent to wilderness areas desi mated by this Act
for preservation as wilderness if he has given sixty ays advance notice
thereof to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives. Land accepted by the Secretary of Agriculture under
this section shall become part of the wilderness area involved. Regula-
tions with regard to any such land may be in accordance with such

ments, consistent with the policy of this Act, as are made at the
time of such ift, or such conditions, consistent with such policy, as
ma be inclufed m, and accepted with, such bequest.

(vb) The Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to accept private contributions and gifts to be used to fur-
ther the purposes of this Act.

ANNUAL REPORTS

Sec. 7. At the o ning of each session of Congress, the Secretaries
of Agriculture an Interior shall jointly report to the President for
transmission to Congress on the status of the wilderness system, includ-
in a list and descnptions of the areas in the system, regulations in
e ect, and other pertinent information, together with any recommenda-
tions they may care to make.

Approved September 3, 1964.

 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

lDUSE REPORTS: No. 1538 accompanying H. R. 9070 (Com. on Interior 3.
Insular Affairs) and No. 1329 (Comm. of Conrerenoe).
SENATE REPORT No. 109 (Comm. an Interior & Insular Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 109 (1963): Apr. 4, 8,ccnsidered in Senate.
Apr. 9, considered and passed Senate.
Vol. 110 (1964): July 28, considered in House.
JuLy 30, considered and passed House, amended,
in lieu of H. R. 9070.
Aug. 20, House and Senate agreed to conference
report.

Acquisition.

APPENDIX B
THE QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire forn.inc1nded here represents that used in
the mail. It differs from the field version only in terms of verb
tense. It represents the form used in the west only: the BWCA form
differed only in terms of references to nodes of travel and some

management practices.

 

 

Wilderness is many things to many pe0ple. For the pur—

pose of this questionnaire, we will define a wilderness

as a natural, undeveloPed area, with no roads, and which

is essentially unchanged by man. This would include areas
like the wilderness and primitive areas of the U. S. Forest
Service as well as the primitive backcountry of the National
Parks.

 

 

 

 

How many pe0ple were in your party?

 

How many nights out did you spend on this trip?

 

Who was in your party? (Check one)

[7 Family
Z 7 Family and friends

[:7 Friends and acquaintances

Was this an organization-sponsored trip?

Z 7 No Z 7 Yes ———) If yes, what organization?

 

Were you traveling with an outfitter?

D No [:7 Yes

310

311

How often did your parents take you on the following kinds of cam ing
trips (overnight trips)? (Check one answer for each kind of trip§

Occa— Don't
Never sionally

O
H)
(+-
(D
:3
W
:3
O
2

 

 

 

On hiking or canoe trips

In auto campgrounds

RIDE:
DIED
EDD
QED

Other (please describe)

 

 

Was this your first visit to a wilderness area?

What activities did you do while on this trip?

Z:7 No Z:7 Yes (If yes, go to question 8)

At about what age did you first visit a wilderness area?

 

Since your first wilderness trip, about how often have you gone on
additional wilderness trips? (Check one)

[:7 More than once a year

Z:7 About once a year

Z:7 About once every two years
Z:7 Less than once every two years

About how many total wilderness trips had you been on, prior to this
one?

 

Had your prior wilderness experience been limited to this area, or
had you visited a number of different areas? (Check one)

Z 7 Experience limited to this area

[:7 Visited a number of other wilderness areas

 

 

 

Was there any single activity that led you to visit this wilderness
rather than some other recreational area?

Z Z No [:7 Yes ___> If yes, what was it?

 

312

As you think of wilderness, how desirable or undesirable do you think each
of the following things is:

Very un— Unde- Desir— Very de-
desirable sirable Neutral able sirable

 

A. Absence of man—made
features, except trails

D
D
D
D

B. Lakes behind small man-
made dams

C. Gravel roads
D. Private cabins

E. Stocking the area with
kinds of game animals that
were not native to the area

F. DevelOped campsites with
plank tables, cement fireplaces
with metal grates, and outhouses

G. Lots of camping equipment
to make camping easy and com-
fortable

H. Stocking the area with
kinds of fish that were not
native to the area

I. No motorized travel by
visitors

J. Forests, flowers, and
wildlife much the same as
before the pioneers

K. Solitude (not seeing many
other people except those in

your own party

L. Covers 8 large area (at
least 25 square miles)

M. Remote from towns or cities

N. Little evidence of other
visitors before you

DEDE D DE D D D DEED
DEED D DE D D D DEE
EDDD E DD D E D EDD
DEED D DE E E D DEE
DEED E DD D D D EDD

ll.

lla.

12.

13.

313

Suppose that you go on a camping trip in the wilderness. During the
second day out, you notice that two or three other parties have set up
camps in the area around yours. Which of the following statements best
describes what you would do? (Check one)

[:7 I would stay. I would find the company of other campers enjoyable.
Z 7 I would stay. I don't care how many other camps are in the area.

Z:7 I would stay there as long as I originally planned, but probably
would not enjoy my visit as much.

Z 7 I would stay there, but I would cut short the length of my visit.

Z Z I would pack up my camp and look for another place in the wilderness
to camp.

[:7 I would pack up my camp and go home.
Z:7 Other (please describe)

 

About how many other camps would you like set up near your own? (Let's
say within sight or hearing.)

 

The following situations are things you might run across on any wilderness
trip. Please check how you would feel about each of them:

It would It would
bother me bother me I would Doesn't
a lot a little enjoy it matter

Meeting many peOple on the trail. . [:7 1:7, 1:7) [:7

Finding litter along the trails

and at campsites. . . . . . . . . . [:7 1:7. 1:7, [:7

Camping at a place worn from

overuse.............. E U U U
Meeting no one all day. . . . . . . U 0 £7 0

Camping at a place where several

other parties are camped. . . . . . 1:7, ,Z:7 1:7. [1:7

When traveling in the wilderness you will usually see some other groups.
Assuming you will meet other groups, indicate your personal preference for
seeing each of the following groups: (Check one for each kind)

Prefer to Prefer not Doesn't make
meet to meet any difference

Backpackers U U [j
Hikers , with st ock 0 £7 0
Horseback riders 1:7, 1:7, [:7

14.

14a.

14b.

15.

314

Do you feel there should be a limit to the size of parties visiting
wilderness areas? (Check one)

Z:7 No, none at all

[:7 Yes, but only for horseback groups
[:7 Yes, but only for backpackers

Z:7 Yes, for all kinds of visitors

Z Z No Opinion

If you answered "yes" to any of the above statements, what is the maximum
number of people that should be allowed in one party? Circle one

 

2 4 6 8 10 12 15 20 25 30 40 50 75 100 150
200 300 400 500
If you felt there should be a limit on the size of horseback parties,

what is the maximum number of horses that should be permitted for one
party? Circle one

 

2 u 6 8 10 12 15 20 25 30 no 50 75 100 150
200 300 400 500

If the use of a wilderness was very heavy, and controls on use were being
considered, check how you would feel about each of the following manage-
ment policies:

Strongly Strongly
favor Favor Neutral Oppose Oppose

A. Limit the number of people
entering the wilderness area--

(1) by issuing a limited
number of permits on a first-
come, first—served basis

(2) by issuing a limited
number of permits on a drawing
(or lottery) basis

(3) by issuing a limited
number of permits through a
mail reservation system

DD E D
DD E D
DD D D
DE D D
DD E D

B. Charge an entrance fee

C. Issue permits so that
people could only visit and
camp in the area assigned to
them

E
D
D
D
D

16.

315

Strongly Strongly
favor Favor Neutral Oppose Oppose

D. Reduce the number of trails
and signs so that only those
persons willing to make the ef—

fort could visit the area 0 fl [:7 U U

E. Block off the last few miles
of the access roads so the trail

to the wilderness would be longer £7 [7 U U U

F. Allow use to continue to

increase without controls £7 £7 [7 U [j

G. Something else would be better.
I would suggest:

 

 

We are interested in finding out how you feel about the number of parties
you might see while traveling in the wilderness. Please circle the symbol
which shows your feelings about the number of parties indicated in each
sentence. The first section concerns peOple who are backpacking: the
second section is about horseback riders. A party would include from one
or two up to about five people.

