. DOCUMIINT ROSUNII

ED 032 179 RC 003 649

By-Hendee, John C.; And OthersWilderness Users in the Pacific Northwest - Their Characteristics, Values, and Management Preferences.Department of Agriculture. Washington. D.C. Forest Service.Report No -RP -PNW -61Pub Date 68Note-100p.EDRS Price MF10.50 HC-$5.10DescriptorsAttitudes, Camping. *Environmental Research. Federal Recreation Legislation. Land Use,Management. *Natural Resources. *Personal Values. Questionnaires, *Recreational Activities, RecreationalFacilities, Social Factors, Statistical Analysis

Identifiers -Oregon. WashingtonThere are presently 2400.000 acres of National Forest land legally designated

as wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964, in the Northwestern States ofWashington and Oregon. This paper presents the results of a study conducted to findout what kinds of persons visit wilderness, the values and codes of behavior theyassociate with wilderness use. and their feelings about some hypothetical policies andguidelines that might be used in the management of these areas. Long questionnairesconcerning these issues were sent to a sample of 1.950 recorded wilderness users.Wilderness visitation typically occurred in more highly educated. small family andfriendship groups who take about five 2- to 3-day trips per year. About 30 percent(400) belonged to 218 conservation groups. A scaling technique. was used to identifya hierarchy of wilderness users ranging from wilderness-purists to those more urbanor convenience oriented. Those who were more wilderness-purist in attitude reacteddifferently to some of the statements (53 on wilderness management and 22 oncodes of behavior) suggested in the questionnaire. The appendix contains astatistical summary of the responses to the questionnaire and an explanation of thegamma statistics used to measure the association between wildernism(wilderness purist concepts) scores and response to individual questionnairestatements. (OK)

I

U. S. D. A. Forest Service Research Paper PNW-61

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

4968THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACILv AS RECEIVED FROM THE fir0' PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS FpnSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION 4-D -14POSIIION OR POLICY. [4:".

1-4 ;.: z(N1 WILDERNESS USERS .

>

, .1.c.\ rs\,%-4 / .-

c) I N THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST -f-1

THEIR CHARACTERISTICS, VALUES,AND MANAGEM ENT PREFERENCES

John C. Hendee, William R. Canon, Jr.,Larry D. Marlow, and C. Frank Brockman

'-' , ''' - ""' -.4r-1" - .40- ---,,,,... .....

, ,0 e

At "j''`

3:3

7'SA."-

-7-

^",' t.^4

40,

14.

.44^,

+:(

rREST sERvict(2 Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station

U. S. Department of AgriculturePortland, Oregon

Three general conclusions to be drawn from this study are:

(1) Respondents who were more wilderness-purist in their orienta-tion, as measured by the wildernism attitude scale, often differedsignificantly in their attitudes from the attitudes expressed by otherrespondents. We suggest that the views of these purists represent theopinions of the group of people most perceptive of wilderness valuesand should receive added consideration, where appropriate, to pre-vent contemporary change in a resource legally established to endure

for all time.

(2) There was little variation among the attitudes of visitors to thethree different areas studied, despite alleged differences in the typeof user characteristic of each area (one-day hikers, backpackers, andhorse users, respectively). Our study thus indicated little support fordifferent management policies in different areas, other than thatnecessary to adapt to obvious local conditions, such as terrain, accessand weather.

(3) Many users indicated preferences for facilities and develop-ment that are essentially prohibited under the terms of the Wilder-ness Act. These desires, combined with the rapid increase in wilder-

ness use and the implications of our data for continued increases in

use, suggest the presence of a major problem. Use may eventuallyexceed the carrying capacity of classified Wilderness resources (par-ticularly in specific locations), yet a great percentage of the users will

not be seeking wilderness in the pure and precise sense defined in theWilderness Act. This may indicate a need for additional back-countryrecreation areas that could be managed as semiwilderness, therebyreducing the pressure of overuse on classified wilderness and facili-tating its protection. Such areas would permit more intensivemanagement to provide for heavier use than can be allowed onlegally classified Wilderness and would better satisfy the needs of theless wilderness-purist users. Provision for such areas would also pro-vide for proper management of many controversial areas which areconsidered too small or are now used too intensely to be consistentwith the objectives of protection under the Wilderness Act. It wouldprovide an alternative in these cases where the choice is often popu-larly conceived as either Wilderness or multiple use classification in amutually exclusive sense.

Cover:We found that more than one-half of all wilderness use takes place in smallfamily groups, and most of the remaining use is by small groups of close friends

Seventy percent of the users reported taking their first wilderness trip before

they were 15 years old.

Contents

INTRODUCTION

The Need for Insight into Wilderness Users'Tastes and Preferences

Wilderness Management Not A Majority Vote Problem

Visitors to Three Areas Were Studied

Page

1

1

OOOOOO 2

3

The Glacier Peak Wilderness A Backpacker'sFavorite 4

The Three Sisters Wilderness A Day-Hiker's Area 6

The Eagle Cap Wilderness Favored by Horse Users 8

Questionnaires The Basic Research Tool 10

PART I 11

Demographic Characteristics of the Wilderness Users .. . . 11

Age 11

Education 12

Marital Status and Number of Children 14

Favored Company 15

Environment of Upbringing 16

Age of First Exposure to Wilderness-TypeRecreation and Number of Close Friends Who

Are Also Wilderness Users 18

Membership in Conservationist Groups andOutdoor Clubs 19

Average Number of Trips and AverageLength of Trips 21

A Summary of Wilderness-User Characteristicsand Their Implications 22

PART II 23

Differentiating Wilderness Users by Their Attitudes 23

Development of a Wildernism-UrbanismTesting Instrument 24

Wildernism-Urbanism Attitude Test 25

Results of the WildernismUrbanismAttitude Test 27

Characteristics of Wilderness-Purists 28

Patterns of Response to the Wildernism Items 28

Dimensions of the Wildernism Scale That BestDifferentiate Wilderness-Purists from Urbanists 31

Other Research Classifying Wilderness Users 32

Studies of the Appeals of Wilderness 33

PART III 36

Wilderness-User Behavior and Attitudes TowardManagement Policies 36

Qualification of the Survey Method 36

Informal Rules and Customs for Recreation inWilderness-Type Areas 36

Factor I: A Wilderness Norm Responsibilityand Equality 37

Factor II: A Norm Suggesting Rejection ofControls on Behavior 39

Factor III: A Norm Suggesting Withdrawal fromSymbols of Civilization 40

Factor IV: A Norm Supporting Maintenance ofUnpolluted Campsites 41

Factor V: A Norm Supporting Camperaft Skills 42

Two Items Not Appearing in the Factor Analysis 43

Informal Rules and Customs for WildernessUse Summarized 44

PART IV 45

Management Preferences for Wilderness-Type Areas 45

The Need To Differentiate the ManagementPreferences of Wilderness-Purists FromOther Users 45

Organization of the Data 46

Wilderness-User Attitudes Toward ManagementPolicies 47

Management Preferences Summarized 64

ii

SUMMARY 65

LITERATURE CITED 69

APPENDIX 71

Gamma Statistics A Method of Relating QuestionnaireResponse to Wilderness-Purist Tendencies 71

Suggestions for Use of the Appendix Data 72

Statistical Summary of Response to StatementsConcerning Rules and Customs of Wilderness Users 73

Statistical Summary of Response to QuestionnaireStatements Concerning Wilderness Management Policies 79

iii

.

J' e. -i- ^ 441," ** ., 'Lib. 1..,,,

N.A

There are more than 4 million acres of classified and de facto wilderness on National Forest lands in Washingtonand Oregon, plus two National Parks with thousands of acres that may soon be classified as wilderness. Thisview is looking northwest up the Entiat River into the Glacier Peak Wilderness.

Introduction

The Need for Insight intoWilderness Users' Tastes and Preferences

Washington and Oregon contain 2,100,000acres of National Forest land legally desig-nated as Wilderness under the Wilderness Actof 1964 and approximately 2,000,000 addi-tional acies of undeveloped back country.There are two National Parks within the Stateof Washington that include large undevelopedareas that may soon be legally classified asWilderness. All of these areas are managed topreserve their natural conditions and to pro-vide wilderness-type recreation opportunitiesfor the public.

Officials charged with administering theseareas are confronted with many problems.They must protect the physical resourcesfrom the effects of recreational use withoutaltering the many esthetic dimensions of thewilderness environment. To carry out thisresponsibility, they must be sensitive to theaspects of wilderness valued by wildernessusers, to their informal rules and customs, andto the reactions of these people to protectivemanagement measures.

This paper presents the results of a study

1

to find out what kinds of persons visit wilder-ness, the values and codes of behavior theyassociate with wilderness use, and their feel-ings about some hypothetical policies andguidelines that might be used in the manage-ment of these areas. Long questionnaires con-cerning these issues were sent to a sample of1,950 recorded wilderness users. An attitudescale included in the questionnaires was usedto classify respondents on an attitude con-tinuum, ranging theoretically from the wilder-ness-purists to those who were urban or con-venience oriented. Respondents' attitudescores were then related to the rest of thequestionnaire data to determine the extent towhich wilderness-purists differed from otherusers. Not everyone who visits wilderness is apurist, and there are probably no wildernessusers who are urban oriented in an absolutesense. But, there are relative differences insuch orientations among wilderness users, andthey are related to other differences in char-acteristics, behavior, and management prefer-ences.

Wilderness Management- -Not A Majority Vote Problem

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines man-agement goals for areas classified by law asWilderness. Provisions of the Act permit cer-tain activities and prohibit others in the pro-tection of these areas. To meet the preserva-tion goals stated in the Act, some managementlatitude is allowed and the sound judgment ofadministrators is essential. To be effective, ofcourse, wilderness managers' judgment mustbe based on thorough and accurate knowledgeof the resources they manage, including theimpact of various kinds and amounts of useon those resources. The soundness of manage-ment practices must ultimately be assessed interms of consequences, not just good inten-tions. To be valid and effective, managementdecisions must consider the probable reac-tions of users to various efforts to channeltheir behavior in one way or another. Thus,wise wilderness management requires ade-quate and accurate information about thecharacteristics, tastes, and preferences ofwilderness users.

It goes without saying that there are eco-logical and other considerations, includinglegal provisions and constraints, which have tobe taken into account in prescribing wilder-n ess m an age ment policy. Accordingly,information about user behavior and attitu( ,sdoes not operate in a vacuum and is not thesole or ultimate criterion with which to shapewilderness management decisions. It must beseen in perspective, yet it must not be neg-lected.

The purpose of this bulletin is to provideuseful information, and not in any sense toimply that wilderness management can orshould be reduced to a popularity contest.Two points back up this fairly obvious criter-ion. First, as pointed out by Mills,' "needsand desires must be tempered by the ecologicalcapability of the land." Second, to quote

2

Burch (1966), "the forest camping system islike an omnibus the seats are often full butoccupied by different persons as they adjustto the flow of time." As these points suggest,the use of popular preference to guide wilder-ness management is limited by physical con-straints and might lead to contemporarychanges if emphasis is not given to puristversus popular points of view.

We thus qualified all of the data on usermanagement preferences by using analytictechniques to identify differences betweenthe attitudes of passionately devoted wilder-ness-purists and other visitors who may not beas devoted to wilderness values.

In addition, we isolated response by thedifferent areas from which visitors weresampled to guard against generalizing aboutvisitor reactions, which might have variedaccording to the characteristics of the areas.

The Outdoor Recreation Resources ReviewCommission (1962) discussed frequency of useas a measure of wilderness commitment andrelated some of their findings to this measure.We considered relating differences in user atti-tudes about wilderness behavior and manage-ment policies to a similar measure of wilder-ness experience. However, this would haveintroduced several methodological problems,such as accounting for the relationship be-tween age and use; i.e., older users wouldhave had more opportunity to accumulatewilderness experience than would youngerusers, although both might hold purist atti-tudes and values. In addition, the opportunityfor wilderness experience is affected byincome, vacation time, etc.

1Mills, Archie U. Back country and the hand ofman. Paperpresented at the national meeting of the American Society ofRange Management, Seattle, Wash., February 1967.

SEATTLE

GLACIER PEAK WI LDER NESS

WENATCHEE

WASHINGTON

PORTLAND

EUGENE WILDERNESS0 THREE SISTERS

OREGON

PENDLETON

EAGLE CAP

WI LDERNESS

Z3

Figure I. Location of the three wilderness areas studied. A sample of visitors to these areaswere asked to complete questionnaires regarding their wilderness experiences.

Visitors to ThreeAreas Were Studied

Three wilderness areas (fig. 1) wereselected for the study, and questionnaireswere sent to a sample of known visitors dur-ing the summer of 1965. The Glacier PeakWilderness in Washington and the Eagle CapWilderness and the Three Sisters Wilderness inOregon were chosen because they were thethree most heavily used wilderness areas inthe Pacific Northwest and each was report-edly dominated in use by a different type of

3

visitor: backpackers, horseback riders, and1-day hikers, respectively.2

The names and addresses of visitors whowere to receive questionnaires were obtained

2 The designation of each area as characteristic of one type ofuse more than others was prompted by the frequent refer..ence of administrators to such a classification and the resultsof an earlier study of visitors to the Three Sisters Wilderness(Burch 1964). However, our study indicated few instanceswhere this classification accounted for variation in attitudesamong users that was consistent with this perceived trend.

:11

ipiC ono now mai Part

IM MO HIRE*Nei eismoss me ASIA

Self-registration of all users is now required on allForest Service wilderness and primitive areas in Wash-ington and Oregon. The self-registration system pro-vides better estimates of use and contributes to thesafety of users. This study is based on a sample of2,000 visitors drawn from self-registrations in theEagle Cap, Glacier Peak, and Three Sisters WildernessAreas

from a random sample of cards deposited atthe 76 self-registration stations located withinthe three areas. Tests of the effectiveness andrepresentativeness of the self-registrationsystem suggest that about 75 percent of allwilderness visitors register, with the non -response concentrated among horsebackriders, fishermen, hunters, solitary visitors, andfrequent or long-time visitors to the area(Wenger 1964a; Wenger and Gregersen 1964).Conversion factors have been computed toaccount for the under-representation of suchvisitors when compiling estimates of use.However, such adjustments are not possible ina questionnaire study and returns thus repre-sent a sample of a sample.

4

The Glacier Peak WildernessA Backpacker's Favorite

The Glacier Peak Wilderness straddles theCascade Range, approximately 100 milesnortheast of Seattle, in the Mount Baker andWenatchee National Forests of Washington. Itis within 2 hours' driving time for the P/2 mil-lion persons living in the Puget Sound Basin.

Glacier Peak, the fourth highest peak inWashington, dominates the area, rising 10,528feet above sea level. More than 30 other peaksrise from 5,000 to 8,800 feet above interven-ing valleys. Most of the higher peaks containicefields, and more than 90 glaciers can befound in the area. The area includes timbertypes and plant communities characteristic ofboth the humid west side of the Cascade Rangeand the drier east side.

The 452,020-acre Glacier Peak Wildernesswas formally established by the Secretary ofAgriculture on September 6, 1960. When theWilderness Act (Public Law 88-577) waspassed by Congress and became effective onSeptember 3, 1964, the Glacier Peak Wilder-ness was incorporated into the NationalWilderness Preservation System.

There is access into the area on all sidesfrom approximately 25 trails. Forest Serviceofficials estimate that, in 1956, 2,875 personsvisited the Glacier Peak area. Their estimatesfor 1958 indicated an increase to 3,200 visi-tors. In 1965, 25 self-registration stationswere erected on trails inside the area. Ad-justed data from visitor registrations at thesestations indicated that 6,100 persons on footand 1,300 horseback riders visited the area in1965, for a total of 7,400 visits and almost400,000 man-hours of use.' Thus, most butnot all of the visitors to Glacier Peak are back-packers.

3 S. Forest Service memorandum and accompanyingtables, dated March 14,1966, from George A. James to PhilipL. Heaton, Assistant Regional Forester, Pacific NorthwestRegion, transmitting results of wilderness self-registrationdata for Washington and Oregon adjusted to account forknown bias trends. For a discussion of self registration bias,see Wenger ( 1964a) and Wenger and Gregersen (1964). Abrief summary of their work is found in Morse (1966).

clt ***"

, 1 fritZ.

...44/1! 411111.14. 44ter,,,er

A..,Mot 111

1

rr.

f -t.,""` j4e, `k;

..

Alt

eq.

2.. eft4

."

Looking northwest up the Napeequa River into the Glacier Peak Wilderness. Glacier Peak in the center, ClarkMountain on the left.

The rugged Glacier Peak Wilderness is particularly attractive for backpackers.

. -P. 4 ,. %,41.14,....t, -

t I.NI$ N

- - , ,P;$.-4,- ,

; , .4,1'4'4- ,;,,..,'," r. 4""ttl;.-., ft, -, e_.. 4, la.

., .1 4 "fl-- ,,',....44-.... 'sr z......1.1' 7...":-.7t1.

40' S /:& , p -.'" .,.. . ...q...' ,41 , 1. , ',4`, .,04} %44,-. .4 ..2........14.. - re.../.:ir ( i lis, ` rt 01!VV.I- 4.V...;.:::**1. ,7,,,,,,-.i:.441,." ';. ..;; r4 /447 f4,,;)kn.-,.;,;' ''. ,, 2,:r., ,s,5"--=-. ,.ti ,, ., _., c. , - . -,,,,,i, ii,'I: ''''''''.11-"' ' "..--:. "..-'%, -1-' Ant: ....-

5

tho

The North, Middle, and South Sisters dominate the north halfof the Three Sisters Wilderness in central Oregon.

IIIMIIIIIIII.

The Three Sisters WildernessA Day-Hiker's Area

The Three Sisters Wilderness straddles theOregon Cascades, about 75 miles east ofEugene and 40 miles west of Bend, Oregon,on the Willamette and Deschutes NationalForests. Its boundaries are within 3 hours'driving time of Portland, placing the areawithin easy reach of the city's approxithately600,000 people.

The main attractions of the area are threevolcanic mountains known as the North,Middle, and South Sisters. All three exceed10,000 feet in elevation and lie in a north-south line to form a portion of the Cascadedivide. Another peak, Broken Top, is over

6

9,000 feet in elevation. The Wilderness con-tains 2,200 acres of glacier fields, the mostextensive glaciers this far south in NorthAmerica. Volcanic cinder cones are also scat-tered throughout the area. Lodgepole pine isthe most extensive timber type, althoughboth east- side and west-side vegetation andtheir subalpine plant associations are found inabundance.

The 196,708-acre Three Sisters Wildernesswas established by the Secretary of Agricul-ture in 1957, after several years of study. Thearea is now included in the National Wilder-ness Preservation System under the WildernessAct of 1964.

Access to the area is relatively easy, sinceits north boundary lies along the McKenzie

14 I I I I I I

r

P1 I. IN L

I L -

f

Nil. ...L.P. 11.11., 44-

0"--111,'4-

An earlier study found that the Three Sisters Wilderness was used predominately by 1-day hikers who lived

within a few hours' drive.

Pass highway and numerous trails lead intothe interior. A study of visitors to the area in1962 indicated that almost 80 percent of thevisitors stayed less than 1 day, about 90 per-cent of the registrants were from Oregon, andalmost 60 percent lived within 60 miles of thearea (Wenger 1964a and 1964b, Burch 1964).

In 1965, 35 self-registration stations werelocated within the area. Adjusted data fromthese self-registrations indicated that 10,800hikers and 1,900 horseback riders visited thearea 12,700 visits accounting for approxi-mately 400,000 man-hours of use. Wenger'sstudy of the Three Sisters Wilderness indi-cated that in 1962, there were 20,000 visitors.Few persons would agree that use of the areais decreasing. The discrepancy may be due to

49'

7

incomplete administration of the registrationsystem, which was introduced for the firsttime on a Region-wide scale in 1965. Jamespoints out, in his summary of 1965 use fig-ures,4 "the use estimates shown are undoubt-edly low. Exactly how much low is not pos-sible to determine. As an admittedly wildguess, I would say that the estimates mightaverage 25 percent too low." The foregoingdata and the stated opinions of administratorsare the basis for our characterizing the ThreeSisters Wilderness as a predominantly day-hiker area.

4 Ibid., footnote 3.

trisa

ri

ft.....z....,....

....

.:atig.0"1

'NA --cilli71°e'",.,>,.. ..:it+tryjii

'--s'AIIIIIIV---. .._..47,1:,

''x'' -zee;:.,..a._17; vitio. .,_.-A

"...:_7_ -4,.-4,-:,;_ .e.

1*,' :1-- ..,..-.I..

t-Y..

.., .... -

,s"t%:_;S2ibityigt,4--.,._

1 -sue

.4111..7..111".11.

'"L.,°r.?. 4%.

- r.40; V 7

'f7-1; V' 4.

.0

a

Looking northwest over the Eagle Cap Wilderness. Left to right: Upper Lake, Lostine River Valley, MirrorLake,Moccasin Lake, and Hurricane Creek Valley.

The Eagle Cap WildernessFavored by Horse Users

The Eagle Cap Wilderness lies in theWallowa-Whitman National Forest in north-eastern Oregon, about 75 miles southeast ofPendleton. The area is about a 6-hour drivefrom Portland, 3 hours from Boise, Idaho,and about 200 miles south of Spokane, Wash-ington.

The Wallowa Mountains, where the arealies, are characterized by high alpine lakes andmeadows, bare granite peaks and ridges, andU-shaped glaciated valleys with thick stands

8

of timber. Elevation varies from 5,000 toalmost 10,000 feet, Matterhorn Peak beingthe tallest at 9,845 feet. Nine peaks in thearea are more than 9,000 feet in elevation.There are extensive stands of western larchand Engelmann spruce, although most of thearea either is covered by subalpine timbertypes and grass or is barren.

In 1940, the Eagle Cap Primitive Area wasreclassified by the Secretary of Agriculture asthe Eagle Cap Wilderness. The 216,250-acreWilderness is now part of the National Wilder-ness Preservation System under the WildernessAct of 1964.

MA.

;$

s 7,

..2t(

AtC:**.kt " 41" ja-rue-

2111-414t.

1r7i,411: fit94,!,

tiet'44:,e

.41

More visitors use horses ( 30 percent) in the Eagle Cap Wilderness than in any other in Washington or Oregon,but the opinions of most users from this area were no more favorable toward horses than those of users fromthe Glacier Peak or Three Sisters Wilderness.

Over 40 access trails lead into the area, butapproximately 50 percent of the visitors enterfrom the Wallowa Lake trailheads. The EagleCap Wilderness is renowned for its horseusers. We suspected that user opinions fromthis area would be markedly different as aresult, but we found that they were not.There are no reliable use figures for the EagleCap Wilderness prior to 1965.

In 1965, 16 self-registration stations wereestablished in the area. Data for that yearindicated that 4,700 hikers and 2,300 horse-back riders entered the area 7,000 visits

9

accounting for approximately 315,000 man-hours of use. The registration data indicatethat in 1965 more persons used horses in thisWilderness than in any other Wilderness in thePacific Northwest. In addition, administratorsreport that many of the hiking parties usedpackhorses. Thus, questionnaire responses byvisitors to Eagle Cap might logically reflecthorse-user sentiment and response of hikers tohorse use more than responses from visitors toother Wilderness Areas, although to actuallyclassify the Eagle Cap as a predominantlyhorse-users' area would be incorrect.

Questionnaires- -The Basic Research Tool

Data on the characteristics, attitudes, andmanagement preferences with which thisstudy is concerned were solicited by means ofan eight-page questionnaire. The question-naire called for response to 150 individualitems. In spite of the length, 70.9 percent ofthe questionnaires were returned with but onefollowup post card being sent. This is anexceptionally high rate of return, but typicalof many outdoor recreation user studies. Ittestifies to the interest, concern, and involve-ment of wilderness users with the manage-ment of these areas.

Some other studies experiencing high ratesof questionnaire return from wilderness usersare: Sommarstrom,5 75-percent return withno followup post card from a sample ofOlympic National Park back-country users;Burch and Wenger (1967), 89.7-percentreturn of a seven-page questionnaire from asample of visitors to the Three Sisters Wilder-ness and adjacent auto campgrounds with twofollowup post cards; Hendee,6 60-percent re-turn of a 13-page questionnaire sent to visitorsrecorded in two National Park back-countryand three National Forest wilderness areas inwestern Washington, with no followup postcard; and Lucas (1964a), 79-percent return offorms left on parked cars adjacent to theBoundary Waters Canoe Area.

The questionnaire used in this study wascomposed of six separate parts, all included ina 7- by 81/2-inch booklet, eight pages in length.Part I contained a list of 20 possible featuresthat might or might not exist in "remote backcountry of wilderness character." Part II wasa list of 20 activities in which users might ormight not expect to engage in wilderness-typeareas. Part III listed 20 alleged benefits thatmight or might not be anticipated by wilder-

10

ness users. In each of these sections, respond-ents were asked to indicate the degree ofrejection or acceptance of each item by cir-cling a number from -4 to +4.

Part IV listed 22 statements about rulesand customs that wilderness users might feelobligated to observe in remote back country.Part V was a series of 53 statements suggest-ing policy and management guidelines relatingto the administration of wilderness areas. Inthese latter two parts, respondents were askedto indicate their attitudes by circling symbols(SA, A, N, D, SD), which showed how strong-ly they agreed or disagreed with the question-naire statements. Part VI requested extensivebackground information.

A total of 1,964 questionnaires weremailed to a random sample of individuals reg-istering at the three areas 1,348 question-naires were completed and returned. Only 62were returned unopened due to incomplete ornonexistent addresses. This low number of"duds" testifies to the reliability of the self-registrations. A total of 514 returns werereceived from individuals who were recordedin the Three Sisters Wilderness, 490 from visi-tors to Glacier Peak, and 344 from registra-tions in the Eagle Cap Wilderness. The per-centage of returns was approximately thesame from visitors to each of the three sepa-rate areas.

5Sommarstrom, Allan Ralph. The impact of human use onrecreational quality: the example of the Olympic NationalPark back country leer. 1966. (Unpublished master's thesison file al Univ. Wash , Seattle.)6Hendee, John C. Recreation clientele the attributes ofrecreationists preferring different management agencies, carcampgrounds, or wilderness in the Pacific Northwest. 1967.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation on file at College of For-est Resources Library, Univ. Wash., Seattle.)

