Wilderness Quality and Visitors' Wilderness Attitudes: Management Implications

Wilderness Quality and Visitors’ Wilderness Attitudes:Management ImplicationsWON SOP SHIN*School of Forest ResourcesChungbuk National UniversityCheongju, Chungbuk 360-763, Korea

REINER JAAKSONDepartment of GeographyGraduate Department of ForestryUniversity of TorontoToronto, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT / This study examines whether or not wildernessvisitors’ attitudes toward wilderness are related to the quality

of the wilderness that has been visited. From three Ontario,Canada, provincial parks (Algonquin, Killarney, andQuetico), a sample of 540 wilderness campers was ran-domly selected from a total of 138,317 campers. Peoplesampled ranged in age from 15 to 75 years with a mean ofslightly over 37. They were highly educated. A majority ofthem resided in urban or suburban areas. Significant corre-lations between visitors’ levels of wilderness attitudes andwilderness quality were found. However, wilderness qualityevaluated by wilderness visitors (subjective quality) did notagree with that evaluated by the wilderness managers (ob-jective quality).

Although the concept of wilderness is not new, thepast three decades have shown a dramatic increase inthe use of wilderness as a unique recreational setting.Many studies agree that the use of wilderness is on therise, but at widely varying rates (Roggenbuck and Lucas1985, Roggenbuck andWatson 1989, Stankey and Lucas1989).

Wilderness experiences can not be understood inisolation from knowledge of the wilderness users them-selves. The importance of understanding wilderness useand user characteristics lies in the recognition thatthreats to wilderness stem from wilderness use (Roggen-buck and Lucas 1985). Knowledge can be used topredict changes in the choices users make and in thequality of their experiences. Thus, better knowledge ofusers can help to raise the quality of service thatwilderness provides to the public (Lucas 1980). Knowl-edge of wilderness use and users, however, is incom-plete. Lucas and Stankey (1989) state that reliable datadescribing how much recreational use occurs in wilder-ness settings are difficult to find.

Even though the formal body of knowledge concern-ing wilderness users and their participation is limited,this information is increasingly vital in a time of chang-ing demand and need for wilderness (Schreyer andDriver 1989). A basic problem in wilderness manage-ment is making decisions that will produce the bestquality of user experience, while also maintaining the

resource base. To make such decisions effectively, clearinformation is needed about how the wilderness usersperceive the resources and why. The purpose of thisstudy is to examine if and how wilderness visitors’attitudes toward wilderness are related to the physicaland biological quality of the wilderness environmentbeing visited.

Diversity of Wilderness Users’ Attitudes

Understanding the users’ attitude is very importantto enable managers to meet the users’ needs. Severalstudies (Bultena and Taves 1961, Hendee and others1968, Lucas 1980) have indicated that many wildernessusers would be satisfied with something less than ‘‘pure’’wilderness (as described by the legal wilderness defini-tion) and that they would like to have conveniencesordinarily not available in wilderness areas. Many userssaw no conflict between their wilderness experienceand their desire for facilities such as picnic tables, wells,toilets, and washrooms (Young 1978). Stankey (1973)differentiated wilderness users by the users’ desires andhow well their definition of wilderness coincided withthe definition in the US Wilderness Act. Users with astrong wilderness attitude (purists) were most satisfiedin a wilderness where there are few other visitors,facilities, and regulations. However, nonpurist userswould be satisfied in an area with more facilities, andthey could tolerate more people and regulations intheir wilderness (Stankey 1973). For this purpose, theRecreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) was devel-oped as an inventory, management, and planningmodel to classify an area of land based on its potential

KEY WORDS: Wilderness; Attitudes; Subjective quality; Objectivequality

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Environmental Management Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 225–232 r 1997 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

for certain types of recreation experiences (US ForestService 1982). A principal feature of the ROS model isthe provision that important distinctions among out-door resources, in terms of experience production, canbe captured by arraying these resources along a primi-tive–urban continuum. Specifically, the ROS calls forthe partitioning of resources into six classes along aspectrum: primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized,semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, andurban (Virden and Knopf 1989).