 

The symbols below are defined as follows:

VP . . . . Very Pleasant

P . . . . Pleasant

N . . . . Neutral (Don't care either way)
U . . . . Unpleasant

VU . . . . Very Unpleasant

 

Section I.

What would be your feelings about seeing n9 other parties
each day, either backpackers or horseback riders . . . . . VP P N U VU

What would be your feelings toward seeing one party of
backpackers each day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VP P N U VU

Toward seeing two parties of backpackers each day. . . . . VP P N U VU

Toward seeing three parties of backpackers each day. . . . VP P N U VU

17.

316

Toward seeing five parties of backpackers each day . . . . VP P N U VU
Toward seeing sevgp parties of backpackers each day. . . . VP P N U VU
Toward seeing pipe parties of backpackers each day . . . . VP P N U VU
Section II.

What would be your feelings about seeing one party of
horseback riders each day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VP P N U VU

Toward seeing two parties of horseback riders each
dayIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVPPNUVU

Toward seeing three parties of horseback riders
eaCh day I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VP P N U VU

Toward seeing five parties of horseback riders each
dayI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VP P N U VU

Toward seeing seven parties of horseback riders
eaCh day I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VP P N U VU

Toward seeing nine parties of horseback riders each
day. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VP P N U VU

For each of the following statements, please indicate how much you agree
or disagree with it by circling one of the symbols following each state-
ment. The symbols are defined as follows:

SD means "Strongly Disagree"

D means "Disagree"

N means ”Neutral Feeling" or "Don't care either way"

A means "Agree"

SA means "Strongly Agree"

 

It's most enjoyable when you don't meet anyone in
the Wilderness I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SD D N A SA

Meeting other people around the campfire at night
should be part of any wilderness trip. . . . . . . . . . . SD D N A SA

You should see at least one group a day in the
wilderness to get the most enjoyment out of your trip. . . SD D N A SA

317

There is a great deal of different between the kind

of people who like to backpack in the wilderness

and those who prefer to travel by horseback in the
wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Direction signs should be placed in wilderness

areaSI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

There should be restrictions on how many people can
be in a wilderness at any given time . . . . . . . . .

There should be areas of a wilderness designated for
horseback use only and other areas for backpackers

only..............o..........

Both backpacking and horseback travel are entirely
appropriate ways to travel in wilderness areas . . . .

If a wilderness area becomes overcrowded, restrictions
on the number of people allowed to visit it should
be enforcedI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

While I am traveling in the wilderness (whether by
foot or horseback), I prefer that the peOple I
meet are traveling by the same means I am. . . . . . .

Seeing too many peOple in the wilderness is more
disturbing than finding a littered campsite. . . . . .

It is reasonable to expect that one should be able
to visit a wilderness area and see few, if any,
Peopleooooooooocoooocooocon.no

When staying out overnight in the wilderness it is
most enjoyable not to be near anyone else. . . . . . .

Seeing a large party (a dozen or more peOple from a
club, etc.) reduces the feeling that you're out in
the Wilderness I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Mile marker signs should be placed every mile along
wilderness trails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It would be better to be able to go to the wilderness
whenever you want to, even if it was badly crowded
when you got there, than to have any kind of regula-
tions on use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wilderness recreation is the finest sort of
recreation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

18.

318

A beautiful view would be just as impressive from a
roadside overlook as from a trail deep inside the
Wilderness I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SD D N A SA

Assuming that you will see some other peOple while traveling in the
wilderness, which of the following situations would you prefer: (Check
one for each statement)

Seeing one large party of 30 people during the day 23 ten parties of
three people each, spaced through the day?

[:7 One large party

Z 7 Ten small parties

Z7 Makes no difference
Seeing one large party Of 30 peOple over a week-long trip and no one else

the rest of the week 93 three or four small parties every day for a week-
long trip?

[:7 One large party
‘[:7 Three or four small parties

[:7 Makes no difference
Seeing a lot of peOple within the first mile or so from where the trail

takes Off from the road and no one else the rest of the trip 9; several
other parties in the area where I expect to camp?

[:7 On the trail
Z:7 Near my campsite
Z:7 Makes no difference

Seeing one large party of 30 people during the day and no one else 9;
one small party of three peOple and no one else?

[:7 One large party
Z 7 One small party
Z:7 Makes no difference

Seeing one large party of 30 people during the day and no one else 9;
five small parties of three people and no one else?

Z:7 One large party
5 Five small parties

[:7 Makes no difference

19.

19a.

20.

319

 

Now, we'd like to know something about the wilderness trip you took this
summer (the one mentioned on the first page).

 

 

How many other parties did you see on this trip (let's say a party would
include one or more peOple traveling together)? How many of

 

these were large parties (say, 10 or more peOple)? How many Of

 

the parties had horses?

 

Would you please look at the map included with this questionnaire. Could
you please note below the places you camped (the name of the nearest lake
or mountain will do), how many nights you spent at each place, and how
many other parties were camped in the same area each night (within sight
or hearing). Your best guess or estimate will be O.K.

Places Camped Nights Other Parties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you feel that the wilderness area you visited was too crowded?
(Check one)

[:7 No, it didn't appear overcrowded to me
‘[:7 Yes, but only in a few areas
[:7 Yes, it was overcrowded in most places

[:7 I didn't notice one way or the other

20a. If you felt that the area was overcrowded, did it bother you?

(Check one)
[:7 No, not at all
[7 Only a little
[:7 A moderate amount
[:7 It bothered me a lot

20b.

200.

21.

22.

23.

320

If you felt crowding was a problem in the wilderness area you visited,
could you please note the places you felt were overcrowded? (A very
simple description of the place will be enough: something like, "around
Smith Lake," or "on the trail between Jones Pass and Brown Lake.")

 

 

 

If you felt that the area was crowded, did you in any way change the
route of your trip or the length of your stay? (Check one)

[7 No
0 Length of trip
[:7 Route of trip

[:7 Both

When looking for a spot to camp, which of the following locations would
you like best? (Check one)
Z Z A spot out of sight and hearing of all other campers.

[:7 A place some distance from other campers; seeing or hearing them,
however, wouldn't bother me.

[:7 A place near other campers. They would add enjoyment to my
wilderness trip.

[:7 It doesn't make any difference to me.

What are your feelings about the trail system in this area?

 

 

 

 

What are your feelings about the number and kind of signs in this area?

 

 

 

 

321

24. The following is a list of things that might be provided in wilderness
areas. Check how you would feel about each of them.

Strongly Doesn't Strongly
favor Favor matter Oppose Oppose

U L7 L7

 

A. More high quality trails Z 7

B. More signs indicating
places to camp off the trail

C. More maps and pamphlets
about the area

DD E
DD E D
DE E
DD D
DE E

D. More campsites

E. Wilderness rangers, who
provide visitor information,
help keep the wilderness
clean, etc.

F. Hitching racks

G. Corrals

H. Simple pit toilets

I. Simple wooden bridges
across large rivers

J. Split log picnic tables
at campsites

D D EDDD
E D EDDD

DEDDED
DEDDED
DEDDED

 

Finally, in order to make comparisons between the many kinds of visitors
to wilderness areas, we would like some general information about you.

 

 

25. Do you belong to any organizations that are primarily concerned with
conservation or outdoor recreation?

[:7 NO [:7 Yes.—__;, If yes, please list them:

 

 

26.

27.

28.
29.
30.

31.