Part I

Demographic Characteristicsof the Wilderness Users

Data were collected on a number of back-ground attributes of wilderness users: age,education, marital status, number of children,environment of upbringing, voluntary associa-tion with conservation groups or outdoorclubs, amount of back-country recreationexperience during the previous year, age attime of first trip into a wilderness-type area,and the number of close friends who also arewilderness users. This information can beimportant to planners and managers whomust try to project increases in use arid inferwilderness user expectations. The data also

indicate which segments of society are moti-vated to participate in wilderness recreationand suggest some trends in the pattern ofindividuals sharing these qualities.

Age

The persons responding to the question-naire were individuals registering as heads ofthe parties at the self-registration stations.The age distribution of these respondents isgiven in table 1 and compared with theUnited States population. It was not surpris-ing that wilderness users were mainly youngto middle-aged adults, although all age groupswere represented. The majority were between25 and 54 years old, but the 16- to 18- and

Wilderness users are typically young to middle-aged adults, but older users are frequently encountered. Hikersnear Cascade Pass in the Glacier Peak Wilderness.

07Prrit-

i 4

.1,48"14.411fart:7*....,,

folgrak. d?"

421144r4ge

A

0."

Table 1. Age distribution of visitors to the Glacier Peak, Three Sis-ters, and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas during 1965 compared with U. S.population

ItemAge groups (years)

0-15 16-18 19-24 25-34 35-54 55-64 65+ Total

WildernessusersU.S popula-tion (1960)1

Percent

3.1 6.7 12.1 24.4 46.2 5.7 1.7 100

32.8 3.7 7.8 12.8 24.0 8.7 9.2 100

1 U. S. Bureau of the Census 1964; figures for the three youngest categories were interpolated to fit appropriate age designations.

This distribution is comparable with results of other studies of wilderness users (Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commis-sion 1962; Burch 1966; Hendee, see text footnote 6, p.10).

19- to 24-year age classes were also overrepre-sented when compared with the United Statespopulation. It should be noted that 36.5 per-cent of the United States population in 1960had not yet reached 19 years old, which is theage when wilderness participation signifi-cantly increases, and 32.8 percent had not yetreached 15 years. This suggests a substantialincrease in the numbers of persons in the agegroups containing potential wilderness userswithin the next decade.

Education

Wilderness users have been found to be aspecial group in that most of them are highlyeducated, more so than other recreationists.This pattern prevailed among the wildernessvisitors responding to our questionnaire.Table 2 gives the distribution by educationalattainment of wilderness users for this studyand also for several other studies. These dataindicate quite convincingly that people whohave had at least some college experience arefar more likely to be wilderness users than arepersons with but a high school education orless, and per' )ns with postgraduate educa-tions are even more likely to visit wilderness.

12

In fact, a composite review of table 2 indi-cates that more than 60 percent of therespondents included in these wilderness-userstudies come from less than the top 10 per-cent of the U. S. population in terms of edu-cational attainment. The growing number ofpersons moving into upper educational levelsmay account, in part, for the fact that wilder-ness use is increasing at much faster rates thanother types of outdoor recreation.

Another proposition is that appreciation ofwilderness values is diffusing downward insociety, also accounting for part of theincrease in use. A trend of lower educationlevels among wilderness users would supportthis proposition. The two oldest studiesreported in table 2 date back only to1960-61, but they do indicate a higher per-centage of college-educated users than domore recent studies.

We do not feel this clearly substantiatesthe proposition because many interveningfactors could account for the pattern; e.g.,differences in study methodology, geographi-cal location, etc. However, it is a small pieceof evidence of the kind researchers mightaccumulate over time to determine if down-ward diffusing values are associated with theincreasing use of wilderness.

Table 2. Comparison of educational attainment of national andregional populations and of wilderness users in several studies

Item

Educational attainment

Highschoolor less

College grad-uate or some

college

Postgrad-uate work

Totalreporting

U. S. population, 1960'

Washington and Oregonpopulation, 19602

Eagle Cap Wilderness,

Percent Number

92.3

90.9

7.7

9.0

Oregon' 37.9 38.0 24.1 343

Three Sisters Wilderness,Washington3 36.1 33.5 30.4 513

Glacier Peak Wilderness,Washington3 35.0 36.0 29.0 490

Eagle Cap, Three Sisters,and Glacier PeakWilderness combined' 36.2 35.6 28.2 1,346

High Sierra Wilderness,California, 19604 18.0 49.0 33.0 179

Boundary Waters CanoeArea, 1960-615 21.0 54.0 24.0

Three Sisters Wildernessand Mountain Lakes WildArea, 19626 35.9 32.7 31.4 474

National Forest Wildernessusers, 19667 34.6 35.4 30.0 848

1U. S. Bureau of the Census ( 1964).2U. S. Bureau of the Census ( 1962a, 1962b).3From study reported in this paper.4Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission ( 1962).5lncludes data for paddling canoeists only as opposed to motor canoeists, auto and boat campers, resort guests, private cabin andday users. Paddling canoeists are inferred to be wilderness users comparable to those classified as wilderness-purists in our study

(Lucas 1964b).6Data are for respondents classified on the basis of their previous 5-year camping experience as remote (only) campers andcombination remote and easy-access campers (Burch and Wenger 1967).

7Data from sample of persons recorded in three National Forests and two National Parks in western Washington, who specifiedNational Forest wilderness as their preferred camping environment (see text footnote 6, p. I 0).

13

11,-

,

r-t;) ."" ac.:3.1''''rre, jkl,"..7.,

,*

f A!,^ ki 51."

^s# -414-te

'3 "ri

a.

-. 4

;.°41.1: 17::".L44*":4'. .a. .116.1ar47

About one-half of all wilderness use is by small family groups. Couples with children are overrepresented among

wilderness users, compared with the censused population. Here, the author's family takes a rest on a trail in the

Glacier Peak Wilderness.

Marital Status and Number of Children

Nearly one-fourth of the respondents weresingle, 75.3 percent were married, and theremaining 1.9 percent were separated, wid-owed, or divorced. These figures are compara-ble with the ORRRC (1962) study and amore recent study that included wildernessusers from three areas in Washington State(see footnote 6, p. 10).

Of the married respondents, 15.2 percenthad no children, 34.5 percent had one child,41.0 percent had two or three, 7.7 percenthad four or five, and 1.7 percent had six ormore. This distribution is consistent with theinference made in an earlier study by Burch

14

(1966) that "parents who adopt . .. the moredemanding camping styles may very likely

have young children." Even though prefer-ences may shift, as Burch suggested, fromremote camping to easy-access camping (or acombination of the two) and subsequentlyback to remote camping as families progressthrough the stages of the family life cycle, itis clear from both his study and ours thatcouples with children visit wilderness far morefrequently than childless couples. Childless

couples are very much underrepresentedamong wilderness users (table 3) compared tothe censused population of Washington andOregon while couples with one and two orthree children are overrepresented.

Table 3. Number of children for married wilderness users and Wash-

ington and Oregon population by study areas

ItemNumber of children

Glacier Peak, EagleCap, and ThreeSisters Wildernessusers

Three Sisters Wil-derness users,1962'

National ForestWilderness users,self-designated,19662

None 1 2-3 4-5I

6+

Percent of total

15.2 34.5 41.0 7.7

Total

14.5 11.7 52.0 19.6

19.3 11.4 48.1 18.5

1960 census Oregonpopulation' 36.6 19.6 32.5 11.4

1960 census Wash-ington population4 35.1 20.0 33.2 11.6

Number

1.7 877

2.1 469

2.8 608

459,812

724,685

1Burch ( 1966; see table 3, p. 608). Data from this study are for respondents designated on the basis of their previous 5-year

camping patterns as remote-only campers and combination remote and easy-access campers.

2See text footnote 6, p 10.3 U. S. Bureau of the Census (1962a).

4 U. S. Bureau of the Census (1962b).

Favored Company

The questionnaire also revealed that 47.6percent of the users usually engaged in wilder-ness recreation with their families only, 38percent usually visited wilderness with theirfriends, 7.7 percent with organized groups,and only 6.6 percent commonly went into thewilderness alone. Together, the foregoingitems indicate that about one-half of all wil-derness use is by small family groups, andmuch of the remainder is by small clusters offriends. Thus, it can be said that the wilder-ness experience is typically sought in thecompany of a few intimates. A partial expla-nation from this phenomenon may be the

15

benefits stemming from the simplified roleplaying, reduced status seeking, and inter-personal competition prevailing in such agroup and the resulting feeling of solidarityamong group members as they meet the chal-lenge of distance, time, terrain, and weather(McKinley 1966).

The intimate composition of the typicalwilderness party was identified by Stone andTaves (1956) as a potential source of thera-peutic values from wilderness. They observedthat "Among many psychiatrists and socialpsychologists, mental health is apprehendedas a function of one's interpersonal relations.The family and the friendship (group) arecrucial interpersonal relations in this respect.

Irtf4.!,

1"1.4))IVO

1'

ti et-f

lagaltitF". "

So '"

1,

OA.

V ,e

:444m4144haw- iesmileZ4"44e.

.._1.4"

17. Arglit 14*:;41.Ttsi-z,-

oe.

... 1;"'1.6`k.r rj,...W. .

11.4- ;4'

;

In,

. _ .

Visits by organized groups make up less than 10 percent of all wilderness visits in the Pacific Northwest. Here,Trail Riders of the Wilderness cross meadows in Cloudy Pass in the Glacier Peak Wilderness.

Consequently, to strengthen such group-ings which sociologists find to have beenweakened by the impact of industrializationand city living may be . . . important fortherapy and even the prevention of mentaldisturbance . . . certainly the wildernessexperience extends the opportunity forstrengthening intimate social bonds . ." Thisaspect of wilderness visitation deserves seriousstudy by competent researchers.

Environment of Upbringing

Respondents were asked where they weremainly brought up: "a city," "a small town,"or "a rural area," and their collectiveresponses are given in table 4. The respond-ents were given no clues as to what consti-tuted the three categories.

16

The ORRRC (1962) study of wildernessusers revealed that visitors to such areastended to be both city bred and more likelyto reside in urban areas, although Burch andWenger (1967) found childhood residence andcamping style unrelated. We do not have dataon the current residence of users in our study,and our data on environment of upbringingdo not reveal as sharp a trend toward urbanupbringing. We can conclude, on the basis ofour data, only that wilderness use is aboutequally common among persons of eitherrural, small town, or urban upbringing. Whatis significant is that our increasingly urbanculture produces persons motivated to usewilderness. Later in this report, we intro-duce evidence that wilderness users rearedin urban areas tend to be more wilderness-purist in outlook than do those reared in ruralareas.

I

Wilderness trips offer unique opportunities for strengthening bonds between family and friendship groups.

Table 4. Environment of upbringing of wilderness users

Wilderness areaChildhood residence

Rural Small town 1 City

Percent of respondents

Eagle Cap 32.1 42.1 25.9

Three Sisters 29.6 36.6 33.8

Glacier Peak 30.6 37.7 31.5

All three areas 30.6 38.5 30.9

17

Age of First Exposure to Wilderness-Type Recreationand Number of Close Friends Who Are Also Wilderness Users

Respondents were asked how old theywere at the time of their first trip to a back-country area. Nearly 70 percent indicatedtheir first trip was before they were 15 yearsold. Forty-four percent of the respondentsalso indicated that three or more of their fiveclosest friends participated, at least occasion-ally, in wilderness-type recreation. This evi-dence suggests that wilderness values tend tobe developed early in life and continue to bereinforced through social behavior later inlife.

Lucas (1964a), in his study of visitors tothe Boundary Waters Canoe Area, found 38groups containing persons who had come tothat area in their youth as campers at one ofthe nearby organizations of private camps, andthat two-thirds of these groups were paddlingcanoeists. All of the camps stress paddlingcanoe trips. The fact that two-thirds of thesepersons returned to the area for the same typeof experience is an example of the strength ofearly learned values concerning wilderness.The ORRRC study (1962) found that thegreater the social reinforcement throughfamily and friends, the greater the commit-ment to wilderness use. The strong socializa-tion of wilderness values may explain theintense involvement of wilderness users in pres-ervation issues concerning such areas and their

tendency to affiliate themselves with organ-ized groups dedicated to common goals.

The data from our study take on addedmeaning when compared with recent findingsof Burch and Wenger (1967). They found thatpersons who did not begin to enjoy the out ofdoors before they were 19 were most likely tobe easy-access campers rather than remote orcombination (remote and easy access)campers. Persons in their sample with child-hood hiking experience were more likely to beremote or combination (remote and easyaccess) campers rather than exclusively easyaccess campers. They concluded from this andother evidence that recreationists tend to con-tinue in the patterns learned in childhood.Our data clearly confirm this trend.

In summary, most wilderness use is bysmall family groups who are more likely tohave children than the censused population.Nearly 70 percent of all visitors took theirfirst wilderness trip before they were 15 yearsold; other studies suggest that recreation pat-terns of adults are clearly linked with child-hood experiences. These findings combine tosuggest, perhaps more clearly than any other,that increases in wilderness visitation will con-tinue as current wilderness users cultivateanother generation with primitive campingtastes.

The most common method of wilderness travel in the Pacific Northwest is by foot. Here, travelers nurse blistersfrom a day's hike in the Glacier Peak Wilderness.

r(I

/

a, /to

AIL II..."

...,

.t

...,-;7.1

Membership in ConservationistGroups and Outdoor Clubs

When respondents were asked if theybelonged to any conservationist organizationsor outdoor clubs, 30 percent reported thatthey belonged to at least one. One of theinteresting results was the wide variety oforganizations that were perceived by respond-ents to fall under the heading of conservation-ist organizations or outdoor clubs. Member-ship in 80 different groups was reportedunder the heading of "conservationist organ-izations," and membership in 154 differentgroups was reported under "outdoor clubs."Many groups were reported under both head-ings, but, amazingly, 218 different groupswere mentioned by the 408 persons who weremembers.

Table 5 gives the percentage of respond-ents reporting membership in conservationistorganizations and outdoor clubs for each ofthe three areas studied. Readers should beaware that the percentage of all wildernessusers who belong to such groups is probablyless than reflected in table 5. Members of con-servation groups were, no doubt, more likelyto respond to the questionnaire than werenonmembers and were possibly overrepre-sented in the trail registrations to whichquestionnaires were sent.

Two other studies have reported somewhathigher percentages of wilderness-user member-

ship in conservation groups. In the ORRRC(1962) study of visitors to the High SierraWilderness during 1960, 35- percent of thepersons interviewed reported membership in"outdoor clubs or conservation organiza-tions." In Merriam and Ammons' (1967)study of Montana wilderness users, 28 of the77 persons (36 percent) interviewed in theBob Marshall Wilderness and the MissionMountains Primitive Area belonged to whatthey classified as fish, game, and wildlifegroups or to four specific groups that wewould classify as conservationist organiza-tions.

Table 6 indicates the 13 most frequentlymentioned groups, number of times member-ship in each was reported under the headingof conservationist organization," number oftimes reported under the heading of "outdoorclub," and total number of wilderness visitorsreporting membership in a group, irrespectiveof the heading under which it appeared. Thelatter figure is adjusted downward to accountfor the number of times identical respondentsreported membership in the group under both"conservationist organization" and "outdoorclub" headings.

Table 6 indicates that the nationallyknown groups were more frequently men-tioned than regional or local groups. In fact,

Table 5. Wilderness-user membership in conservationist organizationsand outdoor clubs, by wilderness areas'

Areas whererespondents

were recorded

Membership inconservationist

organization

Membershipin

outdoor club

Membership ineither conservationist

organization oroutdoor club

PercentEagle Cap Wilderness 13.7 20.6 25.3

Three Sisters Wilderness 19.3 25.7 32.3

Glacier Peak Wilderness 17.6 29.0 31.8

All three areas 17.2 25.6 30.3

'Total number of respondents = 1,348.

19

about 40 percent of the members (almost 12percent of our respondents) belonged to thenational groups logically perceived as conser-vationist organizations (Sierra Club, Wilder-ness Society, Natl. Wildlife Federation, IzaakWalton League, National Parks and Recrea-tion Association, Audubon Society). How-ever, membership in all of these nationalgroups combined made up less than one-quarter of all memberships reported sincemany respondents belonged to more than one

group. Members of regional groups wererecorded most in the area closest to theirheadquarters; i.e., Mountaineers and NorthCascade Conservation Council members werefound in the Glacier Peak Wilderness,Mazamas in the Three Sisters Wilderness, etc.

The fact that membership in conservationgroups was concentrated among smallerregional and local activity-oriented groupsrather than larger politically powerfulnational groups may be significant. It is

Table 6, Wilderness-user membership in the most frequently men-tioned groups reported as conservationist organizations or outdoorclubs

Name of groupMember of

conservationistorganization

Member ofoutdoor

club

Member of eitherconservationist

group or outdoorclub

Number Number Number

Mountaineers 18 54 57

Sierra Club 40 42 49

Boy Scouts of America 17 43 42

Wilderness Society 37 4 39

North CascadesConservation Council 36 2 34

Mazamas 13 34 33

National Wildlife Federation 32 1 30

Federation of WesternOutdoor Clubs 21 9 24

Izaak Walton League 11 8 16

National Rifle Association 5 13 15

Obsidians 1 13 12

National Parks andRecreation Association 11 0 11

Audubon Society 11 4 11

295 other groups 107 237 309

Total memberships 253 464 682

1Based on 408 respondents who reported belonging to such groups out of sample of 1,348 wilderness users.

20

unlikely that membership in the nationalgroups occurs spontaneously. Such member-ships may stem from a steppingstone type ofprocess, whereby persons first join an activity-oriented local group, learn the appropriatevalues, and subsequently expand their involve-ment in the conservation movement by join-ing one of the larger national organizations. Ifsuch a steppingstone proposition is plausible,then membership in the larger groups is likelyto expand greatly in the future, since thesmaller activity-oriented groups now encom-pass a majority of the persons affiliated withorganized groups. This topic deserves seriousstudy considering its implications for wild-land management.

Further analysis of the data indicated thatpredominantly urban bred residents belong to"conservationist organizations" or "outdoorclubs." Compared with other wilderness users,members also make more wilderness visits andlonger visits. They are more likely to visit wil-derness with organized groups than are non-members and are also more likely to haveclose friends who are wilderness users. Theyare also slightly better educated. They werealso found to have a more wilderness-puristorientation toward wild-land recreation thannonmembers.

Average Number of Trips andAverage Length of Trips

Table 7 indicates the average number oftrips into remote back country of wildernesscharacter and the average length of stay during

1965 by respondents recorded in each of thethree areas.

The average respondent participated inwilderness-type recreation about 6.3 times in1965 for approximately 2.3 days each trip,accounting for an average of 14.5 man-days ofuse per respondent. This is a considerableamount of time to spend on such an activity,particularly since almost all of it must bespent during the summer months. The wilder-ness-use figures may be affected somewhat bynonresponse bias, since we might logicallyassume that the 70 percent of the personswho responded are the most frequent anddedicated users. The figures might also be sub-ject to a prestige bias, since these users arenormally anxious to credit themselves withexperience. However, even if one assumessome bias, it is clear that wilderness use in thePacific Northwest takes place in several shorttrips rather than one or two long trips. Inaddition, if we assume that respondents aremore frequently visitors to the specific areasin which they were sampled, the Glacier Peakand Three Sisters Wilderness areas, respective-ly, seem to be used for more numerous snorttrips than does the more isolated Eagle CapWilderness.

The pattern of short frequent tripsrevealed in our study is also supported byother studies. We have already mentioned thatalmost 80 percent of the visitors to the ThreeSisters Wilderness in 1962 were found to hikein and out of the area the same day (Wenger1964b). A recent questionnaire study of wil-derness users and car campers sampled in two

Table 7. Average number of trips into wilderness-type areas in 1965and length of stay by respondents from three areas

Area where respondents Average number Average length Number of

were recorded of trips of trips respondents

Days

Eagle Cap Wilderness 5.2 3.0 343

Three Sisters Wilderness 6.2 2.2 504

Glacier Peak Wilderness 7.1 2.2 485

All three areas 6.3 2.3 1,332

NIIIPIli

21

National Parks and three National Forests inWashington State revealed that the 1,300respondents stating a preference for wilder-ness-type recreation averaged 4.8 trips for 2.3days per trip in such areas during 1966 (seefootnote 6, p. 10). It would be dangerous togeneralize these findings to other areas of thecountry, but on the basis of these threestudies, wilderness visits in the Pacific North-west appear to be more frequent and of lessduration than previously anticipated.

Merriam and Ammons (1967) found asomewhat different pattern in interviews with108 visitors to the Bob Marshall Wilderness,the Mission Mountain Primitive Area, andback country in Glacier National Park. Visi-tors to the Bob Marshall stayed an average of8 days, those to the Mission Mountain Primi-tive Area and Glacier National Park 2 daysand 4 days, respectively. No data were citedconcerning the number of trips. They attrib-uted differences in the length of stay to varia-tion in the size and accessibility of the areas.

Stone and Taves (1956) found the mean,median, and modal length of trips in theBoundary Waters Canoe Area to be 6'/2 days

A Surnmuy of Wilderness-UserCharacteristics and Their Implications

The foregoing information on the demo-graphic characteristics of wilderness usersindicates that they tend to be young tomiddle-aged adults and highly educated, withmore than 60 percent coming from less thanthe top 10 percent of the U. S. population interms of educational attainment. Three-fourths of them were married and most ofthese had children. About one-half of all wil-derness use appears to be by small familygroups and much of the remainder by smallclusters of friends. Wilderness use appears tobe about equally common among personsraised in cities, small towns, or rural areas, butthe most wilderness-purist respondents weremore likely to have been raised in urban set-tings than in rural areas. More than 65 percentof our respondents reported taking their firstwilderness trip before they were 15 years old.Nearly half of our sample reported that three

22

in an informal study of 21 camping parties.Several years later, in a much more systematicstudy of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area,Lucas (1964a) found the average length ofstay to be about 1.75 days, compared with anestimate of 5.0 days by Forest Serviceofficials.

Studies such as we have cited providewilderness-use information at one moment intime for only a few areas. Such data may helpmanagers make better estimates where thereare no provisions for measuring use. Proof ofthis are wide discrepancies that have beenfound between estimates of use based onstudy samples and previous intuitive estimatesof wilderness managers. Decisions involvingthe protection, management, and even theallocation of wilderness-type areas depend onaccurate estimates of use, and the previouslyrelied upon intuitive methods are no longeradequate. We urge resource managers to con-scientiously utilize some type of system tomeasure use, such as self-registration stations,for all wilderness-type areas. The informationis basic to management of the wilderness rec-reation resource just as scaling logs is to themanagement of the timber resource.

or more of their five closest friends were alsowilderness users. This clearly suggests that wil-derness values are developed early in life andcontinue to be reinforced through socialbehavior later in life.

Thirty percent of our respondents reportedbelonging to at least one conservationistorganization or outdoor club and, amazingly,membership in 218 different groups wasreported. Despite the fact that about 40 per-cent of the members belonged to conserva-tionist organizations national in scope, mem-bership in these groups made up only aboutone-quarter of all memberships reported sinceit was common for persons to belong to morethan one group. Wilderness users belonging toorganized groups were more likely to beurban bred, to make more wilderness visitsand longer visits, to be better educated, and tohave a more wilderness-purist point of view.

The average respondent participated in wil-derness type recreation about 6.3 times in 1965for approximately 2.3 days each trip. Thisand evidence from other studies clearly indi-cate that wilderness use in the Pacific North-west is characterized by several short tripsrather than one or two long trips per year.

These findings suggest that wilderness visit-ation will continue to increase because: (1)wilderness users typically have those charac-teristics becoming more common in oursociety; (2) users tend to be married, withchildren; (3) wilderness visitation is a continu-

Part II

ation of patterns learned in childhood; e.g.,nearly 70 percent took their first wildernesstrip before they were 15 years old. We shouldemphasize that the anticipated increase willbe a continuation of recent trends and arealization of former projections rather than anew development (Lucas 1966a, The NorthCascades Study Team 1965, ORRRC 1962).The problem is one of accommodatingincreased use on limited resources while pre-venting declines in quality from overuse. Thiswill be a challenging task for wilderness man-agers.

Differentiating Wilderness Users By Their AttitudesThe demographic characteristics of users

identified in the foregoing section are impor-tant because they enable us to better predictfuture wilderness use. They also allow us toinfer certain visitor expectations based on thecharacteristics of these persons. But there isanother more subtle characteristic of suchusers that is even more vital in explainingtheir behavior and expectations; that is, theshared value system governing their attitudesand motivation to visit wilderness. If recrea-tion users can be differentiated as to thedegree they possess wilderness-orientedvalues, as well as by their characteristics, thenthe possibility of predicting reactions to man-agement policies and inferring tastes and pref-erences is greatly enhanced. For this reason,we attempted to measure the wilderness-purist tendencies of the respondents in thisstudy by using an attitude scale.

Using the scaling technique subsequentlydescribed, we were able to identify a hier-archy of wilderness users ranging from wilder-

23

ness-purists to those more urban or conven-ience oriented. In developing such a classifica-tion of users, we had a very practical purposein mind. We wanted to be able to correlate aperson's wilderness-purist tendencies with hisreactions to the suggested managementpolicies and behavior norms that wereincluded in the questionnaire. We also wantedto find out to what degree some of the demo-graphic characteristics of users were actuallyrelated to wilderness-oriented attitudes and totry to get some better insights into the valuesystem underlying wilderness use.

Our development of a classification of wil-derness users is unique only in the sense thatwe specifically designed an attitude scale withwhich to build our hierarchy. Severalresearchers have used their results, and some-times their intuition, to infer categories ofwilderness users which they felt to hold cer-tain values in common. The work of thesepersons will be reviewed, but only after pre-senting our method and its results so thatmeaningful comparisons can be made.

Development of a Wildernism-UrbanismTesting Instrument

Through discussion and pretesting, wedevised a set of 60 short questions relating towild-land recreation values that might be heldmore intensely by persons with wilderness-purist tendencies than by persons who,although they visited wilderness, held lessextreme concepts of such values or held dif-ferent values. The questions suggested 20hypothetical liked or disliked features ofwilderness-type areas, 20 activities deemedappropriate or inappropriate to wilderness-type areas, and 20 benefits that might ormight not be obtained from recreation inremote back country of wilderness character.

It was necessary to use the cumbersomephrase, "remote back country of wildernesscharacter," throughout the questionnaire toavoid implying that the researchers in anyway contemplated nonconforming uses oflegally designated wilderness areas. In thisreport, the term "wilderness-type area" isused interchangeably with "remote back-country recreational area," "remote backcountry of wilderness character," etc. Thenecessity of using such a phrase was unfortu-nate in that some misunderstanding or biasmay have resulted.

The items called for response on a 9-pointscale, ranging from "strongly dislike" (-4) to"strongly favor" (+4). To simplify computa-tions, these numerical responses were latertranslated so that they ranged from +1 to +9.The questionnaire items were selected so thatthose persons with the most extreme wilder-ness-purist concepts would respond extremelypositively or extremely negatively, dependingon the item. Conversely, those persons withextreme urban- or convenience- oriented con-cepts would respond at the opposite end ofthe scale for each item. The responses couldthen be cumulatively scored, the total scoreindicating the relative degree to whichrespondents were wilderness-purist or urbanoriented. We designated those persons withwilderness-purist tendencies as "wildernists"(a contraction of the term "wilderness-purist") and urban- or convenience-orientedrespondents as "urbanists." These contrac-tions led us to refer to our attitude scale as

24

the wildernism-urbanism scale because of thepolar extremes of the attitude continuumbeing measured. Henceforth in this report,when we refer to the "more wildernistrespondents," we mean those who were morewilderness-purist because they had high wil-dernism scores.

Although there were 60 items in the ques-tionnaire that suggested features, activities,and potential benefits to be derived from wil-derness use, we found, of course, that some ofthe items were far more effective in differenti-ating wildernists from urbanists. We related re-sponses to each item to the cumulatively scoredresponses for all of the items using a statisticalmeasure of association called gamma.'

Gamma might be compared, for simplic-ity's sake, to a squared correlation coefficient.It varies between -1.0 and +1.0 and indicatesthe proportional reduction in error one couldachieve in predicting rank order variation inwildernism scores from knowledge ofresponse to one scale item over the errors onewould make in trying to predict total scoreswithout knowledge of response to that item(Goodman and Kruskal 1954, Costner 1965).We eliminated all items which achieved agamma statistic of less than ± 0.50 and thusreduced our wildernism testing instrumentfrom 60 to 30 items. Listed below are the 30items in our shortened and improved scaleand the gamma statistics indicating theirdegree of association with scores compiledfrom the original 60 wildernism items. Theyare arranged in order from the highest positivegamma to the lowest negative gamma whichindicates the relative degree of acceptance orrejection of the items.'

7 We used "gamma statistics" rather than the more complex"item analysis" because of limitations in the computer pro-gram and the fact that gamma indicates the degree to whichprediction errors can be reduced by virtue of the associationbetween the two variables being considered; i.e., responses toindividual items and total scores (Costner 1965).8Readers, wishing to score themselves on the wildernismscale, should assign the numbers 1, 2, 3. . . 9 to -4, -3,-2 . . . 4-4, respectively, for the positively correlated items andassign the numbers 9, 8, 7 . . . 1 to -4, -3, -2. . .4-4, respec-tively, for the negatively correlated items. Add the assignednumbers for all of the appropriately marked responses, divideby 30 or the number answered, and multiply by 10 to deter-mine the total wildernism score. Refer to table 8 to see howthe score compared with respondents sampled in this study.

Wildernism-Urbanism Attitude Test

For each item in the following list of possible features, activities or benefits associated withwilderness-type recreation, circle one number that best expresses your attitude how positiveor how negative you feel toward having that feature, participating in that activity or receivingthat alleged benefit from such experience.

Gammastatistic Questionnaire item Strongly

dislike Neutral Stronglyfavor

.75 Camping (backpacking) -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

.68 Tranquility -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

.68 Sleeping outdoors -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

.68 Hiking -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

.67 Solitude -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

.65 Enjoyment of nature -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

.65 Awareness of beauty -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

.64 Alpine meadows -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4.63 Absence of manmade features -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4.64 Drinking mountain water -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4.60 Virgin forest -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4.56 Lakes (natural) -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4.56 Timberline vegetation -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4.56 Vast area and enormous vistas -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4.54 Physical exercise -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4.53 Rugged topography -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4.53 Native wild animals -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4.53 Looking at scenery -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4.52 Emotional satisfaction -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-.54 Cutting Christmas tree -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3, 4-.58 Camps for organizations -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-.59 Gravel roads -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-.66 Private cottages -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-.66 Purchasing souvenirs -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-.66 Camping (with car) -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-.69 Equipped bathing beaches -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-.69 Automobile touring -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-.71 Powerboating -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-.71 Campsites with plumbing -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4-.71 Developed resort facilities -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

25

The foregoing 30 items were used to calculate the wildernism scores used in this publica-tion. The 30 questionnaire items that were not as strongly associated with total scores (thoseachieving gamma statistics of less than ± .50) are tabulated below.

Questionnaire Items From the Wildernism-Urhanicm Scale WhichWere Dropped Because They Did Not Contribute Enough toTotal Scores (Gamma Statistics Less Than ±.50)

Wilderness featuresStrongly

dislike NeutralStrongly

favor

Unchanged natural coastlines -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Reservoirs (manmade) -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Waterfalls and rapids -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Campsites with outhouses -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Remoteness from cities -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Absence of people -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Canoeing -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Picking wildflowers -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Taking pictures -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Mountain climbing -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Hearing naturalist talks -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Talking with tourists -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Viewing naturalist exhibits -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Breathing fresh air -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Getting physically tired -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Studying pioneer history -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Low-cost outdoor recreation -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Learn to lead simple life -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Chance to acquire knowledge -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Chance to stumble onto wealth -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Adventure -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Sense of personal importance -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Improve physical health -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Recapture pioneer spirit -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Relieve tensions -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Attain new perspectives -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Chance to boast -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Sense of humility -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Family solidarity -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Chance for noble thoughts -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

26

Results of the Wildernism-Urbanism Attitude Test

Table 8 indicates the distribution of wil-dernism scores. As expected, most of thescores are grouped near the top of the scale,indicating that almost all respondents weresomewhat "wildernist." Few outright urban-ists were found. Since all of the respondentswere actual wilderness users, to some extent,they all shared attitudes oriented towardwilderness-purist concepts. In another study,we used the wildernism scale (with minormodifications) on a large population ofNational Forest and National Park carcampers and wilderness users and found thatcar campers were less wildernist than werewilderness users (footnote 6, p. 10). This im-plies a certain degree of external validity forthe scale.

To further test the external validity of thescale, we administered the test to members oftwo conservation groups; the Friends of the

Three Sisters Wilderness, July 1966, at Quak-ing Aspen Swamp in the central Oregon Cas-cades during their annual trek and the Wilder-ness Society, August 1966, during an extend-ed trail ride in the North Cascades of Wash-ington State. The scale was also administeredto an introductory sociology class at theUniversity of Washington on November 8,1967. The distributions of wildernism scoresfrom these groups are also given in table 8.They indicate, in general, that persons whomight he expected to be wilderness-puristwere indeed scored that way by our wilder-nism measuring instrument. Likewise, thosepersons from the sociology class and, in par-ticular, those who had not visited wildernessduring the past 2 years tended to be scored asmore urbanist or neutral.9

9Five of the sociology students had not visited wildernessduring the past 10 years but had gone car camping, but onlytwo of them had not visited wilderness or gone car campingduring the last 10 years.

AIMMIIIIIMIIIIIMIII

Table 8. Distribution of wildernism scores of visitors to three differentwilderness areas, members of two conservation groups, and a sociology class

Item

Wildernism scores and assigned categories

Urban-ists,

10-54

Neutral-ists,

55-64

Weakwildernists,

65-74

Moderatewildernists,

75-84

Strongwildernists,

85-90Total

Percent Number

Eagle Cap Wilderness 1.5 9.8 34.6 34.3 19.8 338

Glacier Peak Wilderness .6 6.0 27.3 41.3 24.8 487

Three Sisters Wilderness .2 8.8 33.1 37.6 20.3 498

All three .7 7.9 31.4 38.1 21.9 1,323

Friends of the Three Sisters(conservation group) 8.3 50.0 41.7 12

Wilderness Society(conservation group) 5.3 42.1 52.6 19

Introductory sociology class,University of Washington 8.0 46.0 38.0 8.0 50

Persons in class who had not visitedwilderness during last 2 years 7.1 92.9 14

27

Characteristics of Wilderness-Purists

When we related the wildernism attitudescores to the background characteristics ofthe respondents, we found the followingtrends. The more wilderness-purist (wilder-fist) users were more likely to have beenraised in urban areas, were highly educated,had more close friends who also participatedin wilderness-type recreation, and were morelikely to belong to one or more conservation-ist organizations or outdoor clubs. As table 8indicates, those persons with little or no wil-derness experience had lower wildernismscores, but when we related total wildernessexperience during the past 2 years to eachrespondent's score, we found the relationshipto be more subtle. Some wilderness experi-ence appeared necessary to attain a wilder-nism score near the median; but thoserespondents with the most experience werenot always the most wildernist. As indicatedin subsequent sections of this report, wilder-nism scores and reactions to suggestedbehavior norms and management policieswere frequently related. Not surprisingly, themore wildernist respondents opposedbehavior and policies violating the completenaturalness of wilderness more than did theaverage respondent.

Patterns of Responseto the Wildernism Items

We developed the wildernism scale to dif-ferentiate between the reactions of users tosuggested wilderness management policies andbehavior norms on the basis of their measuredwilderness-purist tendencies. We wanted toidentify the degree to which the more wilder-nist respondents differed in their preferencesfrom those persons who were not so wilder-ness-purist or maybe even urban oriented intheir outlook. This information is importantto help qualify and interpret what mightotherwise appear to be merely a problem ofconsensus or popular vote on subsequentitems concerning how wilderness should bemanaged or how people should behave in suchsettings. However, the patterns of response tothe 60 wildernism items may also reveal basicinformation concerning motivation to use wil-derness, certainly some useful data on theattitude dimensions measured by the scale,and more detail on how the more wilderness-purist users differ from others. Following arethe results of a factor analysis we conductedto identify clusters of items about which mostof the wilderness users felt the same. Theseclusters of items indicate several different atti-tude dimensions apparently measured by thewildernism scale.

We classified our respondents according to their wilderness-purist tendencies, using an attitude scale. The puristswere more likely than other users to have been raised in urban areas, to have higher educations, and to belong toconservation groups or outdoor clubs. Here, a wilderness visitor views ( left to right) Plummer Peak and FortressMountain from Miners Ridge in the Glacier Peak Wilderness.

Ahtit",V'

Af

4a.W;.3

.1

28

Ten mathematically independent factorswere extracted in a factor analysis computerroutine. By rotating these to simple structure,we were able to identify seven clearly inter-pretable clusters of items about which the wil-derness users had similar feelings. The factorswere exceptionally clear cut in that the com-bination of items they included suggestedlogical, implicit meaning. The individual itemshad high factor loadings and the factors werequite strong, as indicated by their relativelyhigh eigenvalues.1°

We labeled each of the strongest sevenfactors with a term expressing what we felt tobe the underlying meaning implicit in thatgroup of items. The factors are given in thefollowing tabulations with the names weassigned to them, the items included in eachcluster with their appropriate factor loadings,and our interpretation of the underlyingmeaning implicit in the group of items makingup each factor. 11 They are presented in orderof their relative strength as indicated by theeigenvalues calculated for each factor. Eachfactor is designated as positive or negative,depending on the direction in which the morewilderness-purist persons tended to respond.The cutoff points of the factor loadings,determining which items would be included,were selected for each cluster of items wherethe factor loadings appeared to drop abruptly.

Factor I. Spartanism eigenvalue 7.35(Positive response by wilderness-purists)

Factor loadingImprove physical healthAdventureRecapture pioneer spiritPhysical exerciseChance to acquire knowledgeLearn to lead simple lifeRelieve tensionsAttain new perspectivesBreathing fresh airEmotional satisfactionGetting physically tired

0.65.59.58. 55.55. 51

.43

.42

.42

.40

.39

Spartanism was the strongest factor in thatit had the highest eigenvalue, indicating thatit contained items with the most consistentpattern of similar response. We designated

29

it "Spartanism" because respondents whostrongly endorsed items such as "improvephysical health," "adventure," "recapturepioneer spirit," "physical exercise," and"learn to lead simple life" seem to be endors-ing a Spartan way of life and an ethic of able-bodiedness, fortitude. and dauntlessness. Oneshould note, however, that some of the itemsin the cluster also suggest rejuvenation-oriented values such as "relieve tensions,""emotional satisfaction," and "attain newperspectives." The implication is that thestrongest dimension of shared feelings amongwilderness users in our study centered aroundthe emotionally refreshing Spartan-like typeof existence implicit in wilderness use.

Factor II. Antiartifactualism eigenvalue 3.39(Negative response by wilderness-purists)

Factor loadingCampsites with plumbing 0.80Equipped bathing beaches .78Developed resort facilities .74Gravel roads .70Camping with car .70Automobile touring .70Camps for organizations .68Private cottages .65Powerboating .60Reservoirs (manmade) .59Campsites with outhouses .57Purchasing souvenirs .45Cutting Christmas trees .41Viewing naturalist exhibits .40

This factor was second only to Spartanismin terms of consistently shared response.Respondents who strongly endorsed theseitems seem to be favoring human "improve-ments" and the installation of, or provisionfor, facilities and artifacts to provide for

10The magnitude of the factor eigenvalues indicates therelative strength of the groups of items in terms of the vari-ance accounted for by clustering. Although several of thefactors appear to be conceptually related, they are mathemat-ically independent in an orthogonal factor analysis (Horst1965).11 The factor loadings should be viewed as intercorrelationcoefficients expressing the relationship between response toeach of the items and the other items in the cluster.

creature comforts and stimulation. The morewildernist users obviously rejected the pres-ence of such facilities and artifacts. The impli-cation is that wilderness use is strongly basedon a rejection of man's permanent presence inthe natural environment.

Factor III. Primevalism eigenvalue 3.05(Positive response by wilderness-purists)

Factor loadingWaterfalls and rapids 0.70Alpine meadows .61Timberline vegetation .60Lakes (natural) .58Virgin forest .56Rugged topography .54Unchanged natural coastlines .50Native wild animals .47Vast area and enormous vistas .44

The general implication of primevalismfactor is that strongly motivated wildernessusers seem devoted to satisfactions obtainedfrom perceiving the undisturbed naturalenvironment. Persons who strongly rejectsuch items seem to be repelled by, or at leastnot attracted to, primeval scenes. This clusterof items has some conceptual resemblance tofactor II, atttjiartifactualisrn, in that a rejectionof man's dominance over nature is implicit ina preference for primeval scenes.

Factor IV. Humility - eigenvalue 2.23(Negative response by wilderness-purists)

Factor loadingChance to boastSense of personal importanceChance to stumble onto wealthPicking wild flowersCutting Christmas trees

0.66.56.54.47.40

The more wilderness-purist users rejectedthe items in this factor which implies (as didthe a ntiartifactualism and primevalismfactors) a desire for humility in man's relationto the natural environment. On the contrary,urbanist respondents showed a greater tend-ency to endorse such items which seems toexpress a wish to assert their personal domi-nance over the natural environment.

30

Factor V. Outdoorsmanship - eigenvalue 2.07(Positive response by wilderness-purists)

Factor loading

Camping (backpacking) 0.64Hiking .63Mountain climbing .63Canoeing .57Sleeping outdoors .44

This group of items suggests that certaincraft aspects of wilderness visits and life in thenatural environment are valued by users inaddition to the endurance or Spartan-likeaspects which have been asserted in previousfactors. The more urban-oriented persons whorejected these items evidently regard theseactivities as onerous and are not as stronglyattracted to wilderness use.

Factor VI. Aversion to socialinteraction eigenvalue 1.92(Negative response by wilderness-purists)

Factor loadingHearing naturalist talks 0.78Viewing naturalist exhibits .74Studying pioneer history .61Talking with tourists .52

The more wildernist respondents rejectedthese items, which suggests that they areaverse to deliberai , information-exchangeembellishments of outdoor recreation. Thisaversion appears to be a dimension of wilder-nisin, though most wilderness-purists areinformed persons and learning does occur inconjunction with wilderness recreation. Westrongly suspect that the suggested techniquesof information exchange (hearing, viewing,talking), all of which involve impersonal socialinteraction and perhaps developed facilities,are behind the rejection of these items.

Factor VII. Escapism eigenvalue 1.66(Positive response by wilderness-purists)

Factor loadingAbsence of peopleRemoteness from citiesAbsence of manmade featuresSolitudeVast areas and enormous vistasTranquility

0.78.60.55.48.44.39

Table 9. Number of items falling into each factor of wildernism inthe shortened scale compared with total number of items clustered ineach factor from the original 60 items and their rank

Number of items Number of items Rank order ofFactor in in Ratio importance in

improved scale original scale improved scale

I. Spartanism 2 11 0.18 6

II. Anti arti factualism 10 14 .71 1

III. Prirnevalism 6 9 .67 2

IV. Humility 1 5 .20 7

V. Outdoorsmanship 3 5 .60 5

VI. Aversion to socialinteraction 0 4 .00 8

VII. Escapism 4 6 .67 3.5

Items not appearingin any factor 4 6 .67 3.5

Totals 30 60

The more wilderness-purist respondentsendorsed these items, implying that they areaverse to involvement with modern, imper-sonal, human aggregations or evidence there-of. This is not to suggest that wilderness usersare actively antisocial. We interpret theseitems as merely a desire to seek temporaryrespite from human involvement, with valuesbeing placed on benefits from such experi-ence. The fact that most wilderness use is byfamPy or friendship groups suggests that thisfactor reflects an aversion only to the kind ofdepersonalized human encounters so commonto modern life. Social interaction with inti-mates such as family or close friends is, infact, reinforced by wilderness recreation,according to other evidence appearing in ourstudy.

It is interesting to note that escapism is theseventh factor extract?,d. It has a lower eigen-value and accounted for less variance than didthe six other clusters of items in the wilder-nism scale. Escape from civilization has longbeen cited by observers as a dominant reasonfor wilderness use. Our data do not refute thisbut indicate that there are six factors or

31

clusters of items in our attitude scale aboutwhich wilderness users more consistently hadsimilar feelings. The escape from civilizationtheme is also implicit in Spartanism, anti-artifactualism, and primevalism the threestrongest factors in the wildernism scalesuggesting that the escape from civilizationtheme underlies many aspects of wildernessappeal but, by itself, is overshadowed.

Dimensions of the Wildernism ScaleThat Best DifferentiateWilderness-Purists From Urbanists

The factor analysis reported above in-cluded all 60 of the wildernism items in thequestionnaire. When we shortened the scale toinclude only the 30 items best differentiatingwilderness-purists from urbanists, we foundthat the items included did not equally repre-sent all of the factors described. Some of theclusters of items or dimensions of the wilder-nism scale we identified in the factor analysiswere underrepresented and others were over-represented in the new scale. The new scalecontains only the 30 items most highly corre-

lated with wildernism scores. Thus, thefactors or clusters of items prominent in theimproved scale logically represent the dimen-sions of wildernism which most efficientlydifferentiate wilderness-purists from urban-ists.

Table 9 compares the number of items inthe improved scale which fell into each factorwith the total number of items clustered inthat factor during analysis of the original 60items.

Table 9 indicates that 20 of the 30 items inthe improved scale are grouped, respectively,under antiartifactualism, primevalism, andescapism. This suggests wildernists are bestdifferentiated from urbanists in terms of theirmore positive affinity for natural environ-ments devoid of human influence. This isgenerally consistent with the ORRRC (1962)finding that "exit civilization" and "esthetic-religious" dimensions predominate in theappeal of wilderness.

Specifically, the more wilderness-puristrespondents express more zeal than urbanistsfor tranquility, solitude, alpine meadows,absence of manmade features, virgin forest,lakes (natural), timberline vegetation, vastareas and enormous vistas, rugged topog-raphy, and native wild animals. They are moreaverse than urbanists to camps for organiza-

Other Research ClassifyingWilderness Users

tions, gravel roads, private cottages, purchas-ing souvenirs, camping (with car), equippedbathing beaches, automobile touring, power-boating, campsites with plumbing, and devel-oped resort facilities. Moreover, these morewildernist respondents appear more willing toadapt themselves to natural environment con-ditions, as indicated by their greater endorse-ment of three items from the outdoorsman-ship factor that appear in the refined scale:camping (backpacking), sleeping outdoors,and hiking.

The Spartanism factor, despite its domi-nant rating in the analysis of all 60 items, con-tributed only two items to the refined scale(physical exercise and emotional satisfaction).The humility factor contributed only one(dislike for Christmas tree cutting).

The factor, aversion to social interaction,contributed no items to the abbreviated scale,indicating that this dimension of wildernism isnot very important in differentiating wilder-nists from urbanists.

It is important to keep in mind that we areconsidering here only those items and theirappropriate factors which best differentiatebetween the more wilderness-purist and otherusers. The items about which all wildernessusers felt the same did not differentiate andwere thus excluded from the refined scale.

As we mentioned earlier, our study is notthe first attempt by researchers to categorizewilderness users on the basis of the intensitywith which they hold certain values. It is thefirst attempt that we are aware of to use atti-tude scaling techniques in approaching theproblem.

The ORRRC (1962, page 135) study ofwilderness users included an analysis of theinveterate wilderness user, using frequency ofuse as a "rough and admittedly partial meas-ure of commitment." In their analysis, theytested a number of propositions and found

32

that wilderness commitment, as measured byfrequency of use, is greater among males,among those introduced to camping early intheir youth, and among those whose interestin wilderness is reinforced by family andfriends. Age was related to wilderness com-mitment only among older users, there was noconsistent relationship between income andfrequency of use, and those raised in urbanareas were more likely to be committed usersthan those raised in rural areas.

In many respects, the inveterate wildernessuser identified in the ORRRC study approxi-

mates the strong wilderness-purist identifiedby our wildernism attitude scale. However,amount of use does not explain much varia-tion in wildernism scores except between non-users and users. For example, among thosewho do visit wilderness, amount of wildernessexperience does not indicate how wilderness-purist they are, as measured by the wilder-nism scale. Our data indicate that habitual orinveterate users are often no more wilderness-purist than those who visit such areas in mod-eration. This curvilinear relationship betweenwildernism scores and amount of use could beidentified statistically and would prove inter-esting, but such an endeavor is beyond thescope of this study.

Another interesting comparison betweenthe inveterate wilderness users identified inthe ORRRC study and the wilderness-puristsof our study is that both types were morelikely to have been raised in urban areas. Thisis consistent with a recent study of visitors toNational Park and National Forest wildernessand car camping areas in Washington, whichalso found urban- bred recreationists to bemore wilderness-purist, more preservationoriented, and more inclined to differentiatethe natural environment as a place with cer-tain appropriate behavior than were thosewho were rural bred (see footnote 6, p. 10).The findings suggest that nature-oriented atti-tudes do thrive among those raised in urban set-and that continued urbanization of our soci-ety is likely to increase, not decrease, thepreference of many for wilderness-type recre-ation. Burch and Wenger (1967) found, how-ever, that although city dwellers were morelikely to be forest campers, rural residentswere more likely to be remote campers. Thisevidence conflicts somewhat with our findingsand the two other studies. 12

The tendency to identify hierarchies ofusers along a continuum ranging from wilder-ness-purist to urban oriented extends to vir-

tually all researchers who have studied wiltier-

ness use. For example, Stone and Taves(1956) related previous camping experienceto several items in an early study in theBoundary Waters Canoe Area and found thatthe more experienced users traveled in smallerparties and took longer trips. Bultena and

33

Taves (1961) and Taves et al. (1960) foundthat canoeists in the Boundary Waters CanoeArea sought greater isolation, desired fewerimprovements, and were more inclinedtoward preserving the area in a true wildernessstate than were other campers. Lucas(1964b), in his study of visitors to the Bound-ary Waters Canoe Area, also found paddlingcanoeists to be more wilderness-purist in thatthey were attracted to the area more by itswilderness qualities, they perceived less areaas real wilderness, considered the wildernessovercrowded at much lower levels, and dis-tinguished more sharply between sorts ofgroups met than did motor canoeists, dayusers, auto campers, boat campers, resortguests, or private cabin users. Merriam andAmmons (1967), in their study of visitors towilderness in three Montana areas, alsodescribe a gradation in users' wilderness con-cepts, ranging from the mountaineer to theroadside camper whose wilderness travel is, atbest, a day's hike in and out of the area.

In summary, the insights of wildernessresearchers inevitably suggest a continuum ofusers that, in general, approximate what wesuggest is a wilderness-purist to urban-ori-ented range of attitudes. However, except forthe easily identified canoeists in the BoundaryWaters Canoe Area, wilderness researchershave not yet methodically and directly relatedthe implied gradations in types of users tovisitor attitudes toward wilderness manage-ment policies. In this respect, our explorationinto wilderness-user attitudes differs, for oneof our chief purposes in developing a wilder-nism-urbanism scale was to discover relationsbetween users' orientation toward perceivedwilderness values and their views on howadministrators might manage the resource.