322

Where did you spend most of your life before age 18. (Check one)

[:7 Farm or rural area

[:7 Small town (5,000 or less)

[:7 Small city (5,000 - 50,000)

Z:7 Large city (50,000 - 500L000)

[:7 Very large city (over 500,000)

[:7 Suburb--within 15 miles of large or very large city

What is your occupation (what kind of work do you do?)? (If still in
school, indicate "student")

 

 

 

 

Your age
Male [:7 Female Z 7
What was the last year of school completed. (Please circle)
Elementary
School High school College
8 (or less) 9 10 11 12 13 10 15 16 17 (or more)

Please check your total family income, before taxes.

[:7 less than $3,000 ‘Z:7 $8,000-$8,999
£7 $3.000—$u.999 £7 $9.ooo—$9.999
[:7 $5.000-$5.999 £7 $10.000-$1u.999
L7 356,000-336,999 fl $15.000-$2L+.999
[:7 $7.000-$7,999 [:7 over $25,000

--Thank you very much-—

APPENDIX C

SAMPIING CALENDAR

Below are listed each of the trail sampling locations in each
study area. Also presented are the calendars of sampling activity in

each area.

BWCA Sample Locations

 

Strata I Strata II2
1. Moose Lake A1 5. Saganaga Lake
2. Moose Lake B 6. Clearwater Lake
3. Fall Lake A 7. Trout Lake
l+. Fall Lake B 8. KevishiWi Lake

9. Crane Lake

10. Saw’oill Lake

11. East Bearskin Lake
12. West Bearskin Lake
13. Moose River

11!. Lake One

15. Magnetic Lake

 

1The "1" locations on Moose and Fall Lakes represents one of
the landings selected for sampling; the "B" locations, the second. A:
was noted in the text, there were several locations on each of these
lakes where landings were made. Two locations were selected on each

for the purposes of sampling.

ZAlthough there were 18 locations that qualified as Strata II
entries , the process of randomly selecting the Strata II sampling
locations accounted for only 11 of the possible 18.

323

324

BWCA Sampling Calendar

 

Period Sun Mbn Tu 'Wbd Th Fri Sat
May 22.21: - .. - - 11+ 1 3
MEy 25-31 7 off 2 u 7 10 14
June 15-21 9 7 1O 4 1 off off
June 22-28 off off 2 travel 8 6 5
July 13.19 1 2 off off 10 3 travel
July 20-26 11 5 12 10 off off 8
Aug. 210.30 3 off off 9 13 1 2
Aug. 31-Sept. 6 4 travel 5 off off 15 12

Bob Hhrshall Samplg_;ocations

Strata I

Belland Lake A 4.
Benchmark A 5.
Gibson 6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

Strata II

South Fork Flathead
Holland Lake B
Benchmark B

South Fork Teton
Middle Fork Teton
Silvertip
Inspiration Pass
Smith Creek

Pyramid Pass
West Fork Teton

325

 

 

Bob Marshall Sampling Calendarl

Period Sun Mon 1»: Wed 131 Fri Sat
June 24.28 - - 8 3 6 2 off
June 29.-July 5 5 1 off off 10 9 4
July 6-12 11 off off 1 12 2 3
July 13.19 7 off off 13 8 3 6
July 20-26 2 5 1 off off 10 9
July 27-Aug. 2 4 11 1 12 2 off off
Aug. 3-9 off 3 7 13 off off 8
Aug. 10-16 off off 3 6 2 5 1
Aug. 17-23 10 9 off off 4 11 1
Aug. 24-30 12 2 3 off off 7 13
Aug. 31-Sept. 6 8 3 6 2 off off 5
Sept. 7 1

Bridger Sampling Locations

1 . Green River Lake 5. Willow Creek
2. W Park 6. Boulder Lake B
3. Boulder Lake A 7. Mud Lake

4. Big Sandy 8. New Fork

9. Spring Creek Lodge
10. Little Sandy

 

1On this calendar and on the other western study area calendars ,

Independence Day (July 4, Friday) and Labor Day (September 1, Monday)
were treated as weekend days.

326

Bridger Sampling Calendar

 

Period Sun Mon Tu Wed Th Fri Sat
June 24-28 - - 5 2 6 3 off
June 29-July 5 7 4 off off 10 4 9
July 6-12 3 off off 6 2 8 1
July 13-19 5 off off 2 6 3 7
July 20-26 4 10 1: off off 9 3
July 27-Aug. 2 2 6 8 1 5 off off
A118. 3—9 off 2 6 3 off off 7
Aug. 10-16 off off 4 10 4 9 2
Aug. 17—23 3 6 off off 8 1 5
Aug. 24b30 2 6 3 off off 7 4
Aug. 31-Sept. 6 10 4 9 3 off off 2

Sept. 7

High Uintas Sampling Locations

Strata I

Highline

Hades Camon
Packer's Camp
Duck Trail
Lake Fork Trail

Swift Creek Camp

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

12.

Strata II

China Meadows

Sways e Hole Trail
Henry' 5 Fork Trail
East Fork Bear River
Stillwater

Mirror Lake

327

High Uintas Sanplinngalendar

 

Period Sun Men Tu ‘Wed Th Fri Sat
June 24.28 - - 2 8 1 11 off
June 29-July 5 7 9 Off off 10 1 12
July 6-12 2 off off 3 u 5 8
July 13—19 6 off off 8 6 5 4
July 20-26 3 2 12 off off 1 11
July 27-Aug. 2 7 9 10 1 12 off off
Aug. 3-9 off 2 3 4 off off 5
Aug. 10-16 off off 8 6 8 6 5
Aug. 17-23 4 3 off off 2 12 1
Aug. 24-30 11 7 9 off off 10 1
Aug. 31-Sept. 6 12 2 3 4 off off 8

Sept. 7 5

APPENDIX D

ANAIISIS OF HAIL QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE

As discussed in Chapter III, mail questionnaires were utilized
to gather information from.persons who did not have time to cOMplete a
fern in the field. The fellowing table provides an analysis of response
rates to the original mail questionnaire and fer the two fellowaup
contacts.

The over-all response of 78 per cent is very good, particularly
when considering questionnaire length. The table also documents the
importance of fellowaup contacts in increasing reSponse to mail
questionnaires. A.new questionnaire was included with each fellow-up,
as was a handout recreation.map of the study area the visitor had been
contacted at. Respondents were not asked to return the maps. En-
closed was a franked, addressed envelope fer use in returning the
questionnaire.

The first fbllowaup letter was sent approximately one month
after the original questionnaire had been.mailed, the second fellows
up was sent at the end of the second month. No one indicated any
problems with recall on questions concerning specific aspects of

their trip.

328

329

 

 

 

m.ss «.mm m.w m.s« o.em mam Heaps
6.3. odm m4. «.3 no: cm .388 swam
«.3 as: no ads. «.8 no comers
m.m~. «KN in in «.3 mm fineness: pom
Numb Qua «.m 0.3 v.3 3 Sim
easemeem ensoaeemusoz unused—”oh msooem messages” pea gases SHE page:
HHeIaebo Hopes op ensemuem on oesomeem on ensemnem panama JMMM
owepseoaem ewepseoaem emevsooaem owegseoaom ewepnooaem Hence an

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gouflga g On. Hmzommfim ho Eda

3 mama

APPENDIX E

COVER AND FOLLOWQUP LETTERS

1. Cover letter to original questionnaire
2. First fbllowaup letter

3. Second fellowaup letter

UNITID STATas DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE
FOREST ssRVIca
INTIIIIOUNTAIN POIIIT AND IANOI IXPIIIHINT ITA‘I'ION
POIII‘I'IY ICIINCII LAIOIATOIY. DRAW“ 7
IIIIIOULA. “MAMA IIIOI

 

Dear
We need your assistance: your Opinions count.

The enclosed questionnaire has been designed to find out what your
attitudes and ideas are regarding our wilderness areas. Your
experience in the use of such areas has undoubtedly given you some
Opinions which would be of great assistance to the administrators
of these areas.

All of the following questions refer to your trip into the

in of

 

the summer of 1969.