Studies of the Appeals of Wilderness

Our factor analysis revealed seven dimen-sions of common feelings among wilderness

12See also: Burch, William R., Jr. Nature as symbol andexpression in American social life: a sociological exploration.1964. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation on file at Univ.Minn., Minneapolis.)

users as measured by our wildernism attitudescale. These seven dimensions are similar tothe appeals of wilderness identified by otherresearchers. One section of the ORRRC StudyReport 3 (1962) explored the appeals of wil-derness and proposed five dimensions ofmotivation for entering wilderness. Thesedimensions were called exit-civilization,esthetic-religious, health, sociability, and thepioneer spirit. The ORRRC tested the relativeimportance of these dimensions of wildernessappeal against user response to 21 suggestedreasons for wanting to be in the wilderness.By appropriately classifying each of the 21stated reasons under their five dimensions ofwilderness appeal and tabulating the numberof persons ranking each reason as very impor-tant, some conclusions were evident as to therelative importance of each dimension. TheORRRC concluded that the two strongestmotivations to visit wilderness are a wish toescape from the routines and crowds of dailylife (exit-civilization) and a desire to enjoy thebeauties of nature (esthetic-religious). Thedimensions of health and sociability provedless salient as wilderness appeals in that order,and the pioneer spirit ranked last as a majorreason for taking wilderness trips. Maintaininghealth seemed more important than restoringit, and older users were the ones likely to linkthis with wilderness use. The sociability motifwas more important to middle-age andmiddle-income respondents, and the pioneerspirit was reflected most by persons fromsmall towns. It was significant that the resultswere similar for three widely divergent typesof wilderness, Mount Marcy in the Adiron-dacks, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area inMinnesota, and the High Sierra Wilderness inCalifornia. From this, the ORRRC concludedthat the appeal of wilderness is a generic one,modified only slightly by differences in wil-derness areas themselves.

The ORRRC study findings concerning thedimensions of wilderness appeal are related in

some respects to the seven dimensions of wil-dernism that we identified by using factoranalysis on responses to the items in our atti-tude scale. In making comparisons, however,one must remember that our factors werebased on the similarity of response by wilder-

34

ness users and that the ORRRC study dimen-sions of appeal were based on the ratedimportance of certain aspects of appeal tousers. The exit-civilization motif might becompared to our escapism factor, as well asour antiartifactualism and Spartanism factors.Exit-civilization was the dominant appeal forwilderness in the ORRRC study, whereasSpartanism, antiartifactualism, and primeval-ism were foremost among the clusters ofitems in our study. The fact that escapism wasthe weakest cluster of items with commonresponse in our study is puzzling at firstglance. However, as we previously pointedout, the escape from civilization theme isimplicit in our Spartanism, antiartifactualism,and primevalism factors, suggesting that theescapism motif underlies many aspects of wil-derness appeal but by itself is overshadowed.

Our primevalism factor compares roughlywith the esthetic-religious dimension and fallsnext in importance to the factors parallelingexit-civilization. Comparison of the factors weidentified with the remaining three ORRRCdimensions of wilderness appeal becomes evenmore difficult at this point. One can only saythat humility, outdoorsmanship, and aversionto social interaction are subordinate to otherfactors in terms of the common feelings ofwilderness users, as were the rated importanceof health and sociability as dimensions of wil-derness appeal in the ORRRC study.

Bultena and Taves (1961) and Taves et al.(1960), in a study of visitors to the BoundaryWaters Canoe Area, identified five primaryimages of the area which they interpreted asmotives for visiting the wilderness. The classi-fication they used had been developed earlierand used in a less formal study of wildernessusers in the same area (Stone and Taves1956). Their images included ( I) wilderness asa locale for sport and play a locale whereone could engage in outdoor activities of anature seldom pursued in their home com-munities; (2) wilderness as fascination anopportunity to gain new experiences andrealizations seldom found in the more arti-ficial setting of the city; (3) wilderness assanctuary an opportunity to leave theimp ersonal, monotonous and otherwise"directed" mental and physical environment

of the city; (4) wilderness as heritage a

chance to personally relive the glamorousexperiences of fur traders, pioneers, andexplorers; and (5) wilderness as personal grati-fication a chance for emotional catharsiswith a psychological culmination revitalizingthem for return to the emotional pressuressurrounding their everyday lives." Theirresearch indicated that "wilderness as fascina-tion" was the most frequently held image ofthe area. In general, most users were drawn tothe area by its primitiveness, naturalness,opportunity for adventure, and to escapefrom the cares associated with the directedenvironment of the workaday world. Theauthors observed that "in many respects, theusers' initial image represents a temporaryrejection of what is seen as the artificialitiesof the city. They envisage the Quetico-Sup erior as providing an opportunity toescape such artificiality . . . and to reducelife's complexities to what is basic and essen-tial" (Bultena and Taves 1961, p. 169).

35

Lucas' (1964b) study of visitors to theBoundary Waters Canoe Area also suggestedmotives for wilderness use similar to the fore-going studies. He found that canoeists weremost likely to be attracted by the wildernessqualities of the area and to classify these qual-ities as wild, u ncommercialized, uncivilized,primitive, remote, quiet, peaceful, etc.

The significant point to be derived fromreview of these studies is that study of wilder-ness users by different researchers working indifferent areas turns up recurring similarthemes underlying wilderness use. They sug-gest that wilderness visits are motivated inlarge part as an escape from artificiality ofcontemporary environments into natural set-tings, untarnished by civilization, where thenecessity for primitive means of existenceyields various emotional benefits to the par-ticipant.

1 3For a psychiatrist's discussion of this aspect, see McKinley(1963 and 1966).

Part IIIWilderness-User Behavior andAttitudes Toward Management Policies

The data subsequently presented in thisreport concern the reactions of users to state-ments suggesting behavior for wilderness usersand management policies for wilderness areas.

Qualification of the Survey Method

In reviewing the response to these state-ments concerning wilderness-user behaviorand wilderness management, one shouldremember that none of us behave entirely aswe say we would. There is a certain artifici-ality about questionnaire data in that be-havior is not being observed or measureddirectly. Ask a hypothetical question and geta hypothetical answer is one way of express-ing it. On the other hand, when questionnaireresponse patterns indicate that certain be-havior is condemned or accepted by mostusers or that a certain management policy isaccepted or rejected, we can generally assumethat behavior surrounding the issue will tendto be more consistent with the expressed atti-tudes than inconsistent. People agreeing that"debris should be packed out of the wilder-ness" won't always do it, but the probabilitythat they will is greater than if they said theydidn't feel it should be packed out. Moreimportant, they will perhaps be more recep-tive to stimuli reinforcing the behavior theyacknowledge as desirable.

We offer this explanation not in apologyfor our method but as encouragement to thereader to look beyond the surface expressionof what users feel is desirable or undesirableto the underlying possibilities. The followingdata indicate what wilderness is to the usersthrough their reactions to behavior and man-

agement measures viewed as consistent orinconsistent with their concept of wilderness.The data offer no black-and-white solutionsand that is not their intent. But they do offera basis for better insight into what the con-sequences of certain actions might be on theculturally derived concept of wilderness.

Informal Rules and Customs forRecreation in Wilderness-Type Areas

The questionnaire contained 22 normativestatements suggesting informal rules and cus-toms that might be observed when visitingwilderness-type areas. These statements calledfor response ranging from "strongly disagree"to "strongly agree" (SD = strongly disagree,D = disagree, N = neutral, A = agree, SA =strongly agree). For example, two statementsthat appeared in this section are:

One should camp whereverhe pleases inremote back country SD D N A SA

Playing cards and readingbooks are not appropriateto back countryunless the weather is bad SD D N A SA

The 22 questionnaire statements referringto informal rules and customs for back-country use were factor analyzed to deter-mine which statements clustered togetherwith highly intercorrelated response patterns.We originally tried to group the statements,using our own insights as to which wererelated, but upon trying factor analysis, we

found some relationships that were impercep-tible to our casual observation, and the fivefactors identified appeared logically as well asstatistically clustered. They revealed, in otherwords, the statements about which wildernessusers most nearly felt the same. Five groupsof such statements were identified and arepresented in the following text. They suggestthe presence of norms among wildernessusers, indicating an attitude of responsibilityand equality, a rejection of external controlson behavior, withdrawal from symbols ofcivilization, support for some campsite main-tenance behavior, and endorsement of certaincamperaft skills. In the following, each state-ment appears under its appropriate factor,with a statistical summary of the response itreceived, an interpretation of the response,and the "factor loading" indicating howstrongly it was related to all statements inthat group. One of the important designationsto be noted following each statement is the"gamma statistic" which indicates the degreeof association (correlation) between wilder-nism scores and response to the statement;i.e., a large gamma statistic (positive or nega-tive) indicates relatively consistent responseto that statement by the more wildernist (wil-derness-purist) respondents.'

Factor I: A Wilderness NormResponsibility and Equality

This group of statements forms the strong-est factor in that it accounted for the greatestreduction of response variance among the fivefactors identified. The five normative state-ments in this group appear to imply a sense ofequality among wilderness visitors and a senseof responsibility for maintaining the propriety

Factor I

I-1. If you see a person in a back-country recreational area doingsomething he shouldn't do, youshould say something to himabout it.

of each other's behavior and for contributingto each other's welfare. As one psychiatristand ardent wilderness user has noted (Mc-Kinley 1963), "in the wilderness, competitionand suspicion seem to fade . .. . Not competi-tion, but cooperation is needed because of theforces of nature . . . "

It is interesting to note the overwhelmingagreement among respondents to all of thestatements and the relatively strongerendorsement of the more "wildernist"respondents. If we reflect on the escapismaspect of motivation previously discussed, yetobserve the significant orientation of userstoward interpersonal responsibility that ispresent in these statements, a new dimensionof the "escape from civilization" aspect ofwilderness use appears. Wilderness users, as agroup, do not appear to reject social responsi-bilities despite their desire to escape to wilder-ness solitude where they can interact onlywith family or close friends.

Of more specific practical interest are theresponses to the first three statements whichindicate that: Users feel obliged to say some-thing to persons whose behavior in wilder-ness is improper. They feel that persons introuble have first claim on the time and energyof everyone near. They feel that trash left byprevious users should be removed by otherusers if possible.

14See page 71 of the Appendix for an explanation ofthe use of the statistic, gamma, to determine if correlationbetween questionnaire response and wildernism scores wasstrong, moderate, or slight. The terms "strong," "moderate,"or "slight" do not refer in an absolute sense to explainedvariation in patterns of response due to wildernism scores butto the relative proportional reduction in error that is possiblewhen wildernism scores are used to predict respondents'answers to the questionnaire statements about wildernessbehavior and management (Costner 1965).

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

- - - Percent

.65 80.6 15.7 3.7 G.22 + ModerateN= 1322

37

Eight out of ten persons felt that in wilderness-type areas if you see a person doing somethinghe shouldn't, you should say something to him about it, and the more wildernist respondentswere moderately more inclined to feel this way.

1-2. In an emergency, the person orparty in trouble has first claim onthe time and energy of everyonenear, even if some cherishedplans have to be abandoned.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

- - Percent

.63 93.0 4.0 3.0 G.20 + ModerateN = 1324

More than nine out of 10 agreed that in an emergency, the person or party in trouble has firstclaim on time and energy of everyone near, and the more wildernist respondents were moderately

more inclined to feel this way.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

- - - Percent1-3. Trash left by previous back-

country users should he removedby other users if they can do so. .60 94.0 3.4 2.6 G.28 + Moderate

N= 1329More than nine out of 10 felt trash left in remote back country should be removed by other

users if they; can do so. The more wild ernist respondents were moderately more inclined to feel

this way.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildemism scores

- - - Percent1-4. Campfires should be no larger

than necessary. .55 95.6 2.5 1.9 G.26 + ModerateN = 1324

More than nine out of 10 felt campfires should be no larger than necessary and more wildernist

respondents were moderately more likely to feel this way.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildemism scores

- - PercentI-5. In the back country, formality

should be put aside; everyoneshould be equal there. .53 81.0 13.4 5.6 G.13 + Slight

N = 1313

Eight out of ten felt formality should be put aside and everyone should be equal in the backcountry and the more wildernist respondents were slightly more inclined to feel this way.

38

Factor II: A Norm SuggestingRejection of Controls on Behavior

Four out of five statements in factor IIwere worded so as to imply a rejection ofcontrols on behavior. The fifth statement alsoreferred to a measure of social control (firepermits), but response to it was negativelycorrelated with the other statements in thegroup.' s This indicates that persons endors-ing fire permits as a requirement tended toreject the other questionnaire statements thatimplied freedom from constraints on be-

havior. Expressed another way, users who didnot feel fire permits should be required alsofelt they should be allowed to camp whereverthey pleased, to shortcut trails, and cut brush,limbs, or wood. This suggests that some wil-derness users tend to consistently reject con-trols on behavior and others consistently findthem acceptable. This tendency does not

Factor II

II-1. One should camp wherever hepleases in the remote backcountry. .69 57.8 7.7 34.5 G.15 + Moderate

N = 1326Almost six out of 10 persons felt that they should be allowed to camp wherever they please.The more wildernist respondents were moderately more inclined to feel this way. The responsepatterns were more pronounced from visitors to the Eagle Cap Wilderness.

appear to be related to respondents' wilder-ness-purist tendencies, since the correlationbetween wildernism scores and response tothe items was negligible or slight in four ofthe five items. We feel, on the basis ofresponse patterns appearing throughout thestudy, that the tendency to reject or acceptreasonable controls on behavior is related tothe respondents' knowledge of the necessityfor such controls. It thus follows that educa-tional programs directed at reasons for con-straints on behavior would greatly increasethe likelihood that behavior controls wouldbe successful. We are suggesting that educa-tion is perhaps more important than enforce-ment in bringing about proper wildernessbehavior.

15 The negative factor loading (-.371 for the statementconcerning fire permits indicates that people endorsing a firepermit requirement tended to disagree with the other state-ments.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

- - - Percent

11-2. If a person sees a shorter routethan the trailmakers used, heshould have the right to decidewhether to stay on the trail or

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

- Percent

not. .65 32.2 14.9 52.9 G.00 NegligibleN = 1323

About one-half of the visitors felt they should stay on designated trails, but one out of three felthe should be able to shortcut trails if he wanted to. The response pattern was nearly identicalfor the more wildernist respondents and other users.

11-3. In remote back-countryrecreational areas, nobody hadbetter try to tell me what Ishould or shouldn't do.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

- - Percent

.63 4.2 11.3 84.5 G-.02 NegligibleN = 1323

39

Over eight out of 10 respondents did not feel that "nobody had better try and tell them whatto do." Response was similar among the more wildernist respondents and others.

11-4. In the back country, a personshould be free to cut brush orlimbs for his bed or wood forhis campfire.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

- - - Percent

.45 52.0 12.5 35.5 G-.10 SlightN = 1316

More than five out of 10 persons felt they should be free to cut brush, limbs, or wood in theback country. But the more wildernist users were slightly less inclined to feel this way.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

- -- Percent11-5. Every back-country traveler

(or party of travelers) shouldbe required to obtain a firepermit from the administrativeagency before entering an area. -.37 63.7 18.7 17.6 G.01 Negligible

N = 1329More than six out of 10 respondents felt all back-country travelers should be required to obtainfire permits before entering such areas. The more wildernist respondents and other users feltalike on this item.

Factor III: A Norm Suggesting With-drawal from Symbols of Civilization

The statements in factor III all refer tothings or activities symbolizing civilization;e.g., radios, barking dogs, roads, etc. Thesesymbols and activities are all described withinthe statements as being inappropriate to useof remote back country of wilderness char-acter. The pattern of response to these state-ments indicates that visitors vary in the in-tensity of their aversion to civilizationreminders, such as radios, yelling people, etc.,while traveling in the wilderness, but the morewildernist persons consistently oppose suchthings. The pattern and the correlation withwildernism scores suggest that althoughpeople will not be clamoring for rules andregulations to control these kinds of behavior,reasonable rules and regulations to preserveprimeval conditions and solitude would be

40

acceptable where needed, particularly to themore wildernist users. Merriam and Ammons(1967) reported two findings related to ournorm suggesting withdrawal from symbols ofcivilization. They reported that "roads wereloudly opposed, though radio and, for some,television in the wilderness seemed less objec-tionable."

It is interesting to note the strong associa-tion between wildernism scores and responseto most of these statements. Wilderness-purists appear to strongly differentiate thewilderness environment as a place with appro-priate and inappropriate behavior; e.g., radios,barking dogs, and yelling people do notbelong. Of specific interest to resource man-agers is the response to statement number 3indicating that a road to a place takes most ofthe fun out of walking there, even if the trailfollows a different route. This suggests a basicincompatibility between road access and trailaccess.

Factor IIIFactor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

- -PercentIII-1. Radios should not be brought

to the back country. .64 30.9 35.9 33.2 G.39 + StrongN = 1323

About one out of three respondents felt that radios should not be brought to the back country.one-third were neutril, and one-third saw nothing wrong with such a practice. However, the

more wildernist respondents strongly tended to agree that radios should not be brought intowilderness-type areas.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

- - Percent111-2. Barking dogs, car horns, arid

yelling people do not belong inremote back-countryrecreational areas. .62 92.1 5.0 2.9 G.55 + Strong

N = 1326More than nine out of 10 persons felt that barking dogs and yelling people do not belong inwilderness-type areas, and the more wildernist respondents strongly tended to feel this way.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

PercentIII-3. A road to a place takes most

of the fun out of walking thereeven if the trail follows adifferent route., .61 71.7 12.7 15.6 G.56 + Strong

N = 1328Seven out of 10 persons agreed that a road to a place takes the fun out of hiking there even ifthe trail follows a different route, and the more wildernist respondents strongly tended to feel

this way.Factor Correlation with

Loading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scoresPercent

III-4. Playing cards and readingbooks are not appropriate toback country, unless theweather is bad. .60 16.1 30.8 53.1 G.12 + Slight

N = 1325

More than half the respondents disagreed that playing cards and reading books are not ap-propriate in wilderness-type areas unless the weather is bad, and almost three out of 10 persons

were neutral. However, the more wildernist respondents were slightly more inclined to agreewith the statement and thus oppose playing cards and reading unless the weather is bad.

Factor IV: A Norm SupportingMaintenance of Unpolluted Campsites

Factor IV contained the following threestatements which seem to refer to mainte-nance of an unpolluted quality of campsiteswithin the environment, the pattern ofresponse indicates a willingness on the part ofthe uscrs to cooperate in achieving campsite

41

quality and the presence of an informal codeof conduct in this direction. It might, there-fore, be possible for managers to identify,publicize, and reinforce t:e site preservationbenefits which result from other more subtlewilderness-user practices such as refrainingfrom cutting limbs for beds, tying horses totrees near campsites, or making camps nearthe edges of lakes or streams.

Factor IV

IV-1. If a considerable quan-tity of wash water mustbe disposed of, a sump holeshould be dug for it.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

- - - Percent

.68 78.3 11.5 10.2 G.01 NegligibleN=1326

About eight out of 10 persons felt a sump hole should be dug for disposing of considerablequantities of wash water. Response was similar from the more wildernist users and otherrespondents.

IV-2. One should not wash hisdishes, his clothes, or himselfdirectly in streams or lakes.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

Percent

.68 61.1 12.0 26.9 G.03 NegligibleN = 1326

About six out of 10 felt one should not wash dishes, clothes or himself directly in streams orlakes, but almost three out of 10 disagreed. Similar response was received from the morewildernist users and others.

IV-3. All evidence of use of an areashould be removed when leavinga campsite.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

Percent

.63 90.8 3.8 5.6 G.12 + SlightN= 1327

Nine out of 10 felt all evidence of use should be removed when a campsite is left, and the morewildernist respondents were slightly more inclined to feel this way.

Factor V:A Norm Supporting Camperaft Skills

The last group of statements with similarresponse referred to some aspects of camp-craft. These data suggest that among wilder-ness users, there is a subculture that placesvalue on certain knowledge, skills, and experi-ence. However, certain of these activities thatmany users now support or find acceptablemay not be appropriate in a future era char-acterized by increasingly heavy use of wilder-ness-type areas. Opportunities for individualburying of garbage may be exhausted in areaswith shallow soil. Informal campsite improve-ment if carried to extremes could be inconsist-ent with wilderness preservation objectives,and particularly if carried out to suit the vary-ing preferences of successive users. Forexample, Lucas (1964b) reported that athousand or more campsites had been clearedby canoeists in the Boundary Waters Canoe

42

Area. In areas of wood shortage, particularlyat high elevations, cutting brush and limbs forfire or beds may soon exhaust the supply anddeteriorate the environment. Even fires mayhave to be prohibited in areas where wood isvery scarce. An example of such an area isfound in portions of the proposed Enchant-ment Wilderness in Washington State wherethe only remaining firewood at some lakes isfound in picturesque snags that give the areamuch of its charm (Hendee and Mills 1968).Note that statement 4, concerning the cuttingof brush or wood, also appeared in factor IIwith the statements suggesting a rejection ofconstraints on behavior.

We suggest again that lack of knowledge asto the cumulative long-range consequences oftheir activity accounts for support by somewilderness users for practices that will ulti-mately result in the decline of wildernessquality. The acceptance of constraints on wil-derness behavior lies in communicating whysuch controls are necessary.

Factor VFa cto r Correlation with

Loading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scoresPercent

V-1. Noncombustible trash (e.g., tincans, aluminum foil, glass,unburned garbage) should beburied .66 84.0 1.5 14.5 G.04 Negligible

N = 1320More than eight out of 10 felt noncombustible trash should be buried and there was no sig-nificant difference in the pattern of response from the more wildernist respondents.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

PercentV-2. Moderate improvement of a

campsite by the camper isdesirable (e.g., removingbrush and limbs, putting nailsin trees for utensils, simplebox cupboards, etc.) .65 29.2 14.3 56.5 G-.30 -Strong

N = 1329Between five and six out of 10 persons did not agree that moderate camper improvement of acampsite is desirable, but about three out of 10 respondents agreed. The more wildernistrespondents displayed a strong tendency to oppose improvement of campsites by users.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

PercentV-3. Camping isn't complete

without an evening campfire. .63 73.8 16.9 9.3 G-. 13 -SlightN = 1326

Over seven out of 10 persons felt that camping isn't complete without an evening campfire butthe more wildernist campers were slightly less inclined to feel this way.

V-4. In the back country a personshould be free to cut brush orlimbs for his bed or wood forhis campfire.

Factor Correlation withLoading Agree Neutral Disagree wildernisrn scores

Percent

.55 52.0 12.5 35.5 G-.10 -SlightN = 1316

More than five out of 10 persons felt they should be allowed to cut brush, limbs, or wood inthe back country, but strong wildernists were slightly less inclined to feel this way.

Two Items Not Appearingin the Factor Analysis

Two statements suggesting norms forbehavior in wilderness-type areas did not turnout to have patterns of response highly associ-

43

ated with any other group of statements. Thestatements indicated that:

More than eight out of 10 persons feltthat a good rule to follow in wilderness-type areas is to take only pictures andleave only footprints, and the more wil-

dernist respondents were moderatelymore inclined to feel this way.

Almost nine out of 10 persons did notfeel that bringing more luxuries madefor a better camping trip. The more wil-dernist respondents were even morestrongly inclined to feel this way.

Informal Rules and Customs forWilderness Use Summarized

A summary of responses to all of the ques-tionnaire statements referring to informalrules and customs for back-country use isincluded in the appendix. The responses aresummarized for each of the areas in whichvisitors were recorded. This will give wilder-ness managers and other interested parties theopportunity to inspect response to each state-ment as it varied among visitors to the threedifferent areas. In the appendix, the state-ments are arbitrarily grouped under threeheadings different from those designated inthe foregoing section based on factor analysisof response. In the appendix, they are organ-ized under: (1) statements concerning per-sonal freedom, (2) statements concerningcamping habits, and (3) statements concern-ing expected behavior in wilderness-typeareas.

Twenty-two questionnaire statements sug-gested some informal rules and customs thatmight be observed in wilderness-type areas. Afactor analysis of responses indicated fivegeneral groups of statements about which wil-derness visitors felt pretty much the same.These groups of statements or factors indicateshared feelings about certain wildernessbehavior. The first group of statementsimplied the presence of a norm among wilder-ness users suggesting feelings of equality and asense of responsibility for both maintainingthe propriety of each other's behavior andcontributing, when necessary, to each other'swelfare. The second factor implied the pres-ence of a norm suggesting a rejection of con-trols on behavior. Some users consistentlyrejected the concept of behavior controls andothers consistently endorsed such concepts.We feel the rejection of reasonable behavior

44

controls is based on a lack of knowledge as tothe undesirable consequences of the behavioraid that educational programs directed at rea-sons for restrictions will greatly increase theiracceptability.

The third factor contained items suggestingsome activities reminiscent of civilization andrevealed a norm suggesting a rejection ofsymbols of civilization. The more wildernistusers tended to be more intolerant of remind-ers of civilization than other users. The fourthfactor indicated an informal code of behaviorworking to maintain campsite quality. Thefifth and last group of statements indicatedthe presence of informal sanctions for certaincamperaft skills, some of which are not con-sistent with wilderness preservation in areas ofintensive use. Two statements, not highlyassociated in response pattern to the fivegroups of statements, endorsed taking onlypictures and leaving only footprints in wilder-ness-type areas and asserted that luxuries didnot improve a camping trip.

In general, wilderness users are a responsible group.Educating them as to why some restrictions are neededusually wins their cooperation. Here, Forest Servicewilderness patrolman talks with Girl Scouts in theThree Sisters Wilderness.

a-

Part IV

Management Preferences forWilderness-Type Areas

Fifty-three of the questionnaire statementssuggested management practices, policies, orguidelines that might be implemented inremote back-country areas of wilderness char-acter.' 6 These statements called for responsesusing the symbols SD, D, N, A, SA to desig-nate strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree,strongly agree, respectively. The preferencesso indicated by each person were then corre-lated with their wildernism scores. This was todetermine if the more wilderness-puristrespondents reacted differently to suggestedmanagement policies than other users whowere less perceptive of wilderness values, andthe effect certain management policies mighthave on them. The statements concerningmanagement preferences and their appropri-ate statistical data are included in the appendixunder the same headings in which they arediscussed in the following text.

The Need To Differentiate theManagement Preferences ofWilderness-Purists From Other Users

It is extremely important that the prefer-ences for certain management policies berelated to the respondents' orientation towardwilderness-purist concepts. A certain policymight receive the endorsement of a majorityof the wilderness users, yet, if the disagreeingminority are wilderness-purists, it may indi-cate that the policy, despite its popular sup-port, would violate the long-standing wilder-ness values to which the more purist users areespecially sensitive. Wilderness-purists aremore perceptive of wilderness values and theiropinions should receive added consideration.