Would each person to whom this envelope was addressed please com-
plete one of the enclosed questionnaires. All of the question-
naires (if more than one was sent to this address) may be returned
in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelOpe.

Thank you very much for your interest and cooperation.

Sincerely,

GEORGE H. STANKEY
Associate Geographer
Wilderness Research Project

P-S- If you would like to receive a summary of this study, please

write "report requested" on the backside of this page, along with
your return address.

330

331

UNITED STATE: DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE
FOREST sERVICE
INTRINDUNTAIN FOR!“ AND HANG! “malt!" NATION
ronuflw ICIRNCII LADOIA'I’ONY. DRAWER 7
HIIIOULA. MONTANA 30.01

 

A few weeks ago you were mailed a questionnaire dealing
with your recent trip into the

Possibly this has either been lost in the normal shuffle
of things or has just slipped your mind.

Your answers are vital to the success of this research
project.

I have enclosed another questionnaire (one for each person
to whom this letter was addressed) and self—addressed
stamped envelope. Let me stress that this study will in
no way link you as an individual with your answers; all
material is gt;ictly,configentia1.

It is my hOpe that the twenty minutes or so of your time
spent in filling out the questionnaire will contribute
to the better management of our wilderness areas for
you and others.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

GEORGE H. STANKEY
Research Social Scientist

Enclosure

332

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE
POREsT sERVICE
INTERNOUNTAIN FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT ITATION
FOREITRY OCIENCEI LABORATORY. DRAWER 7
NIIIOULA. MONTANA ERGO!

 

Dear

At present, we have received close to 80 percent of the ques-
tionnaires mailed in our wilderness user study. The remaining
questionnaires are critical to the scientific validity of the
findings; the information we will gain from your questionnaire
will greatly aid the Forest Service in making decisions re-
garding the protection and management of your wilderness areas.

Please complete the enclosed questionnaire as soon as possible
and return it to our office in the enclosed self-addressed
stamped envelope. Please answer the questions in reference to
your trip into the

If you have already completed and returned your questionnaire,
please disregard this letter.

Sincerely,

GEORGE H. STANKEY
Research Social Scientist
wilderness Management Research

Enclosures

APPENDIX F

SPECIAL MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE TO NON-RESPONDENTS

UNITED STATEs DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE
PDREsT SERVICE

INTERHOUN‘I’AIN FOREST AND RANGE EX'EIIHENT ITATION
”RWY .CIINC“ LAIOIATORY. DRAWER 7
NIIOOULA. MONTANA COCOI

Dear

We are in the final stages of completing our study
of visitors to the

In order to insure that our data is accurate, we
would greatly appreciate your taking a very few
minutes to complete the enclosed one-page question-
naire. When completed, return it to our office in
the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelOpe.

A summary report of this study will be available
later this year. If you would like to receive one,
please check the box below.

Sincerely,

GEORGE H. STANKEY
Research Social Scientist
Wilderness Management Research

Enclosure

£7 Please send report.

333

 

Ill llllilll'ilul ‘Ill. 1" Alli

334

How many people were in your party?

 

Was this your first wilderness visit? [:7 No [:7 Yes

Was there any single recreational activity that led you to visit this
wilderness rather than some other area? Z 7 No Z 7 Yes If yes,
what was it?

 

As you think of wilderness, how desirable or undesirable do you think
each of the following things are: (VU = Very Undesirable; U = Undesir—
able; N = Neutral; D = Desirable; VD = Very Desirable)

Absence of man-made features,
except trails

Stocking the area with game
animals not native to the area

No motorized travel by visitors
Solitude (not seeing other peOple)

Little evidence of other visitors
before you

DQDQCIE
DECIDE:
DDQDQZ
DQDDDU
QDQCIDe

About how many other camps would you like set up near your own? (Let's
say, within sight or hearing)

 

Did you feel the wilderness area was too crowded:

[:7 No [:7 Yes, but only in a few places.

[:7 Yes, in most places. [:7 Did not really notice.

The following is a list of things that might be provided in wilderness

areas. Check how you would feel about each of them: (SF = Strongly
Favor; F = Favor; N = Neutral; 0 = Oppose; SO = Strongly Oppose)

SF 80

High-quality trails ‘ZZ7

More maps and pamphlets about

the area [7

Wilderness rangers, who pro-
vide information, help keep
the area clean, etc. [:7

Simple pit toilets [:7

D DEC

CID CID

N
£7
£7
5

DD DEW

[70

Do you belong to any conservation or outdoor recreation clubs?

 

 

Your age

 

 

. II} it"! Ills a I ll

APPENDIX G

ANALYSIS OF NON-REPONSE

Persons who did not reSpond to the mail questionnaire were
sent a one-page version of the longer form. This form contained nine
questions which were considered to be of’importance in determining
whether non-respondents differed significantly from.re5pondents (see
Appendix F for the short form).

Only two questions elicited significantly different reSponses.
Non-respondents tended to feel that "little evidence of others before
you" was not necessarily as desirable a feature of wilderness as
reSpondents felt it was (chi square = .02 7. p 3, .01). They also
'were much more likely to consider their'wilderness trip as a single
purpose endeavor (primarily fishing) than were reSpondents (chi
square :2 .001> p).

On all the other items tested, however, non-reSpondents
demonstrated no statistically significant differences from.respondents
and it was concluded that the rate of’non-re8ponse did not seriously

affect the conclusions reached in the study.

335

BIBLIOGRAPIH

 

 

.I.I|VII|I'IIII
illjllllll H

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Ackernan, Ward A. 93%,: g Fundamental Research Discipline.
Department of Geogra Research Paper No. 35. Chicago:
Department of Geography, 1958.

Ardrey, Rozrt. E Territorial Imperative. New York: Athenum,
19 .

 

Barnett, Harold J., and Horse, Chandler. Scarci Lnd; Growth: ‘11::
Economics 2; Watural Resource A 1. EM:
fie JoEs BopEs Press, {$3.

Bonney, Orrin H., and Bonney, Lorraine. Field Book-Jun Wind River
4111.553. Houston, Texas: By the Author, 35; fit TEES Street,
0.

Carhart, Arthur H. Planning for America' s Wildlands. Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania: 111s Tel-graph Press, 19“.

Carroll, Peter N. Puritanisn and the Wilderness : The Intellectual

gigxificance 2; 1h: M land Entier, @4200. New York:
Colunbia University Press, 1W9.

Catlin, George. North American Indians: Being Letters and Notes on
‘Iheir Mann—'9» , ‘T—‘cu one , _E—Conditions , wT‘F‘i ten Eng—gig
Years' Travel use at- the WM“ 5 No erica,
__2_2_.'1'3'—18_22'.' —Vof_. '31: PMs-Eu}?! _Fsro hem, .

Ciriacy-Wantrup, 3. V. Resource Conservation: Economics _apg Policies.
Berkeley: University of California Press , I533.

Clawson, Marion, and Knotsch, Jack L. Economics of Outdoor Recreation.
Baltinore: 'me Johns Hopkins Press, I536.

Darling, F. Fraser, and Eichhorn, Noel D. Man 292 Nature in the
National Parks. Washington, D. C.: We Conservation FEB-mation,

Erlich, Paul R. The Pomlation Bomb. New York: Ballentine Books ,
1110 e , 1 e

336

ill ‘.fllll dell ll

I11?!" .I' III!
III:
III" 1" ll

337

Fastinger, Leon. A been 2; Cogfitive Dissonance. New York: Row,
Peterson, Compaw, .

Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Pa chol and Mucation.
New York: McGraw-RIJI Book Compatw, .

 

Ball, Edward 1‘. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, New York:
Doubleday-73937

Ruth, Bans . Nature 2‘93. the American. Berkeley: University of
Calif—Torn Pres 371937." ""

Ise, John. Our National Park Poli : A Critical Histog. Baltimore:
The Wine RopE'ns Press, 1.

Jennings, Dagene F. _Ag Anato g; Leadershi : Princes, Heroes, 22‘;
Supgnlen. New Yor : me-a, 1W.

Katee Robert W. Hazard and Choice Perc tion _ig Flood Plain Manage.
’ ment. Wt? Geogan Research Paper No. 73.

6513.30. Department of Geography, 1962.

Kelman, Heglgert. _A_ Time 3.3 M. San Francisco: Josuy-Bass, Inc.,
19 .

Kish, Les912e. Survey M. New York: John Wiley 8: Sons, Inc.,
1 7.

Koffh, Kurt. Principles g_f_ Gestalt szcholoa. New York: Harcourt
and Brace, 1935.

Meehan, Eugene J. Value M Lug Social Science. Homewood,
Illinois: mrsey Press, 1%. ' """""

Murphy, Gordon, and Likert, Renais. Public Opinion and Eh; Individual.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958.

Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and Eh: American Mind. New Haven: Yale
University Press , I937:

Odun, None P. Fundamentals 2g Ecolog. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders
COW, T939.

Oppenhein, A. N. gestionnaire Des _and Attitude Measurement. New
York: Basic Books, Inc., 9 .

Ponfret, John E. E}: W Pattern 93: unkind. New York:
Appleton-Century Compam, 935 .

e
. 0
. .
.... .. . ......... . . 7.
. A
.
a . -
... . A. .
. I
‘ C
-
... .. . -
e
I ~ _ .
.
. . . . .. . ... ..
. I
e
. O
-. e. ... v. . ... ,
R a
. O
.. ...
e
e
. a . .I. . .... . .
" e
.
C
e
..
v ‘ . .
C
- U .
e
e
‘ .
.
..... .. .. .7..
e
e
O ' -
.V..r.o -.-. o-g... ... .7 a. . .-
l . _
O . .
O .
'.‘. ...... . yo. . ' '
O .
.
’ e
a
9.. . . .
-
e
O
" r-
e
e
e
e e _
.. ,~<. ..- . . . .
0 I
O C
e . .
.
.

 

338

Saarinen, Thomas F. Perc tion o_f Eh: Dre ht Hazard 2 Lb: Great
Plains. DepaFEnTefiEYGeograpby RgsearcEPaper No. 1“.
Chicago: Department of Geography, 1966.

Segall, Marshall H., Campbell, Donald T., and Herskovits, Melville J.

The Influence 9_f_’ Culture on Visual Perception. New York:
Babbs Mam Company, I936.

Siegel, Sidney. Non trio Statistics £25 the Behavioral Sciences.
New York: 14%“... B_o—ok I—Company, 1556.

Somer, Robert. Personal Sp_a_ce: £33 Behavioral Basis of Design.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Menace-3213:1969.

Tilden, Freeman. E National Parks: What They Mean 22 Egg __a:_I_d_ 953.
New York: Alfred A. Knapf, 1965.

Vogt William. Road to Survival. New York: William Sloane Associates
9 _ __— 9
Inc., 1958:—

Wagner, Philip. _ng Human 923 p_f_ t_h: Earth. Glencoe, Illinois: The
Free Press, 1930.

Zimmerman, Erich. World Resources _arg Industries. New York: Harper
and Brothers, 193 . .

Articles

Argow, Keith A., and Mayo, Sela C. "The Sociology of Manual Groups
and Their Significance to Conservation Opinion. " Journal o_f_
Forestg, 65 (March, 1967), 176-179.

Barker, Roger G. "On the Nature of the mvironment." Journal 31:.
Social Issues, XIX (October, 1963), 17.38.

Barton, Michael A. "Water Pollution in Remote Recreational Areas . "
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2“ (July-August,

I9395 . 135-1315 ""' '

Beasley, Ronald. "Cons ervation Decisionmaldng: A Rationalization. "
Natural Resource Journal, 7 (July, 1967), 345-360.

339

Blaut, James. "A Study of Cultural Determinants of Soil Erosion and
Conservation in the Blue Mountains of Jamaica. " §_____ocial and
Economic §____tudies, VIII(1959), lIvOZJ-IvZO.

Brandborg, Stewart H. "0n the Carrying Capacity of Wilderness."
_v_'ing Wilderness 82 (Burner-Fall, 1963), 29-31.

Brown, Perry J., and Hunt, John D. "The Influence of Information
Signs on Visitor Distribution and Use." Journal 2_f_ Leisure
Research, 1 (Winter, 1969), 79-83.

Bultena, Gordon L., and lhves, Marvin J. "Changing Wilderness Images
a16Id Forestry Policy." _J_______ournal of Forestg, 59 (March, 1961),
1 7-171.

Carol, Hans. "C. J. Jung and the Need for Roots." Landscape, 11+
(Sprins,1965).2-

Catton, William R. , Jr. "Motivations of Wilderness Users." Pulp _and
Parr Magazine_ of Canada (December, 1969), 121-126.

 

Cesario, Frank J ., Jr. ”Operations Research in Outdoor Recreation."
J_p___urnal 9_f _L_e__isure Research, 1 (Winter, 1969), 33.51.

Chain, Isidor. "The mvironment as a Determinant of Behavior."
,J_____ourna1 _o_f _83___cial Echelog, 39 (February, 1951+), 115-127.

Connaughton, Charles A. "Pres ervation and Conservation. " Ane__r_i__can
Fore—Ls—ts, 75 (March,1969),3

Costner, Herbert L. "Criteria for Measures of Association." American
Sociological Review, 30 (June, 1965), 341-353.

Crowe, Beryl I... "The Tragedy of the Canons Revisited." Science, 166
(November, 1969),1103—1107.

Denevan, Willi“ H. "Aboriginal Rained-Field Cultivation in the
Americas." S_£______ience,169 (August 11,1970),6lt7.654.

DOtzenko, ‘e De, P‘p‘nchos, Ne To, md Rome, De Se ”Effoct Of
Recreational Use on Soil and Moisture Conditions in Reclq
Mountain National Park. " Journal 2?. Soil £12 Water _Co_n__ser..
v_a_____tion, 22 (1967),196.197.

Edwards, Allen L., and Kenney, Kathryn C. "A Comparison of the
Thurstone and Likert Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. "

__Jouml 2.: Luca M 30 (19%). 72-83.

 

3140

Ellis, J. B., and Van Doren, C. S. "A Comparative Evaluation of
Gravity and System Theory Models for Statewide Recreational
Travel Flow." Joumal _o_f Regional Science, 6 (Winter, 1966),
57-70-

Fendrich, James M. "Perceived Reference Group Support: Racial
Attitudes and Overt Behavior. " American Sociological Review,
32 (December, 1967) , 960-970.

Firey, Walter. "Sentiment and Symbolism as Ecological Variables. "
American Sociological Review, 10 (February, 19#5), 1&0-1h8.

Fisher, Joseph L. Notes 93 Eh: Value 3f Research 23 th_g Wilderness
Part 93 W. Resources for the Future Reprint No. :3.
W011, D.C.: Resources for the Future, Inc., 1960.

Fonaroff, L. Schuyler. "Conservation and Stock Reduction on the Navajo
Tribal Range." Geographical Review, LII (April, 1963), 200.223.

Fried, Marc, and Gleicher, Peggy. "Some Sources of Residential
Dissatisfaction in an Urban Slum." Journal of American

Institute 2; Planners, 2? (November, I961), 555-5515.

Frissell, Sidney 8., Jr., and Duncan, Donald P. "Campsite Preference
and Deterioration in the Quetico-Superior Canoe Country. "
Journal 2; Forestgz, 63 (April, 1965), 256-260.

Goodman, Lee A., and mm, William H. "Measures of Association for
Cross Classifications. " Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 49 (December, 1951;),73’227 .

Goodman, Lee A., and Kruskal, William H. "Measures of Association for
Cross Classifications: III. Approximate Sampling Theory."
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58 (June,

rem—9 ,- BIB-3'65.