45

In addition, some types of recreation usedepend on wilderness, but other uses do not,despite the fact that they are enhanced by awilderness setting. For example, backpackingfeaturing long treks and solitude depends onwilderness-type areas. Fishing, on the otherhand, is enhanced for many by a wildernesssetting but does not depend on such anenvironment. The point is that some peoplemay visit wilderness incidental to other activ-ity whereas others visit wilderness becausesuch settings are prerequisite to their activityor satisfaction. The management preferencesof these different types of users should bedifferentiated because there are closer alterna-tives available to the incidental users. Wilder-ness management should not be as sensitive tothe preferences of users whose activities donot depend exclusively on wilderness for theirsatisfaction.

Another reason for differentiating amongthe preferences of users is that there may bemanagement policies vital to the preservationof wilderness that are not fully understood orappreciated by wilderness users. It is vital forwilderness managers to be aware of differ-ences in sentiment among different types ofusers so that the appropriate public can beinformed as to the necessity of a policybefore it is implemented. As Mills'' pointedout, needs and preferences must be compro-

1 . it i6Agam, is unfortunate that it was necessary to use thephrase "remote back country of wilderness character" to avoidimplying that some policies which might violate the Wilder-ness Act were being contemplated for such areas. This mayhave biased response to some ims by some persons.

1 7See footnote I, p. 2.

nuiscd to fit the ecological capability of' theland. In such cases, knowing what types ofusers endorse or reject the necessary policymay make it possible to direct specific infor-mation at the critical segment of users. A casein point is "burying noncombustible trash."In areas of intensive use or where the soil isshallow, such a practice is not consistent withlone-range wilderness preservation, yet ourdata showed overwhelming approval of thepractice. In educating wilderness users to

pack out their debris" and the necessity ofsuch a practice, many of the more wildernistpublic can be reached through conservationgroups and outdoor clubs, since the strongerwildernists tend to belong to such groups.Other means would be necessary to reach themore urbanist users who tend not to belongto organized groups. To reach these usersmight also require a different appeal.

Wilderness management is not an areawhere consensus of users should be control-ling, yet their preferences should be con-sidered. Our plea to wilderness managers is toavoid drawing conclusions in a popular voteconteyt without first looking for indicationsof different feeling among different types ofusers and the concerned public.

In addition, the fact that part of our studydeals with wilderness management preferences

I.

should not obscure the fact that many man-agement alternatives are restricted by the Wil-derness Act. Others are permissible onlywhere necessary to protect the area from theeffects of use. In both cases, the data are stillvaluable in that they reveal the sentiment ofwilderness users surrounding such issues andthus further define the users' perception ofwilderness. In addition, readers, managers,researchers, and users alike should rememberthat under the Wilderness Act, recreation useis subordinate to preserving for all an unal-tered wilderness resource.

Organization of the DataThe following pages contain interpreta-

tions of response to the 53 questionnairestatements concerning management of wilder-ness-type areas. Following interpretation ofeach logical group of statements, the meaningand implications of the results are exploredand summarized. The related statements havebeen assembled under the nine subject head-ings they concern.

The basic response data for the individualquestionnaire statements are found in theappendix under similar headings. In theappendix, the data are summarized for eachof the three areas included in the study the

Wilderness users felt that administrators of such areas should be specially trained. Here, Forest Service officialsdiscuss management problems at a wilderness workshop in the Glacier Peak Wilderness (August 19, 1967).

+Mr4k

1*"

i

4

t

Eagle Cap, Three Sisters, and Glacier PeakWilderness areas, respectively. The degree ofcorrelation of response to each statementwith wildernism scores is also indicated by thepresence of a gamma statistic. The gammastatistics have, in turn, been classified as indi-cating relatively strong, moderate, or slightcorrelation between wildernism scores andreaction to the suggested management policies.

Wilderness-User AttitudesToward Management Policies

I. User attitudes on administration of wil-derness-type areas. Four questionnairestatements were related to the administrationof wilderness-type areas. Response to thesestatements indicated the following:

Three out of four persons felt that admin-istrators of wilderness-type areas should bespecially trained and their task recognizedas different from administration of othertypes of wild land. Not surprisingly, themore wildernist respondents showed astronger tendency to feel this way thandid other users.

Almost eight out of 10 persons agreed thatwilderness-type areas should be adminis-

tered as units distinct from adjacent landsthat may be devoted to harvesting timberand other resources. The more wildernistusers showed a moderately stronger tend-ency to feel this way.

Sixty-five percent of the respondents dis-agreed with the statement, "it is not neces-sary to patrol wilderness-type areas regu-larly," with the more wildernist users dis-playing a slightly stronger tendency to feelthis way. About two out of 10 personsdidn't feel regular patrol was necessary,and 15 percent were neutral.

Six out of 10 persons did not feel that allcleanup duties in wilderness-type areasshould be handled by employed personnelon regular schedules, but about two out of10 persons supported "all cleanup byemployed personnel," and the rest wereneutral. The more wildernist respondentsshowed a slightly greater tendency tooppose "all cleanup by employed person-nel" than did other users.

The response to these statements indicatesthat wilderness users in general, and particu-larly the more wilderness-purist, feel that wil-derness-type areas warrant management asadministrative units distinct from adjacent

Wilderness users endorsed the fact that regular patrol is necessary in such areas. Here, Forest Service wildernesspatrolman travels with Girl Scout party in front of Broken Top in the Three Sisters Wilderness.

...- .A.4- '.....?1,--'1,,,,- ...-.0e..,...4

....'1.- ''-2,,

eirt-Wb#aam rp.417--1`4.

ISOIPP

".7,,t- **J.-41

,40"5

--- -

Wpa

"+4`,

1....w.. t:VZab.;C Airso.5tir ..sttf

ef7.- ' 1

1/1-

- r

(>.

,^14A

W.;41: ; :ftf.di,fop; 0":"

47

units, require regular patrol, and that personsadministering these areas should have specialtraining for the task. The responsible attitudeof users is evident from the 60 percent whodid not feel that cleanup duties should behandled exclusively by employed personnel.However, that the other 40 percent did notdemonstrate this attitude toward cleanupclearly indicates the need for more educationof users as to why a "pack it out yourself"program is necessary to maintain the qualityof wilderness sites. As indicated in the sectionon wilderness behavior norms, most wilder-ness users are exceptionally responsible intheir attitudes. The minority who deviatefrom this accepted code, due to their back-ground and lack of real interest in or under-standing of the resource, must be reached.

II. User attitudes concerning nature inter-pretation in wilderness-type areas. Twoquestionnaire statements concerned possiblemeans of providing more interpretation ofnatural features in wilderness-type areas.Resporif.- indicated that:

Over six out of 10 people felt that a smallbook describing features observed alongthe trail, and designed to be carried in thebackpack, should be sold by the adminis-trative agency to enhance the pleasure of aback-country trip. Three out of 10 peoplewere neutral, and less than 10 percent dis-agreed. However, the more wildernistrespondents showed a slight tendency todisagree with the idea. It may be thatthese wilderness-purists have no need forsuch a guide because they already have theinterpretive skills necessary to fully enjoya wilderness trip or possess other interpre-tive material such as the books now beingpublished by some conservation groups.

Eight out of 10 persons felt that back-country rangers should be trained inpublic interpretation of the area's naturalfeatures, as well as in safety and trail tech-niques. The more wildernist respondentsand others responded alike to this state-ment.There seems to be support for interpretive

booklets pertinent to wilderness-type areasand for more interpretive training of wilder-

ness administrators, as witnessed in theresponse to the foregoing questionnaire state-ments. However, in a subsequent section ofthe questionnaire, less than one-third of thepeople favored descriptive signs giving inter-pretation of features of the area, and one-third opposed the idea, particularly the morewildernist users. It appears that more interpre-tation is desired in wilderness-type areas, butthe means of accomplishing it are crucial toacceptance of the idea. Interpretive signs con-stitute a defacement of wilderness; interpre-tive books in the users' packs do not.

There are many advantages to be obtainedfrom development of acceptable interpretivetechniques for use in wilderness. Developmentof an appropriate interpretive booklet couldraise the quality of the wilderness experiencefor many users, help disperse use to lesserknown points within a wilderness, and impartappropriate rules and codes of behavior forsuch areas. Merriam and Ammons (1967) alsoconcluded from their study of wilderness inMontana that "much could be done with ade-quate trail information or a published guidebook which could be sold to users." Severalexcellent guidebooks, some including valuableinterpretive material, have recently been pro-duced by conservation groups, and reportsindicate they sell extremely fast. As Merriamand Amnions (1967) point out, such bookscan help bridge the gap in understanding ofwilderness between different types of users.

However, many of these books presentinformation beyond the scope of interest orthe geographical area of concern to the userand are expensive. ).'hey do not fill the needfor an interpretive brochure which brieflypresents material of interest or value to usersof a specific area; e.g., geological, botanical,historical, archeological.'

48

III. Attitudes toward motorized equipmentin wilderness-type areas. Two questionnairestatements concerned the use of motorized

1 8As a result of the findings reported in this publication, aForest Service-sponsored study is now being carried out,under cooperative agreement with the University of Wash-ington, to explore the desired dimensions of such booklets.the potential impact on wilderness use and users, and thepossible means of distribution.

equipment in the wilderness-type areas.Response indicated that:

More than eight out of 10 persons felt thatmotorized trail bikes should be prohibited,and the more wildernist respondentstended even more strongly to oppose suchvehicles.

More than eight out of 10 personsopposed the idea that, if they can getthem there, back-country users should bepermitted to use powerboats on back-country waters. The more wildernistrespondents opposed the idea more strong-ly than did the other respondents.

Response to the foregoing two statementsindicates that wilderness users, and wilder-ness-purists in particular, overwhelminglyoppose the use of motorized trail bikes orpowerboats in wilderness-type areas.

There appears to be a close relationshipbetween our findings concerning the use ofmotorized trail bikes and powerboats in wil-derness and the findings of Lucas (1964b,1965) and Lucas and Priddlei 9 in the study

Less than 10 percent of the wilderness visitors felt theuse of motorized trail bikes was appropriate towilderness-type areas.

49

of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Lucasfound that paddling canoeists were moreexacting in the conditions they perceived asconstituting wilderness and were particularlysensitive to the presence of motorboats,despite their common use in the area. Thecanoeists might be compared with the morewildernist respondents included in our study.Merriam and Ammons (1967) also found thatmotorboats and motor scooters were frownedupon by most persons interviewed in theirstudy of visitors to the Bob Marshall Wilder-ness, the Mission Mountains Primitive Area,and back-country portions of Glacier NationalPark. They point out that "it is of interest tonote that some users, two or three in eacharea, do not find scooters objectionable."Their sample for the three areas combinedtotaled 107 persons, indicating that some-thing less than 10 percent of the users did notobject to such vehicles. Our study revealed9.9 percent who did not object to motorscooters and 7.3 percent who were neutral.The percent not objecting to motorboats inour study and theirs was nearly identical, 8.3percent and 7.9 percent, respectively.

IV. Attitudes toward the use of helicop-ters. Seven questionnaire statements con-cerned the use of helicopters in wilderness-type areas. Response indicated that:

Almost everyone (96 percent) agreed thatthe use of helicopters is justified in wilder-ness-type areas for protection of the area(e.g., from fire).

Almost everyone (98.6 percent) agreedthat the use of helicopters is justified inwilderness-type areas for protection ofhuman life.

Over three out of four persons did not feelthat the use of helicopters is justified inwilderness-type areas for visits by promi-nent people, and the more wildernistrespondents tended more strongly to dis-agree with the idea.

1 9Lucas, Robert C, end Priddle, George B. Environmentalperception: a comparison of :wo wilderness areas. Paper pre-sented at annual meeting of Asso_iation of American Geog-raphers, Syracuse, N. Y., March 31, 1964.

1.

A

The use of helicopters in wilderness-type areas was acceptable to a majority of users if such use helped preservewilderness values; e.g., control of fire, eliminating overuse of trails by large pack strings, and wildlife protection.However, the more wilderness-purist users strongly opposed the use of helicopters.

About six out of 10 persons agreed thatthe use of helicopters is justified for rou-tine administration and maintenance ofwilderness-type areas, but one out of four(26.6 percent) disagreed. The more wilder-nist respondents displayed a strong tend-ency to oppose the idea.Two out of three persons felt that the useof helicopters is justified in wilderness-type areas for bringing material and equip-ment to construction sites which other-wise would require large strings of packanimals, but almost two out of 10 personsdisagreed. The more wildernist respond-ents displayed a moderate tendency tooppose the idea.Fifty-six percent of the persons felt thatthe use of helicopters is justified in wilder-ness-type areas for bringing patrolmen toand from the area, but almost three out of10 persons disagreed. The more wildernistrespondents showed a strong tendency tooppose the idea.

More than 7 out of 10 persons felt thatthe use of helicopters is justified in wilder-

50

ness-type areas for wildlife observation orcontrol, but the more wildernist respond-ents showed a moderate tendency to dis-agree with the idea.

The collective response to all seven of theforegoing items suggests that almost all wil-derness users favor the use of helicopters forprotection of the area from fire and for pro-tection of human life and oppose such use forvisits by prominent people, with the more wil-derness-purist users expressing stronger thanaverage disapproval of the latter. A majorityof the users accept the use of helicopters forroutine administration and maintenance, forbringing materials and equipment to construc-tion sites where the alternative is to use largepack strings, bringing patrolmen to and fromthe area, and for wildlife observation and con-trol. But, those users with stronger wilder-ness-purist leanings tended to disagree withstatements suggesting such uses of helicopters.The use of helicopters for many purposesseems acceptable to a majority of wildernessvisitors but apparently violates the ideals ofthe more wildernist visitors.

-

"rnealprpvIgt.:71

744',1k.A.,Oreinlr4.g...:As-k"v,,,,,,

61.P :fOr.:"AeZ.,%.".; 'earProperly located trail skirting meadow at edge oftimber is in good shape, despite heavy use.

41-

rer*"..Ads

`S.44eZ.>'44

't:At'Xg

, 154.,46,76;4'* `yamtxtlf1/iardtrr,:;i

s

Trails through the middle of meadows becomemuddy. Hikers and horses then move to one side.Soon multiple trails scar the landscape.

However, there was less opposition by themore wilderness-purist users where the issuewas related to preservation of wildernessvalues (fire, overuse of trails by large packstrings, wildlife protection) than where theissue was related to routine management ofsuch areas (e.g., routine administration andmaintenance, bringing patrolmen to and fromthe area).

Merriam and Ammons (1967) found that amajority of respondents in their study ofGlacier National Park back country and theBob Marshall Wilderness felt airplanes (heli-copters) were needed for emergency use orpatrol, but they pointed out in their manage-ment recommendations that "it would be agood idea to restrict helicopter use, even inemergencies, to places not frequented by visi-tors."

We suggest that there may be advantages tothe use of helicopters for many managementpurposes that would enhance the preservationof wilderness (Hendee and Mills 1968). How-ever, the sight or sound of a helicopter is arepulsive thing to most users in a wilderness-type environment, and endorsement of the

51

use of helicopters should not be construed asapproval of their visual or audible effects onthe environment.

V. Attitudes towars trails in wilderness-type areas. Five ques e statementsconcerned the kinds of trai s rre cl byusers in wilderness-type areas. Resp, indi-cated that:

Three out of four persons disagreed thattrails in the wilderness-type areas shouldbe nonexistent, only blazed or markedroutes.

Almost everyone (86.6 percent) agreedthat trails in wilderness-type areas shouldbe developed and maintained consistentwith volume of use.

Three oat of four persons felt that trails inwilderness-type areas should be of variedtype and quality to different places, thussatisfying varied interests, but the morewildernist users showed a slight tendencyto disagree.

More than four out of five persons dis-

agreed that trails in the wilderness-typeareas should be of high standard through-out the area, three out of 10 persons wereneutral and only about one out of fouragreed. However, the more wildernistrespondents displayed a more moderatetendency than other users to oppose high-standard trails.

About eight out of 10 persons did not feelthat trails in wilderness-type areas shouldbe surfaced with sawdust or wood chips tokeep dust down, with the more wildernistrespondents strongly opposing such a prac-tice.

Response to the foregoing items suggeststhat trails should be developed and main-tained appropriate for the use received ofvaried quality and not of uniformly highstandard throughout wilderness-type areas.However, there appears to be only little sup-port for very low-standard trails (e.g., blazedor marked routes) and even less support fortrails surfaced with sawdust or wood chips tokeep the dust down. These preferences seemquite consistent with a resolution adopted ata recent conservation group convention. Theresolution asked that the Forest Service"when setting up standards of width andquality, and width of clearing, give more con-sideration to local terrain and anticipated use,and encourage the building of trails to blendinto the hillsides and wind through thetrees."' °

VI. Signing preferences of wildernessusers. Ten questionnaire statements con-

--FeriltVwvvilele.rn445;user references for signing.

Queries included preferences for constructionmaterials, content, complexity, and locationof signs. Response indicated the following:

A. Materials for signsMore than three out of four personsagreed that signs in wilderness-typeareas should be of wood. Two otherstatements, suggesting enameled metaland stamped aluminum or stainless steelas sign materials, received only 8.2 per-cent and 16.0 i rcent agreement,respectively. There was a slight tend-

52

ency for the more wildernist respond-ents to endorse wood signs and rejectmetal signs more than other users.

This statement illustrates how user prefer-ences can conflict with management neces-sity. Metal signs have been used in back-country areas for many years because ofreduced damage from bears, vandals, porcu-pines, and snowbreak, in addition to thesmaller initial investment required. Wildernessmanagers must administer such areas withextremely limited funds, and the costs ofmeeting some preferences may greatly exceedthe benefits. One inference that should bedrawn, however, is that metal sign materialsapparently are not consistent with most users'concept of wilderness. Their aversion to metalsigns may be minimized through good tasteon the part of the wilderness managers in thedesign, location, and intensity of metal sign-ing where it is necessary.

B. Content of signsAbout seven out of 10 persons felt thatsigns in wilderness-type areas should bedirectional only, giving distances to keypoints. An opposing item indicated onlyabout three out of 10 persons felt thatsigns should be descriptive, giving inter-pretation of features of the area, but onthe latter statement, another three outof 10 persons were neutral. The morewildernist respondents showed a mod-erate tendency to favor directional-onlysigns more than other users and a strongtendency to oppose interpretive signsmore than other respondents.

C. Complexity of signsA series of three statements dealt withthe complexity of signs. The first indi-cated that four out of 10 persons agreedand about one out of four disagreedthat signs should be simple, one itemper sign, several signs per post.Respondent-agreement fell from about40 percent to 15 percent and disagree-

20Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, Resolution No. 33,1967. Trail construction standards. Adopted at annual con-vention, Portland, Oregon, September 1967.

T2

;

`;":.!

-

Most wilderness users felt that signs in wilder-ness-type areas should be rustic and for directionalpurposes only, not for interpretive purposes.

Rustic wood signs, like these at a junction in theGlacier Peak Wilderness, fit the wilderness environ-ment and were preferred by most users.

ment rose from about 27 percent to 42percent on this statement when it waschanged to specify signs should besimple, one item per sign, only one signper post. Almost 50 percent of the usersopposed the idea that signs should beelaborate, each sign large enough toinclude several items.

Between three and four out of 10 per-sons were neutral on these three itemsconcerning signs, indicating confusionor a lack of clear-cut preference. Themore wildernist respondents wereslightly more inclined than other usersto endorse simple signs, one item persign, several signs per post, and to rejectthe same item when changed to specifyonly one sign per post. These more wil-derness-purist users were also moreopposed to elaborate signs with manyitems than were other users.

D. Location of signsFive out of 10 persons agreed that signsshould be placed at trail junctions only.Eight out of 10 respondents disagreedthat signs should be grouped into asingle directory of all routes emanating

53

from one trailhead, with no furthersigns along the various trails. The morewildernist respondents showed a mod-erate tendency to favor signs at trailjunctions more than other respondents,but all types of users alike tended tooppose single sign directories located attrailheads.

Response to the 10 questionnaire state-ments concerning signs indicated that signsconstructed of wood are overwhelmingly pre-ferred over enameled metal, stamped alumi-num, or stainless steel. A strong preferencewas indicated for signs giving directions onlyas opposed to signs interpreting features ofthe area. Preference was also given for simplesign design with one item per sign, severalsigns per post. The concept of having elabo-rate signs large enough to include severalitems was rejected. The preferred location forsigns was a trail junction rather than concen-trating directions only at trailheads. The morewildernist respondents showed a slight tend-ency to support the preferences expressed bythe largest percentage of other users. Betweenthree and four out of 10 persons were neutralin their preferences on most of the state-ments, indicating a lack of clear-cut opinions

concerning signs or, perhaps, some confusionover the questionnaire statements. Themessage for wilderness managers seems to be:use wood signs where possible, keep themsimple with directions only, and place them attrail junctions rather than concentrating themat trailheads.

We neglected to include one importantstatement concerning signs in wilderness. Thisstatement would have referred to the practiceof designating trails by number rather than byname. Having no data on the preference of asample of users concerning this issue, we canonly give our opinion based on our personalpreferences and the comments of many userswith whom we have discussed our study. Ouropinion is that this practice, at least in part,operates against the benefits to be derived bythe user from a wilderness visit. We acknowl-edge the difficulties of transportation plan-ning which extend even to wilderness-typeareas, and there may be merit in the easierreference to numbered routes on maps. How-ever, when hiking on a back-country trail,feeling satisfaction over having temporarilyescaped the impersonal structuring of dailylife, we are disappointed and offended atbeing greeted by a sign informing us that weare on Trail 1812b and Trail 1812c is a fewmiles ahead.

VII. Attitudes toward facilities and siteimprovements. A total of eleven question-naire statements dealt with facilities and sitedevelopment. Two statements concernedtoilet facilities, four sampled preferences fordifferent types of tables and fireplaces, threerelated to protective developments facilitatinghorse use, and two referred to the construc-tion of shelters in wilderness-type areas. Theresponses to these items are summarized inthe following:

A. Attitudes toward toilet facilitiesFive out of 10 persons agreed that out-houses are consistent with proper use ofwilderness-type areas, and only aboutthree out of 10 persons disagreed withthe statement; however, the more wil-dernist respondents strongly tended tooppose the idea.

54

2-,'A.

4

/7.

There were mixed feelings by respondents about facil-ides and site improvements. The more wilderness-purist users opposed them. Here is a backpacker'scamp in the Glacier Peak Wilderness.

411111111111111111111=111F

About one-third of the users felt thatno toilet facilities whatever are consist-ent with proper use of wilderness-typeareas, but almost 45 percent of the per-sons disagreed. The more wildernistrespondents again tended to stronglyoppose the presence of any toilet facil-ities in wilderness.

The Outdoor Recreation ResourcesReview Commission (1962) study alsofound 66 percent of their interviewedrespondents endorsed primitive sanitaryfacilities, but in a postcamp question-naire 53 percent indicated opposition toeven rustic sanitary facilities. Bultenaand Taves (1961) reported 78 percentof the canoeists interviewed in theBoundary Waters Canoe Area ratedtoilets as important. The response toour questionnaire statements con-cerning toilet facilities and the results ofthese other studies suggest some dis-agreement concerning the acceptabilityof outhouses in wilderness. In ourstudy, wilderness-purists clearly opposedsuch facilities. This is another casewhere necessity and wilderness idealsappear to clash. A proper inference forwilderness managers would be to usetoilet facilities where necessary to pro-tect the site but keep them as unobtru-sive and rustic as possible.

I

4

4

.

tev,04,)

Movable rock fireplaces were endorsed by more usersas being appropriate in wilderness-type areas thanwere permanent concrete fireplaces. Here, a freshlycaught breakfast sizzles over a campfire in the EagleCap Wilderness.

yr

Itm

fir'5"'. rftgoiro..,

-4-

4.4

A

.', .%

'111

et.

Most users rejected the idea of plank tables inwilderness-type areas, but almost half of the respond-ents endorsed log or pole tables. Pictured here is arustic, split-log table in the Railroad Creek drainageof the Glacier Peak Wilderness.

B. Attitudes toward tables and fire-placesMore than four out of 10 personsagreed that tables constructed of logs orpoles are consistent with proper use ofwilderness-type areas, but almost fourout of 10 persons disagreed, includingthe more wildernist respondents whodisplayed a strong tendency to disagree.

Only one-fourth of the persons en-dorsed plank tables as being consistentwith proper use of wilderness-typeareas, but over one-half of the respond-ents disagreed. Again, the more wilder-nist respondents showed a strong tend-ency to disagree, even more so thanthey did for log or pole tables.

About six out of 10 persons disagreedwith a statement suggesting that perma-nent (concrete) fireplaces are consistentwith proper use of wilderness-typeareas, and only about one out of fouragreed. The more wildernist respond-ents strongly opposed the idea. Asmight be expected, almost five out of10 persons endorsed movable rock fire-places as being consistent with properuse of wilderness-type areas, with themore wildernist respondents showing aslight tendency to agree more thanother users.

55

It is interesting to compare our findingsconcerning tables and fireplaces withsome other studies. Bultena and Taves(1961) report that 60 percent of thecanoeists rated fireplaces as important.Lucas (1964b), on the other hand,reported that canoeists more oftenasked that the picnic tables on back-country sites be removed than thatmore be added. He also reported thatfire rings were preferred to iron andcement fireplaces. The ORRRC (1962)study found visitors to the large westernwilderness areas, in g _eral, opposedbuilding "facilities," but that there wasless resistance from respondents visitingeastern areas (Mount Marcy and GreatSmoky) and the Boundary WatersCanoe Area than from those visiting thelarge western wilderness areas. Merriamand Ammons (1967) also found thatsimple campgrounds were desired.

With tables and fireplaces, as with toiletfacilities, the message for managersseems to be use only where necessary toprotect the site, and keep them simpleand rustic. For campsite tables therough-hewn table using split logs is anexample, although another alternativemight be to provide poles at campsitesfrom which users could construct tablesaccording to their need and preference

410

;7',Y 1 X

,r"tOYf

4,

.4:1"

44

4

Pack strings are used by large parties of visitors and for many wilderness management tasks, but their use isexceedingly hard on trails, and pasture is often limited. In many locations, outfitters are required to carry foodfor their stock.

which could be dismantled when theyleft.