Hall, Edward T. "Proxemics.n Man's e in Medicine _and Anthro-
Egan. Edited by New York Ac any of Maicine. New York:
In ernational Universities Press , 1963.

Hamill, Louis. "The Process of Making Good Decisions About the Use of
the Environment of Man." Natural Resources Journal, 8 (April,
1968), 279-301-

Ihrdin, Garrett. "The Economics of Wilderness." Natural Histog, 78
(June-July, 1969), 20-27.

3M

Hardin, Garrett. "lime Tragedy of the Comma." Science, 162
(December, 1968), 1218-12“. ""'"'"

Harry, Joseph, Gale, Richard, and Hendee, John. "Conservation: An
Upper-Middle Class Social Movement." Journal of Lei__s___ure
Research, 3 (Sumner, 1969), 2156-254.

Hans er, Philip M. "n1. Crucial Value Problems . " Perspectives _o_n
Conservation: Essm__ on America's ”Natural-Q Resources.8
Edited by Henry Jarrett. B-aTt'im me Johns Hop
Press, 1958.

Herfindahl, Orris C. What is Conservation? Resources for the Future
Reprintggo. 30. WaEEingfin, D.C. : Resources for the Future,
Inc., 1 1.

Hunt, William A. "Human Behavior and Its Control." _S_____cience,169
(August 28,1970),901—902.

Kahn, Alfred E. "The Tyranny of Small Decisions: Market Failures,
Imperfections, and the Limits of Economics." flklos , XII
(1966), 234W.

Kasperson, Roger E. "Political Behavior and the Decision—Making
Process in the Allocation of Water Resources Behteen
Recreational and Municipal Use. " N_2____tural Resources _J___ournal,
9 (April, 1969), 176.211.

Katee, Robert W. "Stimulus and Symbol: The View from the Bridge. "
Journal of _S___ocia1 I_§___sues XIII (October, 1966), 21.28.

Keeney, Barnaby C. "The Bridge of Values." Science, 169 (July 3,
1970), 27.

Kirk, William. "Historical Geography and the Concept of the Behavioral
Environment. " Indian Geographical Journal, Silver Jubilee
Edition. witmorge Kuriyan. Madras :m—— Geographi-
mioty, 1952.

Kirk, wmm. "Problems of Geograpm." Geogram, XLVII (1963),
357-371.

Knetsch, Jack L. "Assessing the Demand for Outdoor Recreation."
_J_____ournal _o_f Leisure Researc_____h_, 1 (Winter, 1969), 85.87.

Krutilla, John V. "Balancing Extractive Industry with Wildlife
Habitat." Trans actions 21; _t_h_g Thirty-third North American
Wildlife and; Natural Resource Conference. Washingm. ,

19

342

Krutilla, John V. "Cons ervation Recons idered. " American Economic
Lview, LVII (September, 1967), 777-786.

Krutilla, John V. "Some Environmental Effects of Economic Development. "
fic_c_c1__u_cs, 96 (Fall, 1967),1058-1o7o.

LaPage, Wilbur F. "me Camper Views the Interview. " Journal 3;
Leisure Research, 1 (Spring, 1969), 181-186.

Leopold, Aldo. ”me Wilderness and Its Place in Forest Recreational
Policy." Journal g_f_ Forestg, 19 (November, 1921), 718-721.

Leopold, Aldo. "Wildemess as a Form of Land Use." Journal _o_f Land
and PublicUt 1111:; Economics, 1 (1925), 398W—

Likert, Rens is . "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes . "
Archives of PsEholog,149 (1932), 7-35.

Lowenthal, David. "Geography, qurience, and Imagination: Towards
a Geographic Epistemology. " Annals of the Association o_f_
Lrican Geo,gg_aphers 11(Sepm, 19657, W.- o.

Lowenthal, David. "Is Wilderness 'Paradise Enow' 7 Images of Nature
in America." Columbia Universi_tz Forum, 7 (Spring, 1964),
314-40.

Lowenthal, David. "Not Every Prospect Pleases: What is Our Criterion
for Scenic Beauty?" Landscape (Winter, 1962.63), 19-23.

Lucas , Robert C. "The Contribution of Environmental Research to
Wilderness Policy Decisions." Journal 2; Social Issues, XIII
(October, 1966), 116-126. "'""""’ “"—

Lucas , Robert C. "Wilderness Perception and Use: The Example of the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area. ” Natural Resources Journal, 3

(octObor’ 196”), W11 e

Lute, H. J. "Soil Conditions of Picnic Grounds in Public Forest Parks."
Journal 2; Forestgz, 43 (February, 19ll5), 121-127.

Matore, ,Gegrges. "Existential Space." Landscape, 15 (Spring, 1966),
5..

McCloskey, Michael. "The Wilderness Act of 1961” Its Background and
Meaning.” Oregon Lg: Review, 1+5 (July, 1966), 288-321.

 

 

e
.. .... ,4
' ‘ .
- 9., .
e I -
a .
. , .
e . -
c
O f 1‘
. . -.. .
, .
o . .
.. . .
. - . r
O
h ‘ ,
I
-. .
0' . , , e
, .... . .. -
“ o
e
...~.-.
e , _
, ... coo-.. .7 -
‘ e
‘ \
, ..
e .
...... Ae\ . ......-
. .
- «or» . .
c . . . . -
. .
\‘ ! I
e
c..-...- . .
I.
. u . ,
... ..-.... ..-.. -.-
Q t
_ I . O
.
I
s e e O I
.. . . ....
, c
l.
v s e
-
. I I I "A
.. |
. e ‘ I
' i
t ,
‘ O
..-. ...... . ...
... .,
e », .
I
, . e
e
O .
'~~ race A .41 II.
.._ . ,
.
O . .
~. _.
_ .‘
° .
e
e ‘ _ “‘_
. .... . .. ...
. .. v ' ..
. , e e ,
7.... ..
V
,,,, , . -
' I
o
., .
O " e-
’ '
..... . ..

31*3

Meinig, Donald W. "me Mormon Culture Region: Strategies and Patterns
in the Geograptw of the American West, 1810-1981." Annals

5,»; 21% Association 2; American Geographers, LV (June, 1965),
91-2 .

Mikesell, Marvin W. ”The Borderlands of Geography as a Social Science."
Interdisoi lina Relationshi in th: Social Sciences. Edited
5 Musafer Sherif Carolyn W. Sherif. EWe
Publishing Company, 1969.

Penfold, Joseph W. "The Outdoors , Quality and Isoprims. " Wilderness:
America's Egg Heritgge. Elited by David Brower. San
Francisco: The Sierra Club, 1961, 109-116.

Price, Edward T. "Values and Concepts in Conservation." Annals of

6t?! Association _o_f American Geograggrs, XLV (March, I955),-
-8n.

Quinney, Dean N. "Small Private Forest Landownership in the United
StatesuIndividual and Social Perception." Natural Resources
Journal, 3 (October, 199+), 379-393.

Robinson, Warren C. "A Critical Note on the New Conservationism. "
Land Economics. ILV (November, 1969), #53456.

 

Somer, Robert. "Man's Proximate Environment." Journal 2.1:. Social
Issues, XXII (October, 1966), 59-70.

 

Sonnenfeld, Joseph. "Variable Values in Space and Landscape: An
Inquiry into the Nature of Environmental Necessity. " Journal
2; Social Issues, XVII (October, 1966), 71.82.

Spoehr, Alexander. "Cultural Differences in the Interpretation of
Natural Resources." Man's Role _in_ t_h_e_ Face of the
Earth. Elited by William Thomas . cage: Univers it; 3T
mo Press, 1956.

Stea, David. “Space, Territory, and Human Movements." Landscape, 15
(Autumn, 1965), 13-16.

Stevens, 8. S. "A Metric for the Social Consensus." Science, 151
(February 1+, 1966), 530-5“.

Stone, Gregory P., and Taves, Marvin J. "Camping in the Wilderness."
Mass Leisure. Edited by bio Larrabee and Rolf Meyersohn.
Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1958.

3151+

Street, John M. "An Evaluation of the Concept of Carrying Capacity."
_Th_e_ Professional Geographer, XXI (March, 1969), 101mm.

"The Sierra Club-Grow‘th of a Hope." Sierra Club Bulletin, 5’4
(April, 1969), 12-13e

Thompson, Roger C. "Politics in the Wildemess: New York's Adirondack
Forest Preserve." Forest Histog, 6 (Winter, 1963), 114--23.

Thoreau, Henry David. "Walking. " 93 American Elvironment: Readings
in t_h_e_ Histogz 9_f_ Conservatism-m E; Raerick Nas .
Begging, Massachusetts: BE on-Wesley Publishing Company,

19 .

"Through the Corridors of Time." Man's Role _in Changing _thg Face 9.!
the. Earth. Edited by William L. Thomas, Jr. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1956.

Tuan, Yi-Fu. "Attitudes Toward Elvironment: Themes and Approaches . "

Environmental Perc tion and Behavior. Eiited by David
Lowen . Chicago: ent of Geography, 196?.

Wagar, J. Alan. _‘1113 Mg Ca cit of Wildlands £93 Recreation.
Forest Science Monogra . WWO“ §olety of
American Foresters, 1961:.

White, Gilbert F. "Formation and Role of Public Attitudes . " Environ-
mental M _in_ a_ 9.1m Eoonm. Edited by Henry Jarrett.
More: The Johns Hepkins Press, 1966.

White, Gilbert F. "The Choice of Use in Resource Management.”
Natural Resources Journal, 1 (March, 1961), 23%.

Wildavslq, Aaron. "Aesthetic Power or the Triumph of the Sensitive
Minority Over the Vulgar Mass: A Political Analysis of the
New Economics." Daedalus, 96 (Fall, 1967), 1115-1128.

"Wilderness Use Study." Sierra Club Bulletin, 55 (January, 1970), 10.

Wirth, Conrad. "National Parks . " First World Conference an National
Parks. Edited by Alexander B. Adams. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1962.

Wolpert, Julian. "The Decision Process in Spatial Context." Annals
g; t_h_e_ Association _o_f American Geog-=22”, st (December, I968),
537-558e

345

Zahniser, Howard, and Nadel, Michael. "Parks and Wilderness."
America's Natural Resources. Edited by Charles H. Callison.
New York: is Rona-la Press Company, 1967.

R_e;ports

Ad Hoc Committee on Geograplv. The Sc__i___ence of Geo ra . Washington,
D. C.: National Academy of —Soiences-Nat 0 Research Council,

1965.
Bowman, Isaiah. Geor in Relation to the Social Sciences. Report
of the ss on on —tml-§tfid_es, Part V. New York:

Charles Scribner' s Sons,1939.

Ellis, J. B. A §zstens Model _f___or Recreational Traffic in Ontario:
A PromssL Re rt. Report to the Ontarmrfient of
Highways, 13.3.0. “El-Report RR 126, Ontario Canada, July, 1967.
Ontario, Canada: Department of Highways, 1967.

Gannon, Colin A. Towards _a_ Strata {_o_r Conservation _in_ a World of
Technolo im _Ch_a_ng_e_. RSRI Discussion Paper Series No. 217..
m Regional Science Research Institute, 1968.

Gibbons, Robert P., and,Heady Harold F. In; Influence of Modern Man
9__n the V etation of Io__s______enite Val]. mm 556. Berkeley:
Wiani 0 CanTz-nia Divis on 0 Agricultural Science,
196“.

Gordon Lusty Survey Research Ltd. _A_ St _o_f_ Visitor Attitudes Toward
Quetico Provincial Park. Don , maria: GoHon lusty

Survey Research Ltd" I968.
Held, R. Burnell: Brickler, Stanley, and Wilcox, Arthur ‘1‘. _A_ St

to Develo Practical Techniques f_o_r 22% the Ca
Ca —'£—£ci cr—TTI’Na ur Areas in the— Natio _ten.
Repofi to-the Nationfi-rF-Service, Washingon ,5. 5.
November 151969.

 

McCool, Stephen F. , and Merriam, Lawrence C. , Jr. Travel Method

Pre__i;_____erences o_f_ Bounda Water Canoe Area . Minnesota
Forestry Research No 3—719. St. Pa versity of

Minnesota School of Forestry, 1970.

McCool, Stephen F., Merriam, Lawrence C., Jr., and (mama, Charles T.
Th__e_ Condition of Wilderness Camps ites in the Be Waters
Canoe Area. Minnesota Forestry Research Re No. . St. Paul:
University of Minnesota School of Forestry, 1969.

346

Meinecke, E. P. A m n the Effect 93 Excessive Tourist Travel
92. the California odd—Parks . Report to them
Department of Natural Resources , Sacramento, California,
1928. Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1928.

Merriam, Lawrence C., Jr. A_ Land _U_s_e_ St 33 t_h_e_ Bob Marshall
Wilderness Area. Monti-1"; Fores and Cons ertztion Experinent
Sta-6tion Bulletin No. 26. Missoula: University of Montana,
19 3.

Merriam, Lawrence C., Jr., and Ammons, Robert B. The Wilderness User
in Three Montana Areas. St. Paul: School-o7 Forestry,
University of Minnesota, 1967.

 

Milstein, David N. , and Reid, Leslie. Mic an Outdoor Recreation
Demand Sm. Technical Report No. 0 the Eel-Egan Depart-
ment of Conservation and Michigan Department of Commerce ,
V3162. I and II. Lansing: State Resource Planning Division,
1 .

Nelson, Ernest B., and Hughes Jay M. Travel Distance and Joint Visi...
tation 22 t2: 2% Waters Canoe Area ea “cent Cam
Wilderness. Minneso Forestry Research Wes No. 135.

St. Pail: University of Minnesota School of Forestry,
January, 1969.

Thors ell, J. W. Wilderness Recreational U33. Waterton Lakes National
Park Visitor Use Survey, PTrt II. Ottawa: Parks Planning
Division, 1967c

Wolfe, Roy I. A Theory of Recreational m Traffic. Report to
the Ontario Department of mgmqs, D. H. 0. Report RR 128,
Ontario, Canada, May, 1967. Ontario, Canada: Departnent of
1118qu, 1967e

Wolfe, Roy I. Parameters of Recreational Travel _in Ontario: A Progress
Re rt.—"'R"cho to—the Ontario Wt of—Highways , D.H.O.
Repofi RB 111, (htario, Canada, March, 1966. Ontario, Canada:
Department of Highways , 1966.

U. S. Governnent Publications

Alden, W. C. P 10 ra 299. Glacial Geology 91 Western Montana 22d
Ad cen Areas. Geological Survey Professmper 25L
WastEEton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1953.

---,

3“?

Burch, William B., Jr., and Wenger, Wiley D. The Social Character.

 

istics of Participants in Thre___e_ Styles of FP Canipgg.
U.S. Forest—Service Research Paper PNWJFB'. land: Pacific

Northwest Forest and Range Emeriment Station, 1967.

Dana, Samuel T. Pr0blem M Research _i_n Forest Recreation.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, I957.

Hendee, John C., Catton, William B., Jr. , Marlow, Larry D., and
Brockman, C. Frank. Wilderness Us___e__rs in _t_he Pacific Northwest..-
Th__e__ir Characteristics, Valu___e_s, an__d_ Management Preferences. U.S.
Forest Service Research— Paper PNW-61. Portland: Pacifit
Northwest Forest and Range Esperiment Station, 1968.

LePage, Wilbur F. Some Observations on $round‘l‘r
Ground Co__v__er Response. U.S. Fores Service earch Paper
IVE-38. Upper Darby, Pennsylvania: Northeast Forest Experiment
Station, 1967.