C. Attitudes toward developmentsfacilitating horse useMore than one-half of the respondentsdid not feel that corrals fcr livestock areconsistent with proper use of wilder-ness-type areas, and only two out of 10agreed. The more wildernist respond-ents displayed a moderate tendency tooppose corrals more than did otherusers. Surprisingly, respondents fromthe Eagle Cap Wilderness, allegedly ahorse-user area, showed no significantlygreater acceptance of the idea than didvisitors to other areas, but visitors tothe Three Sisters Wilderness showed alittle more opposition to such facilities.

About four out of 10 persons disagreedwith an item suggesting that hitchingracks or posts are consistent withproper use of wilderness-type areas, andless than three out of 10 supported suchfacilities. The more wildemist respond-ents were more likely to oppose suchfacilities. Again, respondents from theThree Sisters Wilderness Area were lesslikely to accept such facilities, and visi-tors to the Eagle Cap Wilderness showedno greater endorsement of hitchingposts than users from all areas.

More than four out of 10 personsopposed drift fences for control of live-

56

stock as being consistent with properuse of wilderness-type areas, and a littleover three out of 10 endorsed them."The more wildernist respondents dis-played a moderate tendency to opposedrift fences, but there was little differ-ence in response from visitors to the dif-ferent areas.

It seems obvious from the response tothe several items concerning develop-ments to facilitate horse use that thereis mixed feeling on the part of users.This is probably related to whether ornot they use horses. Conflicts betweenhorse users and others are likely toincrease as wilderness use increases.Horse use has already been prohibitedin some areas where there is heavy foottravel. Snyder (1960, 1961, 1963), onthe basis of 15 years of managing a largeportion of the John Muir Wilderness(formerly the High Sierra Wilderness) inCalifornia, has frequently referred to theconflict between horse users and hikers.He indicates the belief that, where over-use is a problem, horses and mulesshould be the first to go as one1,000-pound ironshod animal imposes

2 1Drift fences also offer opportunities to the unskilled userto enclose stock in the locations where protection is soughtby such fences. Reports of this are not uncommon amongexperienced wilderness managers. Thus, areas with suchdevelopments should be administered more intensely toguard against such an occurrence.

,lf

^ t.44-5.

Livestock corrals, hitching racks or posts, or drift fences all developments to facilitate horse use were opposed

by most users and particularly by wilderness-purists. However, such facilities can make the presence of horses

less offensive by keeping them away from other users and limiting their destructiveness to campsites and sur-

rounding vegetation. Pictured here is a horse-worn campsite at Steamboat Lake in Eagle Cap Wilderness.

the wear and tear of several hikers. Bury(1967), in a recent article, suggests thatzoning by time of year may also be ananswer. The unfavorable reaction ofmany of our respondents to the sugges-tion of facilities to implement horse useprobably stems in part from their dis-like of horses. The manager should beaware of the potential of such facilitiesfor making the presence of horses lessobtrusive and minimizing their impact,esthetic and physical. Horses should bekept away from hikers where possible.

D. Attitudes toward permanentlyconstructed sheltersAlmost six out of 10 persons endorsed a

statement suggesting that three-sidedshelters for hikers are consistent withproper use of wilderness-type areas withabout one-fourth of the users disagree-ing. The more wildernist respondentsshowed a moderate tendency to opposeshelters for hikers, and visitors to theEagle Cap Wilderness Area also opposedthe idea 15 percent more than otherwilderness users.

Response was evenly divided into thirdsbetween those agreeing, neutral, anddisagreeing that locked patrol cabins forofficial staff use only are consistentwith proper use of wilderness typeareas. The more wildernist respondents

Horses tied to this tree have damaged the roots.

57

A hitching post might have prevented the certaindeath of this tree, girdled by friction of halter ropestied to it by horse users.

44

1' 44

"*. 7

1,s2L

ra

Horses have been turned loose to graze near the edge of a lake where they may do irreparable damage. A driftfence could prevent it.

showed a moderate tendency to opposesuch facilities.

Merriam and Ammons (1967) foundthat nearly 80 percent of the 31 back-country visitors they interviewed inGlacier National Park favored trailshelters, but on the two National Forestareas included in their study, such facil-ities were not endorsed by a majority ofthe users. In a report devoted to theGlacier Park visitors, Merriam (1967)reported that "chalets already in placewere accepted by the users as wereprimitive shelters. Shelters in classifiedwilderness are also a legal problem. Con-structing shelters for users would be inthe realm of convenience and comfortto the wilderness user, which violates

current interpretation of the WildernessAct under Forest Service policy, andshelters to facilitate administration ofwilderness would set precedents forshelters by a host of other resourceadministrators; e.g., snow survey per-sonnel, cattle grazers, miners, etc.

In summary, response to the foregoingstatements concerning facilities and siteimprovements indicated that about five out of10 persons accept outhouses as being consist-ent with proper use of wilderness-type areas,but the more wildernist respondents opposeany kind of toilet facilities.

More than one-half of the respondentsreject the suggestion of plank tables in wilder-ness-type areas, but opinions are evenly

Locked patrol cabins for official use only wereendorsed by only one-third of the users. Pictured issnow survey cabin in the Railroad Creek drainage ofthe Glacier Peak Wilderness.

It.

58

Six out of 10 users endorsed three-sided shelters forhikers as consistent with proper use of wilderness-type areas.

NNE

"40-47

""

4

f

I

Special horse camp near Image Lake in the Glacier Peak Wilderness keeps horses where they can do theleast damage.

divided on log or pole tables. Not surprisingly,the more wildernist respondents tend tooppose any kind of tables.

Permanent concrete fireplaces are opposed,but movable rock fireplaces are endorsed asbeing appropriate to wilderness-type areas.The more wildernist respondents stronglyoppose concrete fireplaces but show a slighttendency to accept movable rock fireplacesmore than other users.

Corrals for livestock were rejected by mostwilderness users and particularly the more wil-dernist respondents. More persons (four outof 10) opposed hitching racks or posts thanendorsed them (three out of 10). And again,the more wildernist respondents were morelikely to oppose such developments. Overfour out of 10 persons, particularly the more

Hiker shelters serve as attractive nuisances in wilder-ness-type areas, leading to overuse. Here is thememorial shelter at Image Lake in Glacier PeakWilderness.

...G.'?u4

;MAW4011/1111Pgr.

S

59

wildernist respondents, opposed drift fences,whereas, only about three out of 10 personsendorsed them. It is worth noting that on thethree statements relating to developmentsfacilitating the use of recreation livestock,respondents from the Eagle Cap Wilderness,allegedly a horse-user area, did not differ sig-nificantly in their pattern of response fromthat for all areas. On the other hand, personsfrom the Three Sisters Wilderness displayed agreater aversion to corrals for livestock andhitching racks or posts than did visitors to theother areas.

Three-sided shelters for hikers were en-dorsed by six out of 10 persons, but the morewildernist respondents and those from theEagle Cap Wilderness were more likely tooppose the idea. Locked patrol cabins forofficial use only received evenly dividedresponse between those endorsing such facil-ities, those neutral, and those disagreeing, butthe more wildernist respondents were morelikely to disagree.

It has been difficult to make direct com-parisons between our data and the resultsfrom other studies concerning facilities toimplement wilderness use. Questions are neverphrased the same, and some studies have usedvery limited samples. As each item was con-sidered, we related it to similar material fromother studies and, where possible, gave ourconclusion.

As a concluding observation on the resultsof the preceding items concerning facilities,

we suggest that facilities of any type in wil-derness seem to offend users who have wilder-ness-purist attitudes. This, in turn, reinforcesthe terms of the Wilderness Act which pro-vides for facilities and improvements onlywhere necessary to protect the area. AsMcClosky (1966) points out "the key man-agement concept (under the Act) is minimiza-tion of man's influence on the environment."This leaves the decision of whether or not toprovide facilities up to wilderness managerswho must decide when facilities are necessaryand must also be aware that despite theirnecessity in certain places, the presence ofany improvements will offend the sensitivitiesof wilderness-purists. In addition, they mustbe kept rustic and subtle to be compatiblewith most users' concept of wilderness.

VIII. Attitudes toward restricting use orcharging fees. Three questionnaire state-ments concerned rationing of human use,restricting horse use, and charging for use,respectively. Response indicated the follow-ing.

Almost five out of 10 persons did not feelthat use of wilderness-type areas has to berestricted to limited numbers of people ina given area at a given time, and only threeout of 10 agreed.

Two out of three persons disagreed thatthe use of pack animals should be pro-hibited in wilderness-type areas since theydo considerable damage to natural fea-

A party of horseback riders in the Eagle Cap Wilder-ness ride a trail very close to the edge of the lake.

60

tures. The more wildernist respondentsdisplayed a moderate tendency to opposepack animals more than did other users.

It was interesting that visitors to the EagleCap Wilderness were more likely to opposerestriction of pack animals.

This is the first evidence that has appearedindicating that visitors to the Eagle Cap Wil-derness, allegedly a horse-user area, are morefavorably disposed toward the presence ofhorses in wilderness.

Only four out of 10 persons felt that costsof back-country administration and main-tenance should be defrayed by some formof moderate charge with strong wildernistsshowing a slight tendency to oppose acharge for use more than other users.

Merriam (1964) reported that respondentsin his study of the Bob Marshall Wildernesswould be willing to pay an average of $3.60for an annual license to visit wilderness. TheORRRC (1962, page 254) study also reporteda willingness to pay on the part of users andconcluded on the basis of extensive analysisthat a user fee would substantially reduce use.

In summary, most wilderness users do notseem to feel that human use of back-countryareas needs to be restricted or that the use ofpack animals needs to be restricted. Strongwildernists were more likely to favor restrict-ing packstock use, but respondents from theEagle Cap Wilderness were more likely tooppose such a restriction. More than four outof 10 persons favored a moderate charge foruse of wilderness-type areas to defray costs ofadministration and maintenance, but one-third of the respondents, and particularly thestronger wildernists, opposed the idea.

We cannot help but observe an inconsist-ency between users' responses to the possibil-ity of restricting or rationing use and the reali-ties of current trends. Wilderness use is in-creasing rapidly, and both the esthetic andbiotic carrying capacities of some areas arebeing exceeded, or soon will be, beyond high-quality levels. Lucas ( 1964b) reports on thebasis of his extensive study of the BoundaryWaters Canoe Area that the "more pureusers" (canoeists) are particularly sensitive to

crowding and that the area they perceived aswilderness becomes substantially reducedwith crowding. He points out in anotherpaper (Lucas 1965) that "if there are trulydiminishing returns in increasing use of thewilderness as the data seem to show, a seriousproblem lies ahead. Rationing recreationaluse, accepting lower quality experience, orexpanding wilderness would be possibleresponses (solutions) singly or in many com-binations." These are not unique observa-tions, for virtually all scientists who havestudied wilderness report alarm concerningproblems of overuse in spots (Frissel andDuncan 1965; Snyder 1961, 1963, 1966).The potential for increasing carrying capacityby better distribution of use is not infinite,and attempts to control distribution havelargely been unsuccessful. Grazing, timbercutting, or other resource uses are not allowedwithout restricting them to a sustained-yieldbasis. Use of recreation resources should beno different. Ultimately, the use of wildernesswill need to be rationed by charging fees orby other means. This reality must be faced,and wilderness managers, despite the resist-ance of many users to the idea of restricteduse, must soon begin the task of educating thepublic to this reality of wilderness preserva-tion. Research must also bend to the task ofdetermining physical and esthetic carryingcap acities, consistent with preservationobjectives, to serve as standards upon whichto base rationing decisions (Wagar 1964,1966; La Page 1963).

IX. Attitude toward resource managementpractices. A total of eight questionnairestatements concerned resource managementpractices, and, in particular, restrictions thatmight be placed on such activities in wilder-ness-type areas. Response indicated the fol-lowing:

Virtually everyone (97.9 percent) agreedthat man-caused fires in wilderness-typeareas, and outbreaks of nonnative insectsand diseases, should be extinguished assoon as possible, with the more wildernistusers concurring slightly more than others.

About 9 out of 10 persons did not feel

61

that lightning-caused fires, heavy infesta-tions of native insects, and heavy infesta-tions of forest diseases should be allowedto run their natural course. However, themore wildernist respondents displayed aslight tendency to oppose control of light-ning fires and a moderate tendency tooppose control of native insects and forestdiseases. It is interesting to note that theORRRC (1962) study found in generalthat less than one-half of their respondentsfavored control of forest insects by spray-ing.

About nine out of 10 persons felt that sec-tions of wilderness-type areas denuded byfire, insects, or disease, and subject torapid erosion, should be protected as soonas possible by artificial restoration of anadequate cover of vegetation. However,

The heavily used Image Lake basin in the GlacierPeak Wilderness illustrates the problem of wildernesscarrying capacity. The physical effects of overusehave required management measures, such as a specialhorse camp and a separate horse trail around thebasin. Wilderness managers also wonder how manypersons can be camped in such an area before theesthetic quality of the environment is so reduced thatit ceases to be a wilderness experience. However, onlythree out of 10 wilderness users agreed that use ofwilderness-type areas has to be restricted to limitnumbers of people in a given area at a given time.

; j'46 '1` .1 'sPA,

,nre.^...

the more wildernist respondents weremoderately inclined to oppose artificial re-vegetation of such denuded areas. Theresponse to this statement resembles theORRRC (1962) study finding that mostusers favored replanting trees in burned orbarren aioas.

4=111Forty-five percent of the respondents approved and40 percent disapproved of hunting in wilderness-typeareas. Here, two successful hunters pack their killfrom the Glacier Peak Wilderness.

10::%.241x.s.

It* "1r k

Tr.

ft, N,Na

- a ..4,4*.

-n

144:14i11;1.4

N..

A.

friabanr:

tr'S*1.1

4ftijerkftt;' -47- A 4:e

,ts.

al 4., *fer

s

.,'"....x\ Mo...le- ,:ts.

7' hil `SZ...*k ... -..

t 4.<,,' 1 . '',**4-...&", .,... ,..,... ,'-'...i..

A,. ^....,.-*014)6. ,. . '`i 'N. ..'4;gt 74b41..C* c44*,..1 ''',\-..14A4%***1\ '. 11.: .47:

ITFIt4'474:X.Miks4;.....!' '''OC. ., 4;;....'S.A'.14%.S'A.'ClIs.A-',:16'

IM

t

62

Almost seven out of 10 persons disagreedthat livestock grazing as a revenue-produc-ing use should be encouraged in wilder-ness-type areas, since this will defray man-agement costs. The more wildernistrespondents, in particular, opposed suchan idea.

About 45 percent of the persons felt thathunting should be forbidden in wilder-ness-type areas, but four out of 10 usersdisagreed. Strong wildernists showed aslight tendency to oppose hunting morethan other users.

About 35 percent of the persons felt thateven well-managed second-growth timbermust always be assumed to have lower rec-reational value than a virgin forest, butalmost one-half of the respondents dis-agreed. The more wildernist respondentsshowed a strong tendency to view second-growth forests as inferior, and visitors tothe Glacier Peak Area were also morelikely to feel this way.

In summary, virtually all users endorsedthe control of man-caused fires and exoticinsects or disease, lightning-caused fires, andheavy infestations of native insects and forestdiseases. But, the more wilderness-puristrespondents, although above average in theirdegree of support for control of man-causedfires and exotic insects or disease, were lessreceptive to control of lightning-caused firesand native insects and diseases.

Strange as it seems, the advisability of con-trolling all fires in wilderness is now beingquestioned by foresters, the ones, no doubt,responsible for selling total fire control to thepublic. The total exclusion of fire has led tolarge scale vegetation change in wildernessareas where fires occurred frequently beforethe white man's influence. Controlled burn-ing, loose herding of wildfires, and even pre-scribed wildfire now find advocates whenexperienced wilderness managers gather. Theproblem of fire in wilderness will, no doubt,become a major issue in the management ofsuch areas in the future.

Most users also felt that wilderness-typeareas denuded by fire, insects, or disease

should be protected by artificial restorationof adequate vegetation, but the more wilder-nist respondents tended to oppose such apractice. About 35 percent of the respondentsregarded second-growth timber as inferior tovirgin forest in recreational value. Strong wil-dernists were especially likely to hold thisview. But, about half of the respondentsrejected the idea that second-growth timbermust always be assumed inferior for recrea-tion purposes.

About seven out of 10 persons opposedlivestock grazing as a revenue-producing use,and this opposition was accentuated amongthe more wildernist users. Opinion was splitregarding hunting, with 45 percent opposingsuch activity in wilderness-type areas, and 40percent approving.

These findings clearly lend support to thecontention of Dean Stephen H. Spurr (1966)that there is a difference between "ecologicalwilderness" and "sociological wilderness."For some people, even appreciable humaninterference with the natural ecological proc-esses in an area does not remove the area fromwhat they conceive to be "wilderness." But,according to our data, the socially acquiredconception of wilderness that is held by thewilderness-purist comes closer to being equiv-alent to ecological wilderness than does theconception held by others. Even the purist,however, appears likely to tolerate or evendesire some management of some ecologicalprocesses. Spurr expresses the notion that theaim of wilderness management techniquesalways should be to avoid the introduction ofobvious man-created incongruities into the wil-derness landscape. The biologic .y trainedmanager appears far more likely to detectsuch incongruities in the landscape than mostwilderness users.' 2 This perceptiveness shouldbe used to guard against subtle man-createdchanges in the wilderness environment and tointerpret natural changes as they occur.

2 2For further discussion of ecological aspects of wildernessmanagement, see Stone (1965), Heinselman ( 1965), Lucas( 1963b).

63

A

*-A

314:-104

Ar .4XX

Wilderness use is heaviest in some locations during theearly high-country hunting season. (Washington StateDepartment of Game photo.)

Most mountain goats in the Pacific Northwest arefound in remote wilderness-type areas.

TM

M

Ire- 4.. . it! .....

..k ....% 411.....

OP* * '' e.-..:'.2.4,114"1-:,,,,,..,...i..,- .4,-41.

Management Preferences Summarized

Responses to the 53 questionnaire state-ments concerning management policies forwilderness-type areas are too extensive tosummarize here individually. Readers seekingan overview should refer to the summaries ofthe nine categories of statements in the pre-ceding pages. At this point, we offer only afew general interpretations regarding variationin attitudes toward management policies bythe different types of users and those personswho visited the different areas.

First of all, those respondents who weremore wilderness-purist in their orientation, asmeasured by the wildernism scores, often dif-fered significantly in their management pref-erences from the preferences expressed byother respondents. They frequently had thesame opinions as other users but expressedthem more intensely. In a number of cases,their preferences opposed the majority ofother users. We suggest that the views of thesepurists represent the opinions of the group ofpeople most perceptive of wilderness values.To preserve wilderness of enduring character,opinions of wilderness-purists should be care-fully weighed, even when they are in theminority.

Second, there was little variation in atti-tudes among visitors to the three different

64

areas, despite alleged differences in the typeof use each received. This suggests some rangeof reliability and perhaps extends the validityof the data. It is particularly interesting thatthe respondents from the Eagle Cap Wilder-ness, presumed to be a horse-user area, didnot differ in attitude, in most cases, from visi-tors to the other areas on statements relatingto horse use or on other issues. Responsefrom users of the Glacier Peak Wilderness,presumed to be a backpackers' area, and frompersons sampled in the Three Sisters Area,reportedly a day-hiker area, were also similar.This suggests that characterizing an area onthe basis of its perceived type of use shouldnot be done without adequate data and is notas significant as many believe in its meaningto management. This study indicates littlesupport (in the form of systematic variationsin user opinions) for different managementpolicies for the three areas other than thosenecessary to adapt to obvious local condi-tions, such as terrain, access, weather, etc

Third, many users expressed a preferencefor facilities and improvements that are essen-tially prohibited under the terms of the Wil-derness Act. The persons expressing such pref-erences were, in most cases, those users whowere not as wilderness-purist as measured bytheir wildernism scores.

Summary

We undertook this study to find out whatkinds of persons visit wilderness in the North-west, what values and codes of behavior theyassociate with wilderness use, and how theyfeel about certain policies that might be usedin the management of such areas. The study isbased on the response of 1,350 persons to aneight-page questionnaire that was sent to arandom sample of visitors recorded during1965 in the Glacier Peak, Eagle Cap, andThree Sisters Wilderness Areas.

We found, as expected, that the wildernessusers were highly educated. In fact, aboutone-third of them had postgraduate educa-tions, and more than 60 percent of themcame from less than the top 10 percent of theU. S. population in terms of educationalattainment. Three out of four of the userswere married, and all but 15 percent of thesemarried respondents had children. Aboutone-half of the wilderness use reported by therespondents took place in small family groupsand much of the remainder with small clustersof friends, indicating that the wildernessexperience is typically sought in the companyof a few intimates.

The study indicated that our increasinglyurban culture produces persons motivated touse wilderness; in fact, the more wilderness-

purist users were most likely to have beenraised in urban environments. The averagerespondent reported taking about six wilder-ness trips the previous year for approximately21/2 days each trip, accounting for an averageof 141/2 man-days of use. There was little dif-

This study and others indicate that recreationists tendto continue in the patterns learned in childhood. Thefamilies pictured here in the Three Sisters Wildernesswill, no doubt, produce successive generations ofwilderness users.

) t

( 1

ference in these figures between users record-ed in the three separate areas, indicating thatwilderness visits in the Pacific Northwest aremore frequent and of less duration than previ-ously anticipated, particularly when com-pared with studies of wilderness use in thenorthern Rocky Mountains. Nearly 70 per-cent of the respondents reported taking theirfirst wilderness trip before they were 15 yearsold. Almost half of the respondents indicatedthat three or more of their five closest friendsalso participated, at least occasionally, in wil-derness-type recreation.

Membership was reported in 80 differentgroups identified by the respondents as "con-servationist organizations," and 154 differentgroups identified as "outdoor clubs." Manygroups were reported under both headings,but, amazingly, 218 different groups were

mentioned. Approximately 30 percent of thewilderness users belonged to such groups, andthey were more often urban residents, highereducated, and raised in urban areas than weremost users. They made more and longer wil-derness visits and had more close friends whowere also wilderness users.

To differentiate between respondents whowere wilderness-purist in their point of viewand those who were less extreme in their wil-derness values or even urban or convenienceoriented in outlook, we designed an attitudescale in the questionnaire to measure thesetendencies. The scale included a total of 60items concerning features, activities, andbenefits that might be associated with wilder-ness use. Wildernism (contraction of wilder-ness-purist) scores, based on the 30 mosthighly correlated items in the scale, were cal-

Wilderness trips can be taken "in style." Here, Trail Riders of the Wilderness enjoy their outfitter's cooking inthe Glacier Peak Wilderness.

Mr.

1.0

tsorftr,..

66

culated for each respondent. The more wilder-ness-purist respondents reacted differently tomany of the suggested wilderness behaviornorms and management policies. Theyopposed behavior and policies violating thecomplete naturalness of wilderness to a muchgreater degree than did most respondents. Themore wildernist respondents also tended to bemore highly educated, had more close friendswho were wilderness users, and were morelikely to belong to one or more conservation-ist organizations or outdoor clubs.

A factor analysis of the statements in thewildernism scale indicated seven clusters ofstatements about which most wilderness usersfelt the same. The factors which best differen-tiated the wilderness-purists from other userssuggested, in general, a greater aversion to theartifacts and facilities of civilization and agreater devotion to satisfactions obtainedfrom perceiving the undisturbed naturalenvironment. Comparison of our findingswith several other studies in widely differentareas consistently revealed similar themesunderlying wilderness use.

The total information on the character-istics of wilderness users suggests that wilder-ness values are the product of high sophistica-tion, are typically developed early in life, andare spread largely through social processes likeclub membership and association with closefriends. To better understand the appeal ofwilderness and the rapidly increasing use ofthese areas, resource managers must learnmore about the social processes underlyingsuch use and the values to which these per-sons are oriented.

The questionnaire contained 22 suggestednormative statements of informal rules andcustoms that might be observed when visitingwilderness-type areas. Factor analysis indi-cated five general groups of statements withconsistent interrelated patterns of response.These groups of statements implied the pres-ence of norms among wilderness users, sug-gesting: feelings of equality and a sense ofresponsibility for maintaining the propriety ofeach other's behavior; a rejection of behaviorcontrols except where reasons were clearlyunderstood; a rejection (particularly by wil-derness-purists) of activities, behavior, and

67

conveniences reminiscent of civilization; aninformal code of conduct supporting mainte-nance of unpolluted campsites; endorsementof certain skills as appropriate to proper useof wilderness.

In general, we found very impressive normsof behavior among wilderness users. However,some of the behaviors sanctioned by wilder-ness users should be alarming to resourcemanagers because they are inconsistent withsustaining the high quality of the resource.For example, many respondents felt that theyshould camp wherever they pleased and havethe right to decide whether or not to shortcuttrails. Almost four out of 10 persons sawnothing wrong with washing dishes, clothes,or themselves directly in streams or lakes, and84 percent felt that noncombustible trashshould be buried. Almost one-third of therespondents felt that making improvements incampsites by removing brush and limbs, put-ting nails in trees, and constructing simplebox cupboards was appropriate, and half ofthe users felt cutting brush or limbs for beds,as well as wood for their campfires, wasacceptable. Most wilderness managers havealready had to cope with the effects of suchpractices. The rapid increase ire wilderness usethat is expected will undoubtedly bring largernumbers of visitors whose concepts of appro-priate behavior deviate from what is consist-ent with preserving the resource. Wildernessmanagers should immediately step up theirattempts to educate such users and controltheir behavior.

Fifty-three statements in the questionnairecalled for reactions to suggested managementpractices, policies, and guidelines that mightbe implemented in wilderness-type areas. Thestatements refer to the following general areasof concern: (1) administration, (2) natureinterpretation, (3) motorized equipment use,(4) helicopter use, (5) trails, (6) signing, (7)campsite facilities and improvements, (8)rationing and charging for use, and (9) restric-tion of resource management practices. Ingeneral, reactions to these statements indi-cated that users felt wilderness areas warrant-ed management as distinct administrativeunits and that persons managing these areasshould have special training for the task. They

supported the concept of nature interpreta-tion in wilderness with a small booklet thatcould be carried in the pack but not withsigns. Not surprisingly, motorized trailbikesand powerboats were rejected by almost allusers as being inconsistent with wilderness.The use of helicopters for many purposes wasacceptable to a majority of wilderness visitorswhere such use was related to preservation ofwilderness values, as in controlling fire, elimi-nating overuse of trails by large pack strings,and protecting wildlife. But, such a practiceviolated the ideals of wilderness-purists.

The respondents felt that trails should bedeveloped and maintained appropriately withthe amount of use received and should not beuniformly of high standard throughout wil-derness-type areas. However, there was littlesupport for low-standard trails or for surfac-ing of trails with sawdust or wood chips tokeep the dust down. The implications underitems concerning signs were for simple woodsigns containing directions only, placed attrail junctions rather than concentrated attrailheads. The mixed preference for suchfacilities as tables, fireplaces, and toiletsimplied that they should be used only wherenecessary to protect the site and should bekept simple and rustic. There was little sup-port for developments to implement horseuse, such as corrals, drift fences, and hitchingracks or posts. But such preferences might berelated to a dislike by hikers for the presence

68

of horses, and managers should be aware ofthe potential of such facilities for making thepresence of horses less obtrusive and minimiz-ing their esthetic and physical impact. Userswere more likely to endorse three-sidedshelters for hikers as being consistent withwilderness-type areas than locked patrolcabins for official use only. In all of the itemsconcerning facilif,;s and improvements, therewas opposition from the more wilderness-purist users.

Most respondents did not seem to feel thathuman use or the use of pack animals needsto be restricted. More than four out of 10persons favored a moderate charge for use,but strong wildernists opposed the idea. Thegeneral reluctance of users to support con-cepts of rationing and restricting use of wil-derness warrants the concern of managerswho will soon be forced to restrict use ofsome areas so as not to exceed physical andesthetic carrying capacities. Most respond-ents endorsed the control of man-caused fires,exotic insects or disease, lightning-causedfires, and heavy infestations of native insectsand forest diseases. However, the more wilder-nist users were less receptive to control ofthese naturally occurring phenomena. Wilder-ness-purists also opposed artificial restorationof vegetation on denuded areas, whereasmost respondents approved of such a practice.The opinion was split regarding hunting inwilderness areas, with 45 percent opposingand 40 percent approving of the activity.

Literature Cited

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

policy. J. Forest. 59: 167-171, illus.

Burch, William R., Jr.1964. Who goes into the Three Sisters Wilderness

Area? Northwest Conifer 10(5): 10-11.

1966. Wilderness the life cycle and forestrecreational choice. J. Forest. 64:606-610, illus.

and Wenger, Wiley D., Jr.1967. The social characteristics of participants in

three styles of family camping. PacificNorthwest Forest & Range Exp. Sta. U. S.Forest Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-48, 30 pp.,

Bury, Richard L.1967. Wilderness problems of the U. S. Forest

Service. Trends in Parks and Recreation4(4): 25-29, illus.

Costner, Herbert L.1965. Criteria for measures of association. Amer.

Sociol. Rev. 30: 341-353.

Frissel, Sidney S., Jr., and Duncan, Donald P.1965. Campsite preference and deterioration in

the Quetico-Superior Canoe Country. J.Forest. 63: 256-260, illus.

Goodman, Leo A., and Kruskal, William H.1954. Measures of association for cross classifica-

tions. J. Amer. Statist. Ass. 49: 732-764.

Heinselman, M. L.1965. Vegetation management in wilderness areas

and primitive parks. J. Forest. 63:440-445.

69

Hendee, John C., and Mills, Archie.1968. The proposed Enchantment Wilderness:

management to preserve wilderness values.The Living Wilderness 32(101):15 -20, illus.

Horst, Paul.1965. Factor analysis of data matrices. 463 pp.

illus. New York: Holt-Rinehart.

Hughes, Jay M.1965. Wilderness land allocation in a multiple use

forest management framework in the Pa-cific Northwest. Pacific Northwest Forest& Range Exp. Sta. U. S. Forest Serv. Res.Note PNW-26, 4 pp.

LaPage, Wilbur F.1963. Some sociological aspects of forest recrea-

tion. J. Forest. 61: 32-36.

Lucas, Robert C.1963a. Bias in estimating recreationists' length of

stay from sample interviews. J. Forest.61:912-914, illus.

1963b. Visitor reaction to timber harvesting inthe Boundary Waters Canoe Area. LakeStates Forest Exp. Sta. U. S. Forest Serv.Res. Note LS-2, 3 pp., illus.

1964a. The recreational use of the Quetico-Superior Area. Lake States Forest Exp.Sta. U. S. Forest Sew. Res. Pap. LS-8, 52pp., illus.

1964b. The recreational capacity of the Quetico-Superior Area. Lake States Forest Exp.Sta. U. S. Forest Sew. Res. Pap. LS-15, 34pp., illus.

1965. User concepts of wilderness and their impli-cations for resource management. In NewHorizons for Resources Rdsearch: Issuesand Methodology. West. Resources Pap.1964: 29-39, illus. Boulder: Univ. Colo.Press.

1966a. The contribution of environmental re-search to wilderness policy decisions. J.Social Issues 22(4):116-126.

1966b. Research needs generated by new direc-tions in forest policy. Soc. Amer. Forest.Proc. 1965: 73-75.

McClosky, Michael.1966. The Wilderness Act of 1964: its back-

ground and meaning. Oreg. Law Rev.45(4): 288-321.

McKinley, Donald.1963. Why wilderness? Forest Ind. 90(2):38-39.

1966. Psychology of wilderness. Mazama48(13):33-35.

Merriam, L. C., Jr.1964. The Bob Marshall Wilderness Area of

Montana some socio-economic consider-ations. J. Forest. 62: 789-795, illus.

and Ammons, R. B.1967. The wilderness user in three Montana areas.

Univ. Minn. Sch. Forest., 54 pp., illus.

Merriam, Lawrence C., Jr.1967. Glacier a trail park and its users. Nat.

Parks Mag. 41(235):4-8, illus.

Morse, William B.1966. Wilderness research a start. Amer. Forests

72(6):32-33, 58-59, illus.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.1962. Wilderness and recreation a report on

resources, values, and problems. ORRRCStudy Report No 3, Univ. Calif. WildlandRes. Center, 352 pp., illus.

Snyder, A. P.1960. Wilderness area management, an admin-

istrative study of a portion of the HighSierra Wilderness Area. U. S. Forest Serv.,Region 5, 63 pp.

Snyder, Arnold P.1961. How wild the wilderness. Amer. Forests

67(5):34-35, 62-63, illus.

1963. There's a long deep trail awinding. Amer.Forests 69(6):20-21, 56-59, illus.

1966. Wilderness management a growing chal-lenge. J. Forest. 64: 441-446, illus.

Spurr, Stephen H.1966. Wilderness management. The Horace M.

Albright Conservation Lectureship VI. 17pp. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Sch. Forest.

Stone, Edward C.1965. Preserving vegetation in parks and wilder-

ness. Science 150: 1261-1267, illus.

Stone, Gregory P., and Taves, Marvin J.1957. Research into the human element in wilder-

ness use. Soc. Amer. Forest. Proc.1956:26-32.

Taves, Marvin, Hathaway, William, and Bultena,Gordon.

1960. Canoe country vacationers. Minn. Agr. Exp.Sta. Misc. Rep. 39, 28 pp., illus.

The North Cascades Study Team.1965. The North Cascades study report: a report

to the Secretary of Interior and the Secre-tary of Agriculture. 189 pp., illus.

U. S. Bureau of the Census.1962a. U. S. census of population: 1960. General

social and economic characteristics, Ore-gon. Final rep. PC(1)-39C, 168 pp., illus.

1962b. U. S. census of population: 1960. Generalsocial and economic characteristics, Wash-ington. Final rep. PC(1)-49C, 188 pp.,illus.

1964. U. S. census of population: 1960. Vol. I,Characteristics of the population. Part 1,United States summary. 286 pp., illus.

Wagar, J. Alan.1964. The carrying capacity of wild lands for

recreation. Forest Sci. Monogr. 7, 24 pp.,illus.

70

1966. Quality in outdoor recreation. Trends inParks and Recreation 3(3):9-12, illus.

Wenger, Wiley D., Jr.1964a. A test of unmanned registration stations

on wilderness trails: factors influencingeffectiveness. Pacific Northwest Forest &Range Exp. Sta. U. S. Forest Serv. Res.Pap. PNW-16, 48 pp., illus.

1964b. Wilderness recreation research in the For-est Service. Part I. Fifth Bien. Conf.Northwest Wilderness Proc. 1964: 31-35.

and Gregersen, H.M.1964. The effect of nonresponse on representa-

tiveness of wilderness-trail register infor-mation. Pacific Northwest Forest & RangeExp. Sta. U. S. Forest Sew. Res. Pap.PNW-17, 20 pp., illus.

Appendix

This appendix contains data summarizingwilderness-user response to 22 questionnairestatements suggesting informal customs andrules that might be observed in wilderness-type areas and 53 statements suggesting wil-derness management policies for such areas.Response is given in terms of the percent ofrespondents from each area and from all areaswho agreed, were neutral, or disagreed witheach statement." In addition, the directionand degree to which response to each state-

ment was associated (correlated) with the wil-dernism scores of the respondents are indi-cated in the right-hand margin. Following isan explanation of the process we used tocategorize the relationship (correlation) be-tween wildernism scores and response toother items as strong, moderate, or slight.

23Statistical analyses were performed by uc.., of all fivecategories of response requested in the questionnaire (SA, A,N, D, SD), although only the percentage of respondentsagreeing, neutral, or disagreeing is given.

Gamma Statistics- A Method of RelatingQuestionnaire Response to Wilderness-Purist Tendencies

The statistic we used to measure the associ-ation between wildernism scores and responseto individual questionnaire statements iscalled gamma. It indicates the proportionalreduction in error one could achieve in pre-dicting rank order variation in response to thestatements (strongly agree to strongly dis-agree) from knowledge of an individual's wil-dernism score over the errors one would makeif such predictions were made at random(Costner 1965, Goodman and Kruskal 1954).Gamma varies from -1.0 to +1.0, the algebraicsign indicating the direction of association.For simplicity's sake, it might be compared toa squared correlation coefficient.

71

As previously noted, all of the respondentswere wilderness users; thus, they all sharedsome measure of wilderness values and there-fore scored relatively high in the wildernismatitude test. This led to a relatively concen-trated grouping of wildernism scores near theupper end of the scale; i.e., very few respond-ents were urbanist (development oriented) intheir attitudes. When we correlated thesescores with response to the items concerningmanagement and behavior preferences, thepossibility of getting high gamma statistics(i.e., -.70 or +.70) was reduced, because therewere few low wildernism scores to balance theanalysis. The highest values of gamma that we

discovered were, thus, around -.55 or +.55,which as we indicate, is due to the statisticalstructure of the data. However, for practicalinterpretation (in a relative sense), the state-ments receiving gamma values near the upperend of the distribution in this study can beconsidered as quite strongly associated withwilderness-purist concepts as expressed in thewildernism scores.

Table 10 gives the distribution of gammastatistics and the four categories of associa-

tion (correlation) with wildernism scores"strong," "moderate," "slight" and "negligi-ble" that we designated for different valuesof gamma. Table 10 is based on response toall statements from visitors to all three areascombined. The algebraic signs of gamma arenot indicated in table 10 because the cate-gories of association (strong, moderate, slight,or negligible) are based on the strength ofassociation indicated by the value of the sta-tistic, regardless of the direction.

Table 10. Distribution of gamma statistics relating wildernism scoresto 74 questionnaire statements for 1,348 respondents

Absolute Number of Percent of Designated (relative)value of statements in statements in degree of correlationgamma a category a category with wildernism scores

.30+ 20 27.0 Strong correlationwith wildernism scores

.15-.29 21 28.4 Moderate correlationwith wildernism scores

.06-.14 20 27.0 Slight correlationwith wildernism scores

.00-.05 13 17.6 Negligible

74 100.0

Suggestions for Useof the Appendix Data

Wilderness managers and others may wishto use the actual response data for individualquestionnaire statements to answer morespecific questions concerning wilderness-usertastes, preferences, or values. For instance, inthe course of selecting the kind of sign mate-rial or the kind of signs to be used in awilderness-type area similar to the GlacierPeak Wilderness, an administrator might wishto review the preferences of wilderness visi-

72

tors expressed in this study. We suggest thatthe following things be kept firmly in mind:

1. The three wilderness areas included inthe study, Eagle Cap, Three Sisters, and Gla-cier Peak, are characterized as a horse-usearea, a day-use area, and a backpackers' area,respectively. The study indicates little differ-ence in user preferences from the three areas,but managers might wish to check for evenminor differences in response of users from

the wilderness that best approximates the areathey are interested in.

2. See if there is a clear preference indi-cated in the percentages given under agree,disagree, or neutral. (Even if there is a clear-cut preference, go on to the next step.)

3. Look under "correlation with wilder-nism scores" to see if response to the state-ment was correlated (strong, moderate, slight,or negligible) with respondents' wilderness-purist (wildernist) tendencies. This indicateswhether the more strongly wilderness-puristrespondents tended to agree or disagree, morethan other respondents, with the statement as

it was presented; i.e., a +strong under "corre-lation with wildernism scores" indicates thatthe more wildernist respondents consistentlyagreed with the statement as it is presentedmore than did other users. These purists aremost perceptive of long-standing wildernessvalues. Their opinions should be carefullyconsidered.

4. Recognize that the data represent thecollective preferences of wilderness users,purist and otherwise, but that there are manyother considerations, such as legal provisionsof the Wilderness Act of 1964, the ecologicalcapability of the resource, established poli-cies, etc.

Statistical Summary of Response to StatementsConcerning Rules and Customs of Wilderness Users

Following are 20 questionnaire statementssuggesting informal customs and rules to beobserved in wilderness-type areas, a summaryof the response they received from visitors tothe three areas, and thc, relative correlation ofwildernism scores with response to the state-

ments. In the main body of the report, thesestatements are grouped into categories basedon the similarity of response to clusters ofstatements as identified by factor analysis.Here, the statements have been arbitrarilygrouped into the following categories basedon the issues with which they are concerned:

I. Statements Concerning Personal Freedom.1. One should camp wherever he pleases in the remote back country

Agree NeutralPercent

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

tEagle Cap users 64.1 7.9 28.0 G.25 + ModerateThree Sisters users 55.2 8.8 36.0 G.13 + SlightGlacier Peak users 55.9 6.4 37.7 G.13 + SlightAll users 57.8 7.7 34.5 G.15 + Moderate

N=1326

2. Moderate improvement of a campsite is desirable (e.g., removing brush andlimbs, putting nails in trees for utensils, simple box cupboards, etc.)

AgreeCorrelation with

Neutral Disagree wildernism scoresPercent

Eagle Cap users 35.7 13.5 50.8 G-.39 - StrongThree Sisters users 25.8 15.5 58.7 G-.21 - ModerateGlacier Peak users 28.4 13.7 57.9 G-.33 - StrongAll users 29.2 14.3 56.5 G-.30 - Strong

N=1329

73

3. In remote back country recreational areas,nobody had better try to tell me what Ishould or shouldn't do.'

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

Eagle Cap users 5.6 12.3 82.1Three Sisters users 3.2 10.4 86.4Glacier Peak users 4.4 11.4 84.2All users 4.2 11.3 84.5

4. If a person sees a shorter route than thetrailmakers used, he should have the rightto decide whether to stay on the trail or not.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

Eagle Cap users 34.8 15.2 50.0Three Sisters users 32.8 15.4 51.8Glacier Peak users 29.8 14.1 56.1All users 32.2 14.9 52.9

5. In the back country, a person should be free to cutbrush or limbs for his bed, wood for his campfire.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

Eagle Cap users 53.0 13.2 33.8Three Sisters users 50.3 14.5 35.2Glacier Peak users 52.8 10.0 37.0All users 52.0 12.5 35.5

6. Every back country traveler (or party oftravelers) should be required to obtain afire permit from the administrative agencybefore entering an area.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

Eagle Cap users 62.0 19.0 19.0Three Sisters users 64.6 17.1 18.3Glacier Peak users 64.1 20.2 15.7All users 63.7 18.7 17.6

74

Correlation withwildernism scores

G-.03 NegligibleG-.05 NegligibleG .03 NegligibleG-.02 NegligibleN=1323

Correlation withwildernism scores

G .08 + SlightG .00 NegligibleG-.06 - SlightG .00 NegligibleN=1323

Correlation withwildernism scores

G .03 NegligibleG-.14 - SlightG-.15 - ModerateG-.10 SlightN=1316

Correlation withwildernism scores

G .03 NegligibleG-.01 NegligibleG .01 NegligibleG .01 NegligibleN=1329

7. In an emergency, the person or party introuble has first claim on the time andenergy of everyone near, even if somecherished plans have to be abandoned.

Agree NeutralPercent

DisagreeCorrelation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 93.8 3.5 2.7 G.28 + ModerateThree Sisters users 93.0 3.8 3.2 G.19 + ModerateGlacier Peak users 92.5 4.6 2.9 G.15 + ModerateAll users 93.0 4.0 3.0 G.20 + Moderate

H. Statements Concerning Camping Habits.-

1. One should not wash his dishes, his clothes,or himself directly in screams or lakes.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Agree NeutralPercent

60.6 11.763.2 12.659.4 11.661.1 12.0

2. All evidence of use of an area should beremoved when leaving a campsite.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Agree NeutralPercent

91.1 3.591.8 2.889.4 4.890.8 3.7

3. If a considerable quantity of wash water mustbe disposed of, a sump hole should be dug for it.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Agree NeutralPercent

79.0 11.480.4 10.875.4 12.478.3 11.5

75

N=1324

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

27.724.229.026.9

Disagree

5.25.45.85.6

G.00 NegligibleG.01 NegligibleG.08 + SlightG.03 NegligibleN=1326

Correlation withwildernism scores

G.12 + SlightG.03 NegligibleG.21 + ModerateG.12 + SlightN=1327

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

9.68.8

12.210.2

G .06 + SlightG-.08 - SlightG .03 NegligibleG-. 01 NegligibleN=1326

4. Noncombustible trash (e.g., tin cans, aluminumfoil, glass, unburned garbage) should be buried.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Agree NeutralPercent-

87.1 .980.6 2.285.3 1.284.0 1.5

5. Trash left by previous back country users shouldbe removed by other users if they can do so.

Agree NeutralPercent-

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

12.017.213.514.5

G .11 + SlightG-.04 NegligibleG.08 + SlightG. 04 NegligibleN=1320

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 93.3 2.9 3.8 G.40 + StrongThree Sisters users 93.0 4.8 2.2 G.21 + ModerateGlacier Peak users 95.7 2.3 2.0 G.24 + ModerateAll users 94.0 3.4 2.6 G.28 + Moderate

6. Campfires should be no larger than necessary.

N=1329

Correlation withAgree Neutral Disagree wildernism scores

PercentEagle Cap users 95.8 2.4 1.8 G.35 + StrongThree Sisters users 96.4 2.6 1.0 G.14 + SlightGlacier Peak users 94.8 2.5 2.7 G.32 + StrongAll users 95.6 2.5 1.9 (3.26 + Moderate

III. Statements Concerning Expected Behavior in Wilderness.-

1. Camping isn't complete without an evening campfire.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

Eagle Cap users 76.0 15.8 8.2Three Sisters users 74.1 16.5 9.4Glacier Peak users 74.0 18.0 10.0All users 73.8 16.9 9.3

76

N=1324

Correlation withwildernism scores

G-.08 - SlightG-.16 - ModerateG-.11 - SlightG-.13 - SlightN=1326

1

2. The more luxuries a party can bring, thebetter the camping trip.

Agree NeutralPercent

DisagreeCorrelation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 3.7 8.5 87.8 G-.44 - Strong

Three Sisters users 2.2 10.7 87.1 G-.31 - Strong

Glacier Peak users 3.5 8.7 87.8 G-.33 - Strong

All users 3.1 9.4 87.5 G-.35 - Strong

3. Radios should not be brought into the back country.

Agree NeutralPercent

N=1330

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 22.5 41.3 36.2 G.32 + Strong

Three Sisters users 36.0 32.3 31.7 G.39 + Strong

Glacier Peak users 31.6 35.8 32.6 G.43 + Strong

All users 30.9 35.9 33.2 G.38 + Strong

4. A road to a place takes most of the fun out of walkingthere even if the trail follows a different route.

Agree Neutral DisagreePercent -------------

N=1323

Correlation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 68.8 10.5 20.7 G.53 + Strong

Three Sisters users 70.0 15.1 14.9 G.54 + Strong

Glacier Peak users 75.5 11.6 12.9 G.59 + Strong

All users 71.7 12.7 15.6 G.56 + Strong

5. Barking dogs, car horns, and yelling people do not be-long in remote back country recreational areas.

N=1328

Correlation with

Agree Neutral Disagree wildernism scoresPercent

Eagle Cap users 91.2 5.0 3.8 G.54 + Strong

Three Sisters users 92.2 5.4 2.4 G.50 + Strong

Glacier Peak users 92.7 4.6 2.7 G.61 + Strong

All users 92.1 5.0 2.9 G.55 + StrongN=1326

77

6. In the back country, formality should be put aside;everyone should be equal there.

Agree NeutralPercent

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 78.8 16.2 5.0 G.15 + ModerateThree Sisters users 81.7 13.3 5.0 G.09 + SlightGlacier Peak users 81.7 11.6 6.7 G.15 + ModerateAll users 81.0 13.4 5.6 G.13 + Slight

7. If you see a person in a back-country recreational areadoing something he shouldn't do, you should say somethingto him about it.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

N=1313

Correlation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 78.6 16.4 5.0 G.31 + StrongThree Sisters users 79.2 17.2 3.6 G.09 + SlightGlacier Peak users 83.8 13.5 2.7 G.27 + ModerateAll users 80.6 15.7 3.7 G.22 + Moderate

8. Playing cards and reading books are not appro-priate to back country, unless the weather is bad.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

N=1322

Correlation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 14.5 31.6 53.9 G.06 + SlightThree Sisters users 16.5 29.0 54.5 G.10 + SlightGlacier Peak users 17.0 32.1 50.9 G.18 + ModerateAll users 16.1 30.8 53.1 G.12 + Slight

9. A good rule to follow in back-country recreation isto "take only pictures, leave only footprints."

Agree NeutralPercent

N=1325

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 79.9 10.9 9.2 G.24 + ModerateThree Sisters users 87.4 8.2 4.4 G.24 + ModerateGlacier Peak users 83.2 9.1 7.7 G.25 + ModerateAll users 84.0 9.2 6.8 G.25 + Moderate

N=1323

78

Statistical Summary of Response to Questionnaire

Statements Concerning Wilderness Management Policies

Following are the 52 statements concern-ing wilderness management policy thatappeared in the questionnaire, a summary ofthe response they received from visitors to thethree areas, and the relative correlation

between wildernism scores and response tothe statements. The statements are organizedinto the following categories, based on theissues with which they are concerned:

I. Statements concerning administration of wilderness-type areas.-

1. Administrators of back-country recreation areas shouldbe specifically trained for this task, and the taskshould be recognized as different from administrationof other types of wild lands.

Agree- -

NeutralPercent-

DisagreeCorrelation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 75.1 13.2 11.7 G.26 + Moderate

Three Sisters users 76.8 11.9 11.3 G.36 + Strong

Glacier Peak users 73.7 14.2 12.1 G.34 + Strong

All users 75.3 13.0 11.7 G.32 + Strong

2. Back-country recreational areas should be administeredas units distinct from adjacent lands that may be devotedto harvesting timber and other resources.

Agree Neutral---------- t1,. *0 00 OM OM CO --

Disagree

N=1319

Correlation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 79.0 15.7 5.3 G.31 + Strong

Three Sisters users 76.2 19.4 4.4 G.24 + Moderate

Glacier Peak users 78.2 16.6 5.2 G.29 + Moderate

All users 77.1 17.4 4.9 G.27 + Moderate

3. It is not necessary to patrol remote back-country recreational areas regularly.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Agree NeutralPercent-

22.0 13.815.9 17.721.3 14.019.4 15.3

79

Disagree

64.266.464.765.3

N=1321

Correlation withwildemism scores

G.13 + SlightG.04 NegligibleG.06 + SlightG.07 + SlightN=1324

4. All cleanup duties in remote back-countryrecreational areas should be handled by employedpersonnel on regular schedules.

Agree NeutralPercent

DisagreeCorrelation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 22.2 16.6 61.2 G-.22 - ModerateThree Sisters users 21.9 18.3 59.8 G-.06 - SlightGlacier Peak users 21.6 17.9 60.5 G-.15 - ModerateAll users 21.9 17.7 60.4 G-.13 - Slight

N=1320

II. Statements concerning nature interpretation in wilderness-type areas.-1. A small book, describing features observed along the

trail and designed to be carried in the backpack,should be sold by the administrative agency to en-hance the pleasure of a back-country trip.

Agree NeutralPercent

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 60.2 29.5 10.3 G-.24 - ModerateThree Sisters users 63.8 28.4 7.8 G-.12 - SlightGlacier Peak users 61.7 30.6 7.7 G-.08 - SlightAll users 62.1 29.5 8.4 G-.14 Slight

2. Seasonal back-country rangers should be trainedin public interpretation of the area's naturalfeatures, as well as in safety and trail techniques.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

Eagle Cap users 79.4 15.9 4.7Three Sisters users 79.9 15.9 4.2Glacier Peak users 80.7 13.7 5.6All users 80.0 15.1 4.9

HI. Statements concerning the use of motorizedequipment in wilderness-type areas.