Lucas, Robert C. Recreational Lee of the Quetico-Su rior Area. U.S.
Forest Service Research— Paper 13.8. St. Pa : mmus
Forest Experiment Station, 1961}.

Lucas Robert C. The Recreational Cagcitz__ of the Quetico—S erior
’ Are____a_. U.S. Forest Sets-vice Research Paper __IS-IS. St. Patl
Lake States Forest Elmeriment Station, 1964.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Outdoor Recreation
{3% America. Washington, D. C.: Governmemting Office,
2.

Ream, Catherine H. Research on Loon Productivit and Pesticide
Residues. RepoFE 5 the Bureau of SpoFt Emerita and
W. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, 1968.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Outdoor Recreation
in 213 National Forests. Agricultural Informa ion metin
361. wfifiiTgEEn“, D. 0."? Government printing Office.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. The National Forest
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Work Plan. WasEEgton,
5.5.: Government PFInting Office, 1937—

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Statistical
Abstrac______t of t__he United States, 1962. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, I9

3%

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. United States
Census e_f Population: 1260. Vol. I, United States Summary.

U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Second
Annual Status Re ort 95 Wilderness Reviews Within National
Wildlife Regs em. Washingttn, D.C.: Governmen
Printing Office, 970.

U.S. Department of Interior. National Park Service. Areas _o_f 3133
National Park stem Included _i_n_ 213 Wilderness __tgySt m.

Igioe (la-”08“ e

Wenger, Wiley B., Jr., and Gregerson, Hans M. T_h_e_ Effect o_f N33.
res use 95 Re resentativeness 9_f_ Wilderness-Trail Re ister
In orma ion. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper PNW- .
PortEn-d: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range mperiment
St‘tion, 1961.3

Wildland Research Center. Wilderness £1.51. Recreation-__A_ Re rt on
Resources, Values, rnd ProEIems. Oufioor Recrea on Reta-urea
Review Commission, VSI. 53. Washington, D. 6.: Government
Printing Office, 1962.

Papers Presented

Bates, Marston. Th: HIman Environment. The Horace M. Albright
Conservation Lectureship , Vol. II. Berkeley: University
of California School of Forestry and Conservation, 1962.

Dubos, Rene Jules. The Genius of the Place. The Horace M. Albright
Conservation Lectureship, Vol. i. Berkeley: University of
California School of Forestry and Conservation, 1970.

Enerson, Richard M. "Games: Rules , Outcomes , and Motivation. "
Paper presented at the American Academy for the Advancement of
Science Symposium: Psychology and Sociology of Sport, Dallas,
Texas, December, 1968.

Hawkes , H. Bowman. "The Paradoxes of the Conservation Movement. "
Paper presented at the thh Annual Frederick William Reynolds
Lecture, Salt Lake City, Utah, February 11, 1960.

Hendee, John C., Ste‘inburn, Thomas, and Catton, William B., Jr.
"Wildernisme-The Development , Dimensions , and Use of an
Attitude Scale. " Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Rural Sociological Society, San Francisco, California,

August 26, 1967.

 

 

349

Mills, Archie. "Back Country and the Hand of Man." Paper presented
at the national meeting of the American Society of Range
Management, Seattle, Washington, February, 1967.

Sonnenfeld, Joseph. "Geography, Perception, and the Behavioral
Environment. " Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Academy for the Advancement of Science, Dallas, Texas, December
27' 1968.

 

Proceeding:

Clawson, Marion, and Knotsch, Jack L. "Recreation Research: Some
Basic Analytical Concepts and Suggested Framework for Research
Programs." Proceedings; 23 _th_e_ National Conference 9_n_ Outdoor
Recreation Research. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Publishers, 1955.

Dana, Samuel T. "Conference Smation. " Proceeding_s_ 2f the National
Confereng on Outdoor Recreation Research. Ann fir:
Ann Arbor PtSlishers, I933.

Gilligan, James P. "The Contradiction of Wilderness Preservation in

a Democracy." Hoceflgs 2_f_ _t_h_g Societ 2!. American
Foresters. Militaukee, Wisconsin, 19?.

Scott-Williams , Bettie Willard. "Effects of Visitor Use on the Eco-
systems of Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, U.S.A."
Prace s and Pa rs of the IUCN 10th Technical Meetiiig.
Lucerne, ser , 1 .

Congressional Documents

U.S. Congress. House. An £25 3.2 Authorize _and Direct that the
National Forests-E: "EH—“Sid. Under Principles gmtfipe-Use
ELLE fig Praduce _a_ Sus ained Yiefi 33: Products and. Services:—
It £95 Other m. H.R. 10572, 83th Cong., Ist Sess.,
9 Ge

U.S. Congress. House. An Act to Authorize That Certain lands

Exclus ive§z Maggy—re Secr"—eta ' o—tf _h_' 3 In' t_erior be

Classi _in_ orderlg Providt-fgg The}; Dfipgsal _o_g Interim
ement Under Principles 2; Multiple-Egg 3:3 1:3 Produce g

Sustained Yield of Products and Services, 2351. $93 Other M.

_H. 3. “51‘59' ,‘8‘8—th ‘C'eTn—g. ,""""1st sail—"HF, 19 ."

 

 

 

350

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
The Preservation of Wilderness Areas, by C. bank Keyser.
Legislative Reference Service Rope; 19. Washington, D. C. :
Government Printing Office, 1949.

U.S. Congress. House. Th__e_ _S___ixth _An__n__ualRe on the Status of t_h_e
National Wilderness Pres ervation as emf—__e_r-t-e—-_ Calendar Year
12 2. House Doc. 91-372, 9ist Cong., Sess., T970.

 

U.S. Congress. Senate. An Act to Establish a National Wilderness

Preservation tem f_9__r t_h_e Permarsient 603 __?_o the Whole

PeoEle, ;”_‘£1.___ for h__e__r Mus. ,t88 th— Cong., 1 st Sess.,
19 .

Unpublished Materials

 

‘j'jl-

Burch, William R. "Nature as Symbol and Expression in American Life:
A Sociological Exploration. " Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Minnesota, 196“.

Chubb, Michael. "Outdoor Recreation Land Capacity: Concepts, Usage,
and Definitions. " Unpublished M.S. thesis, Michigan State
Ulliveflity, 1964.

Gilligan, James P. " The Development of Policy and Administration of
Forest Service Primitive and Wilderness Areas in the United
States. " Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Michigan, 1953-

Krutilla, John V. Draft of testimorw presented to the Federal Power
Commission concerning construction of the High Mountain Sheep
Dam, Hells Canyon. 1970.

Lucas , Robert C. "The Quetico-Superior Area: Recreational Use in
Relation to Capacity. " Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,
University of Minnesota, 1962.

Wagar, J. Alan. "The Carrying Capacity of Wildlands for Recreation."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1961.

Wilcox, Arthur T. , and Held, R. Bumell. "A Study to Develop Practical
Techniques for Determining the Carrying Capacity of Natural
Areas in the National Park System. " Unpublished study plan on
file at the Center for Research and Education, Estes Park,
Colorado, 1967.

351

Miscellaneous

Bridger National Forest. Wilderness Patrolman Handbook. (Iypewrittend

Burton, Ian, Katee, Robert W., and White, Gilbert. The Human Ecolog
3; Extreme Geo ical Events. Natural HasaFWoII-r—ldng Paper
No. . Torontgx Deparmn't- of Geograpkw, 1968.

Letter from Sierra Club, San Francisco, California, January 28, 1970.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Forest Service Manual,
Recreation Information Handbook, Chapter 121;, Terms.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Forest Service
Manual. Recreation Management. May, 1969. Wastht-JIT: D.C.

ZMineographed.)

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Meant Handbook,
25mg Waters Canoe Area. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 935.
MimeographaJ

 

"ITlllfll’fl'llmllflllflflflT