1. Use of motorized trailbikes should be prohibited.

Agree NeutralPercent

N=1323

Correlation withwildernism scores

G-.01 NegligibleG-.09 - SlightG .00 NegligibleG-.03 NegligibleN=1321

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 83.2 7.1 9.7 G.45 + StrongThree Sisters users 85.5 7.1 7.4 G.51 + StrongGlacier Peak users 79.6 7.6 12.8 G.59 + StrongAll users 82.8 7.3 9.9 G.52 + Strong

N=1327

80

2. If they can get them there, back-countryrecreationists should be permitted to usepowerboats on back country waters.

Agree NeutralPercent

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 9.2 7.1 83.7 G-.63 - Strong

Three Sisters users 7.2 5.0 87.8 G-. 56 - Strong

Glacier Peak users 8.9 11.6 79.5 G-. 53 - Strong

All users 8.3 7.9 83.8 G-.55 StrongN=1324

IV. Statements concerning the use of helicopters in wilderness-type areas.-

1. Use of helicopters is justified in remote back-country recreational areas for protection ofthe area (e.g., from fire).

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Agree NeutralPercent

96.7 1.596.6 1.695.1 3.596.0 2.3

2. Use of helicopters is justified in remote back-country recreational areas for protection ofhuman life (e.g., rescues).

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Agree NeutralPercent

98.898.498.698.6

0.60.81.41.0

3. Use of helicopters is justified in remote back-countryrecreational areas for visits by prominent people.

Agree NeutralPercent

1.8 G-.03 Negligible1.8 G-.05 Negligible1.4 G-.05 Negligible1.7 G-.04 Negligible

N=1328

Disagree

0.60.80.00.4

Correlation withwildernism scores

G.09 + SlightG.04 NegligibleG.03 NegligibleG.06 + SlightN=1328

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

- - - - -

Eagle Cap ,isers 9.4 9.4 81.2 G-.34 - Strong

Three Sisters users 8.6 11.8 79.6 G-.29 - Moderate

Glacier Peak users 8.4 18.5 73.1 G-.42 - Strong

All users 8.8 13.7 77.5 G-.34 - StrongN=1326

81

4. Use of helicopters is justified in remote back-country recreational areas for routine adminis-tration and maintenance.

Agree NeutralPercent

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 62.3 9.8 27.9 G-.28 - ModerateThree Sisters users 60.7 12.2 27.1 G-.31 - StrongGlacier Peak users 61.6 13.2 25.2 G-.32 - StrongAll users 61.4 12.0 26.6 G-.30 - Strong

5. Use of helicopters is justified in remote back-country recreational areas for bringing materialand equipment to construction sites which other-wise would require large strings of pack animals.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

N=1321

Correlation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 66.8 12.8 20.4 G-.35 - StrongThree Sisters users 66.3 13.7 20.0 G-.25 - ModerateGlacier Peak users 66.6 16.0 17.4 G-.26 - ModerateAll users 66.5 14.3 19.2 G-.27 - Moderate

6. Use of helicopters is justified in remote back-country recreational areas for bringing patrolmento and from the area.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Agree NeutralPercent

53.7 13.357.4 13.956.7 16.856.1 14.8

7. Use of helicopters is justified in remote back-country recreational areas for wildlife observationor control.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

33.028.726.529.1

Disagree

N=1314

Correlation withwildernism scores

G-.36 - StrongG-.30 - StrongG-.31 - StrongG-.31-StrongN=1319

Correlation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 75.1 9.1 15.8 G-.23 - ModerateThree Sisters users 69.4 13.8 16.8 G-.30 - StrongGlacie . Peak users 73.0 11.5 15.5 G-.32 - StrongAll users 72.2 11.8 16.0 G-.28 - Moderate

N=1327

82

V. Statements concerning trails in wilderness-type areas.-

1 Trails in remote back-country areas should benonexistent, only blazed or marked routes.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Agree NeutralPercent

11.9 12.213.5 13.911.2 13.312.3 13.2

2. Trails in remote back-country areas should bedeveloped and maintained consistent with volumeof use.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Agree NeutralPercent

85.6 7.686.8 8.287.3 7.486.6 7.8

3. Trails in remote back-country areas should beof varied type and quality to different places,thus satisfying varied interests.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Disagree

75.972.675.574.5

Agree NeutralPercent

78.0 14.474.8 19.073.4 17.075.2 17.1

4. Trails in remote back-country areas should beof high standard throughout the area.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Disagree

6.85.05.35.6

Agree NeutralPercent

24.6 27.022.3 30.626.5 33.324.5 30.7

83

Disagree

7.66.29.67.7

Disagree

48.447.140.244.8

Correlation withwildernism scores

G .02 NegligibleG .08 + SlightG-.02 NegligibleG .03 NegligibleN=1314

Correlation withwildernism scores

G-.02 NegligibleG .02 NegligibleG .09 + SlightG .04 NegligibleN=1327

Correlation withwildernism scores

G-.09 - SlightG-.06 - SlightG-.05 NegligibleG-.06 - SlightN=1322

Correlation withwildernism scores

G-.33 - StrongG-.25 - ModerateG-.21 - ModerateG-. 25 - ModerateN=1320

5. Trails in remote back-country areas should besurfaced with sawdust or wood chips to keepdust down.

Agree NeutralPercent

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 4.1 18.4 77.5 G-.42 StrongThree Sisters users 3.0 16.4 80.6 G-.36 - StrongGlacier Peak users 4.1 16.6 79.3 G-.42 - Strong

All users 3.7 17.0 79.3 G-.40 Strong

VI. Statements concerning preferences for different kindsof signs in wilderness-type areas.

A. Relating to sign construction materials1. Signs in remote back-country areas should be of wood.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

Eagle Cap users 81.6 13.9 4.5Three Sisters users 74.9 19.3 5.8Glacier Peak users 78.4 13.5 8.1

All users 77.9 15.8 6.3

2. Signs in remote back-country areas should beof enameled metal.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

Eagle Cap users 7.1 28.7 64.2Three Sisters users 7.5 34.6 57.9Glacier Peak users 9.7 31.9 58.4All users 8.2 32.1 59.7

3. Signs in remote back-country areas should beof stamped aluminum or stainless steel.

Agree NeutralPercent-

Disagree

Eagle Cap users 11.6 28.2 60.2Three Sisters users 18.1 33.8 48.1Glacier Peak users 16.9 31.3 51.8All users 16.0 31.5 52.5

84

N=1324

Correlation withwildernism scores

G.19 + ModerateG.05 NegligibleG.01 NegligibleG.07 + SlightN=1316

Correlation withwildernism scores

G-.20- ModerateG .00 NegligibleG-.10 - SlightG-.08 SlightN=1309

Correlation withwildernism scores

G-.17 - ModerateG .07 + SlightG .13 + SlightG-.05 NegligibleN=1313

B. Relating to content of signs in wilderness-type areas1. Signs in remote back-country areas should

be directional only, giving distances to key points.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Agree NeutralPercent

69.9 17.167.8 19.870.2 17.769.2 18.3

2. Signs in remote back-country areas should bedescriptive, giving interpretation of featuresof the area.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Agree NeutralPercent

31.6 26.729.3 34.326.4 34.328.9 32.3

C. Relating to the complexity and design of signs1. Signs in remote back-country areas should be

simple, one item per sign, several signs per post.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Disagree

13.012.412.112.5

Agree NeutralPercent

46.8 29.435.9 35.941.6 31.840.8 32.7

2. Signs in remote back-country areas should besimple, one item per sign, only one sign perpost.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Agree NeutralPercent

16.2 37.418.8 43.212.6 44.115.9 42.1

85

Disagree

41.736.439.338.8

Disagree

23.828.226.626.5

Disagree

46.438.043.342.0

Correlation withwildernism scores

G.27 + ModerateG.23 + ModerateG.24 + ModerateG.24 + ModerateN=1320

Correlation withwildernism scores

G-.47 - StrongG-.36 - StrongG-.29 - ModerateG-.37 - StrongN=1321

Correlation withwildernism scores

G.18 + ModerateG.06 + SlightG.01 NegligibleG.07 + SlightN=1314

Correlation withwildernism scores

G-.21 - ModerateG-.01 NegligibleG-.09 - SlightG-.10 - SlightN=1298

3. Signs in remote back-country areas should be elaborate,each sign large enough to include several items.

Agree NeutralPercent

DisagreeCorrelation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 16.8 28.7 54.5 G-.33 - StrongThree Sisters users 18.9 32.3 48.8 G-. 24 - ModerateGlacier Peak users 20.4 33.4 46.2 G-.07 - SlightAll users 18.9 31.8 49.3 G-. 20 - Moderate

D. Relating to the location of signs1. Signs in remote back-country areas should be

placed at trail junctions only.

Agree NeutralPercent

N=1306

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 54.0 23.6 22.4 G.18 + ModerateThree Sisters users 48.4 25.9 25.7 G.13 + ModerateGlacier Peak users 48.3 25.7 26.0 G.16 + ModerateAll users 49.8 25.2 25.0 G.14 + Moderate

2. Signs in remote back-country areas should begrouped into a single directory of all routesemanating from one trailhead, with no furthersigns along the various trails.

Agree NeutralPercent-

Disagree

Eagle Cap users 5.4 12.5 82.1Three Sisters users 6.4 12.4 81.2Glacier Peak users 7.2 16.8 76.0All users 6.5 14.0 79.5

VII. Statements concerning facilities and siteimprovements in wilderness-type areas.

A. Relating to toilet facilities1. Outhouses are consistent with proper use of

remote back-country recreational areas.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

N=1319

Correlation withwildernism scores

G-.02 NegligibleG .02 NegligibleG-.01 NegligibleG .00 NegligibleN=1320

Correlation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 49.9 16.3 33.8 G-.46 StrongThree Sisters users 49.7 16.5 33.8 G -.31 StrongGlacier Peak users 51.5 17.3 31.2 G-.24 - ModerateAll users 50.5 16.7 32.8 G-.32 - Strong

N=1316

86

2. No toilet facilities whatever are consistentwith proper use of remote back-country rec-reational areas.

Agree NeutralPercent

DisagreeCorrelation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 34.4 22.0 43.6 G.47 + StrongThree Sisters users 32.4 22.9 44.7 G.30 + StrongGlacier Peak users 30.4 23.8 45.8 G.24 + ModerateAll users 32.2 23.0 44.8 G.32 + Strong

B. Relating to tables and fireplaces1. Tables constructed of logs or poles are consistent

with proper use of remote back-country recreationalareas.

Agree NeutralPercent

N=1305

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 38.9 19.5 41.6 G-.57 StrongThree Sisters users 39.5 22.9 37.6 G-.35 - StrongGlacier Peak users 44.1 21.9 34.0 G-.41 StrongAll users 41.0 21.7 37.3 G-.42 - Strong

2. Plank tables are consistent with proper useof remote back-country recreational areas.

Agree NeutralPercent

N=1311

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 23.1 21.5 55.4 G-.59 - StrongThree Sisters users 22.2 24.4 53.4 G-.44 - StrongGlacier Peak users 28.1 26.4 45.5 G-.48 - StrongAll users 24.5 24.4 51.1 G-.49 - Strong

3. Permanent (concrete) fireplaces are consistentwith proper use of remote back-country rec-reational areas.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

N=1308

Correlation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 22.6 15.6 61.8 G-.61 StrongThree Sisters users 20.7 19.5 59.8 G-.39 - StrongGlacier Peak users 25.9 17.3 56.8 G-.48 - StrongAll users 23.1 17.7 59.2 G-.47 - Strong

N=1316

87

4. Movable rock fireplaces are consistent withproper use of remote back-country recreationalareas.

Agree NeutralPercent

DisagreeCorrelation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 40.6 23.5 35.8 G-. 25 - ModerateThree Sisters users 49.7 22.4 27.9 G-.11 - SlightGlacier Peak users 52.4 22.5 25.1 G-.08 - SlightAll users 48.2 22.8 29.0 G-.13 - Slight

C. Relating to developments implementing horse use1. Corrals for livestock are consistent with proper

use of remote back-country recreational areas.

Agree NeutralPercent

N=1314

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 28.2 23.2 48.6 G-.31 StrongThree Sisters users 16.3 28.1 55.6 G-.14 SlightGlacier Peak users 25.6 25.4 49.0 G-.39 - StrongAll users 22.8 25.8 51.4 G-.27 - Moderate

2. Hitching racks or posts are consistent with properuse of remote back-country recreational areas.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

N=1313

Correlation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 30.8 25.8 43.4 G-.41 - StrongThree Sisters users 21.7 23.5 44.8 G-.20 - ModerateGlacier Peak users 33.2 27.7 39.1 G-.32 - StrongAll users 28.3 29.4 42.3 G-. 29 - Moderate

3. Drift fences for control of livestock are consis-tent with proper use of remote back-country rec-reational areas.

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

N=1309

Correlation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 35.5 23.5 41.0 G-.36 StrongThree Sisters users 29.0 28.3 42.7 G -.14 - SlightGlacier Peak users 32.5 25.1 42.4 G-.34 - StrongAll users 32.0 25.9 42.1 G-.27 - Moderate

N=1307

88

D. Relating to constructed shelters1. Three-sided shelters for hikers are consistent with proper

use of remote back-country recreational areas.

Agree Neutral- - Percent

DisagreeCorrelation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 45.1 19.1 35.8 G-.41 - StrongThree Sisters users 58.0 21.8 20.2 G-.12 - SlightGlacier Peak users 63.0 16.1 20.9 G-.14 - SlightAll users 56.5 19.0 24.5 G-.19 - Moderate

2. Locked patrol cabins for official staff use onlyare consistent with proper use of remote back-country recreational areas.

Agree Neutral- - - - Percent

Disagree

N=1323

Correlation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 34.4 27.3 28.3 G-.24 - ModerateThree Sisters users 36.3 33.4 30.3 G-.11 - SlightGlacier Peak users 31.1 33.8 35.1 G-.22 - ModerateAll users 33.9 32.0 34.1 G-.18 - Moderate

VIII. Statements concerning rationing use or chargingentrance fees in wilderness-type areas.

1. Use of back country has to be restricted to limitednumbers of people in a given area at a given time.

Agree Neutral-------- - - - - -- Percent

Disagree

N=1313

Correlation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 28.5 23.5 48.0 G-.07 - SlightThree Sisters users 33.7 23.9 42.4 G .12 + SlightGlacier Peak users 24.7 21.8 53.5 G-.09 - SlightAll users 29.1 23.0 47.9 G-.02 Negligible

N=1317

2. The use of pack animals should be prohibited inremote back-country recreational areas, sincethey do considerable damage to natural features.

Agree Neutral DisagreeCorrelation withwildernism scores

------- tEagle Cap users 8.5 14.4 77.1 G-.01 NegligibleThree Sisters users 16.0 21.8 62.2 G .21 + ModerateGlacier Peak users 17.4 17.8 64.8 G .21 + ModerateAll users 14.6 18.4 67.0 G .16 + Moderate

N=1326

89

3. Costs of recreational back-country administrationand maintenance should be defrayed by some form ofmoderate charge.

Agree Neutral----- - -- - -Percent-

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 44.2 23.2 32.6 G-.18 ModerateThree Sisters users 43.0 25.9 31.1 G-.10 SlightGlacier Peak users 37.6 26.4 36.0 G-.11 SlightAll users 41.4 25.4 33.2 G-.13 Slight

IX. Statements concerning restriction of resourcemanagement practices in wilderness-type areas.

1. Man-caused fires in remote back-country recreational areas,and outbreaks of nonnative insects or diseases, should beextinguished as quickly as possible after they are detected.

Agree NeutralPercent-

Disagree

Eagle Cap users 97.0 1.5 1.5Three Sisters users 98.2 1.4 0.4Glacier Peak users 98.0 1.4 0.6All users 97.9 1.4 0.7

2. Natural events in the normal history of a plant-and-animal community should not be artificially con-trolled in remote back-country areas; specifically,the following events should be allowed to run their course:

(a) Lightning-caused fires

Agree NeutralPercent

Disagree

N=1324

Correlation withwildernism scores

G.14 + LowG.01 NegligibleG.07 + LowG.06 + LowN=1330

Correlation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 2.7 3.2 94.1 G.06 + LowThree Sisters users 3.0 1.8 95.2 G.14 + LowGlacier Peak users 2.4 3.1 94.5 G.10 + LowAll users 2.7 2.6 94.7 G.10 + Low

(b) Heavy infestations of native insects

Agree Neutral-------- - -Percent-

N=1328

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 5.3 7.7 87.0 G.22 + ModerateThree Sisters users 5.8 7.2 87.0 G.13 + LowGlacier Peak users 6.8 5.7 87.5 G.13 + LowAll users 6.0 6.8 87.2 G.15 + Moderate

N=1325

90

(c) Heavy infestations of forest diseases

Agree NeutralPercent-

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 5.1 4.7 90.2 G.23 + ModerateThree Sisters users 3.4 5.2 91.4 G.15 + ModerateGlacier Peak users 4.7 5.3 90.0 G.17 + ModerateAll users 4.3 5.1 90.6 G.18 + Moderate

3. Sections of remote back-country recreational areas,denuded by fire, insects, or disease, and subjectto rapid erosion, should be protected as soon aspossible by artificial restoration of an adequate coverof vegetation.

Agree NeutralPercent-

N=1326

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 91.2 4.1 4.7 6.16 - ModerateThree Sisters users 90.0 5.2 4.8 G-.12 - LowGlacier Peak users 88.1 6.6 5.3 G-.15 - ModerateAll users 89.7 5.4 4.9 G-.16 - Moderate

4. Livestock grazing as a revenue-producing use shouldbe encouraged in back-country areas principally de-voted to recreation, since this will defray manage-ment costs.

Agree NeutralPercent-

N=1326

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 16.7 17.5 65.8 G-.31 - StrongThree Sisters users 14.3 19.5 66.2 G-.29 - ModerateGlacier Peak users 12.6 15.3 72.1 G-.36 - StrongAll users 14.3 17.5 68.2 G-.33 - Strong

5. Hunting should be forbidden in remote back-countryrecreational areas.

Eagle Cap usersThree Sisters usersGlacier Peak usersAll users

Agree NeutralPercent-

36.9 12.043.6 17.239.7 15.044.6 15.0

91

N=1322

Correlation withDisagree wildernism scores

51.139.245.340.4

G-.05 NegligibleG .12 + SlightG .09 + SlightG .06 + SlightN=1326

6. Even well-managed second-growth timber must alwaysbe assumed to have lower recreational value than avirgin forest.

Agree NeutralPercent-

DisagreeCorrelation withwildernism scores

Eagle Cap users 35.0 15.3 49.7 G.31 + StrongThree Sisters users 29.6 20.8 49.6 G.17 + ModerateGlacier Peak users 40.0 15.5 44.5 G.40 + StrongAll users 34.8 17.4 47.8 G.30 + Strong

N=1324

92

Hen

dee,

Joh

n C

., C

atto

n, W

illia

m R

., Jr

., M

arlo

w, L

arry

D.,

and

Bro

ckm

an, C

. Fra

nk.

1968

. Wild

erne

ss u

sers

in th

e Pa

cifi

c N

orth

wes

tth

eir

char

ac-

teri

stic

s, v

alue

s, a

nd m

anag

emen

t pre

fere

nces

. U.S

.D.A

.Fo

rest

Ser

v. R

es. P

ap. P

NW

-61,

92

pp.,

illus

. Pac

ific

Nor

thw

est F

ores

t & R

ange

Exp

. Sta

., Po

rtla

nd, O

reg.

Wild

erne

ss v

isita

tion

typi

cally

occ

urs

in m

ore

high

ly e

duca

ted,

smal

l fam

ily a

nd f

rien

dshi

p gr

oups

who

take

abo

ut f

ive

2- to

3-d

aytr

ips

per

year

. Abo

ut 3

0 pe

rcen

t (40

0) b

elon

ged

to 2

18 c

onse

rva-

tion

grou

ps. T

hose

who

wer

e m

ore

wild

erne

ss p

uris

t in

attit

ude

reac

ted

diff

eren

tly to

som

e of

the

stat

emen

ts53

on

wild

erne

ssm

anag

emen

t and

22

on c

odes

of

beha

vior

sugg

este

d in

the

ques

tionn

aire

.

Hen

dee,

Joh

n C

., C

atto

n, W

illia

m R

., Jr

., M

arlo

w, L

arry

D.,

and

Bro

ckm

an, C

. Fra

nk.

1968

. Wild

erne

ss u

sers

in th

e Pa

cifi

c N

orth

wes

tth

eir

char

ac-

teri

stic

s, v

alue

s, a

nd m

anag

emen

t pre

fere

nces

. U.S

.D.A

.Fo

iest

Ser

v. R

es. P

ap. P

NW

-61,

92

pp.,

iilus

. Pac

ific

Nor

thw

est F

ores

t & R

ange

Exp

. Sta

., Po

rtla

nd, O

reg.

Wild

erne

ss v

isita

tion

typi

cally

occ

urs

in m

ore

high

ly e

duca

ted,

smal

l fam

ily a

nd f

rien

dshi

p gr

oups

who

take

abo

ut f

ive

2- to

3-d

aytr

ips

per

year

. Abo

ut 3

0 pe

rcen

t (40

0) b

elon

ged

to 2

18 c

onse

rva-

tion

grou

ps. T

hose

who

wer

e m

ore

wild

erne

ss p

uris

t in

attit

ude

reac

ted

diff

eren

tly to

som

e of

the

stat

emen

ts53

on

wild

erne

ssm

anag

emen

t and

22

on c

odes

of

beha

vior

sugg

este

d in

the

ques

tionn

aire

.

Hen

dee,

Joh

n C

., C

atto

n, W

illia

m R

., Jr

., M

arlo

w, L

arry

D.,

and

Bro

ckm

an, C

. Fra

nk.

1968

. Wild

erne

ss u

sers

in th

e Pa

cifi

c N

orth

wes

tth

eir

char

ac-

teri

stic

s, v

alue

s, a

nd m

anag

emen

t pre

fere

nces

. U.S

.D.A

.Fo

rest

Ser

v. R

es. P

ap. P

NW

-61,

92

pp.,

illus

. Pac

ific

Nor

thw

est F

ores

t & R

ange

Exp

. Sta

., Po

rtla

nd, O

reg.

Wild

erne

ss v

isita

tion

typi

cally

occ

urs

in m

ore

high

ly e

duca

ted,

smal

l fam

ily a

nd f

rien

dshi

p gr

oups

who

take

abo

ut f

ive

2- to

3-d

aytr

ips

per

year

. Abo

ut 3

0 pe

rcen

t (40

0) b

elon

ged

to 2

18 c

onse

rva-

tion

grou

ps. T

hose

who

wer

e m

ore

wild

erne

ss p

uris

t in

attit

ude

reac

ted

diff

eren

tly to

som

e of

the

stat

emen

ts53

on

wild

erne

ssm

anag

emen

t and

22

on c

odes

of

beha

vior

sugg

este

d in

the

ques

tionn

aire

.

Hen

dee,

Joh

n C

., C

atto

n, W

illia

m R

., Jr

., M

arlo

w, L

arry

D.,

and

Bro

ckm

an, C

. Fra

nk.

1968

. Wild

erne

ss u

sers

in th

e Pa

cifi

c N

orth

wes

tth

eir

char

ac-

teri

stic

s, v

alue

s, a

nd m

anag

emen

t pre

fere

nces

. U.S

.D.A

.Fo

rest

Ser

v. R

es. P

ap. P

NW

-61,

92

pp.,

illus

. Pac

ific

Nor

thw

est F

ores

t & R

ange

Exp

. Sta

.. Po

rtla

nd, O

reg.

Wild

erne

ss v

isita

tion

typi

cally

occ

urs

in m

ore

high

ly e

duca

ted,

smal

l fam

ily a

nd f

rien

dshi

p gr

oups

who

take

abo

ut f

ive

2- to

3-d

aytr

ips

per

year

. Abo

ut 3

0 pe

rcen

t (40

0) b

elon

ged

to 2

18 c

onse

rva-

tion

grou

ps. T

hose

who

wer

e m

ore

wild

erne

ss p

uris

t in

attit

ude

reac

ted

diff

eren

tly to

som

e of

the

stat

emen

ts53

on

wild

erne

ssm

anag

emen

t and

22

on c

odes

of

beha

vior

sugg

este

d in

the

ques

tionn

aire

.

I

The authors are respectively: Recreation Research Project Leader,Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service;Professor of Sociology, University of Washington; (formerly) GraduateResearch Assistant, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington(now in U. S. Air Force); and Professor of Forestry, University ofWashington.

The paper reports the results of an interdisciplinary study whichcombined the contributions of resource managers and sociologists. Theresearch was sponsored by the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Exper-iment Station under cooperative agreement with the College of ForestResources at the University of Washington who implemented the studyand conducted preliminary analysis of the data. The authors wish toacknowledge the able assistance of Dr. Thomas Steinburn, computerprogram consultant to the Institute of Sociological Research at theUniversity of Washington. We are grateful to Hubert Burke, James Hughes,Robert Dewitz, and Robert Metlen for contributing some of their out-standing photos, and we also wish to thank other members of the ForestService from the Regional Office at Portland and from the Wenatchee,Mount Baker, Wallowa Whitman, and Willamette National Forests fortheir cooperation. The authors wish to thank Dr. William R. Burch, Jr.,Research Associate, College of Forestry, Syracuse University, and Dr.Robert C. Lucas, Recreation Research Project Leader at the Forest ServiceIntermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station (at Missoula), fortheir constructive review of a preliminary draft of this report. We alsowish to thank the 1,350 wilderness users who took the time and thetrouble to respond to our lengthy questionnaire.

Headquarters for the PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGEEXPERIMENT STATION is in Portland, Oregon. The area of researchencompasses Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, with some projectsincluding California, the Western States, or the Nation. Project head-quarters are at:

College, AlaskaJuneau, AlaskaSeattle, WashingtonOlympia, WashingtonWenatchee, Washington

Portland, OregonBend, OregonLa Grande, OregonCorvallis, OregonRoseburg, Oregon

The FOREST SERVICE of the U. S.

Department of Agriculture is dedicated to theprinciple of mu ement of theNation's fore ained yieldsof wood, w nd recrea-tion. Throug ooperationwith the Stat wners, andmanagement

rgYForests and

National Grasslan 111101 or' as directed byCongress to provide increasingly greaterservice to a growing Nation.