Wilderness Quality and Users’ Attitudes

Environment can affect attitudes by evoking intenseemotional responses (Ittelson and others 1974, Mehra-bian and Russel 1974). Mehrabian and Russel (1974)suggest that pleasure and arousal, as response-elicitingproperties of environments, mediate an array of atti-tudes. It follows that wilderness as an environment caninfluence an individual’s attitude toward wilderness. Wealso hypothesize here that different conditions of wilder-ness (e.g., different quality) may influence individuals’attitudes differently. Ittelson and others (1974) arguedthat there are different modes of experiencing theenvironment. They suggested that individuals experi-ence the environment as an external place, in terms ofthe subjective ways that one feels about the environ-ment. Experiencing the environment as an externalplace means paying attention to the physical propertiesof the environment (and would be manifested in anobjective measurement of wilderness). Bell and others(1978) suggest that attitude toward the environment iscontingent upon its objective characteristics (e.g., itsphysical conditions) as well as individual differences(how one perceives the environment).

Objective and Subjective Wilderness Qualities

Given that one goal of wilderness management is toavoid impairment of significant features and qualities ofthe wilderness resources, what are the most significantof these features and qualities to wilderness users? Howcan these qualities be monitored to ascertain whetheror not they are being preserved? These questions arefundamental to wildernessmanagement. However, manyof the most significant wilderness qualities are relativelyintangible and particularly difficult to measure and tomonitor.

Wilderness can be described legally and technically,or it can be described according to subjective percep-tions. With reference to the quality of wilderness, onemay expect a significant divergence between the twodefinition domains. Differences between wilderness

quality as perceived by users (subjective quality) andwilderness quality as considered by wilderness manag-ers, biologists, or with reference to the quality definedin the legislation (objective quality) may differ signifi-cantly. Wagar (1966) argued that quality is a humanconcept based on highly subjective criteria and that itseems to be a highly personal matter. Wagar (1966)suggested that quality has to be investigated from theperspective of users themselves. Perceived quality (whatusers are more likely to adhere to) differs from objec-tive quality (what managers and professionals are morelikely to use, given that they have the appropriateeducation to evaluate wilderness objectively). Differ-ences between those two qualities have been mentionedby some researchers (Hendee and Harris 1970, Stankey1989). Hendee andHarris (1970) found that there weresignificant differences between the perception of wilder-ness by wilderness visitors and the perception of wilder-ness by wilderness managers. In wilderness recreation,environmental quality will very likely strongly affectleisure satisfaction. Watson and others (1991) believethat attributes of the environmental setting are the mostrelevant external stimuli to the choice process of select-ing outdoor recreation opportunities. However, it isimportant to note that even the so-called ‘‘objective’’definition is also highly subjective.

Methods

Sample

The population of this study consisted of wildernessvisitors in three Ontario provincial parks. The samplewas drawn randomly from the population who campedin the three parks from September of 1990 to August of1991. Since anyone who intends to camp overnight inthe park must register, the camping registers of thethree parks were used as the sources of names andaddresses of the sample population. From a total of138,317 campers, 540 were sampled randomly. A total of170 respondents were drawn from Algonquin Interior,175 from Killarney, and 195 from Quetico.

Study Areas

The areas chosen for this study are three of Ontario’sprovincial parks (Algonquin Interior, Killarney andQuetico). Their locations, size, and management prac-tices vary, as do their wilderness attractions. Thesedifferences may explain the substantial variation in theresponse to wilderness by wilderness campers, andhence this was one reason for selecting these threeparks. For example, only the interior of Algonquin canbe considered a wilderness and the strong representa-

W. S. Shin and R. Jaakson226

tion of American visitors to Quetico makes this parkdifferent from the others. Another reason for selectingthe three parks is that they were considered to beimportant by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resourcesbecause of their appeal to wilderness users and becausethe parks face heavy use.

Data Collection Technique

To study the visitors’ characteristics and use patterns,a questionnaire survey was developed. Draft question-naires were pretested and revised three times. In thefirst pretest, questionnaires were administered to 80interior users of Algonquin Provincial Park. In thesecond pretest, to estimate the response rate of a mailedsurvey, 47 copies of the questionnaire, including a coverletter and a self-addressed and stamped return enve-lope, were distributed at the portage store on CanoeLake, Algonquin Provincial Park. Twenty-one responseswere received to the second pretest, for a response rateof 45%.

In the actual survey, the questionnaires were distrib-uted through the mail. When daily returns droppedmarkedly, three weeks after the first mailing, a secondmailing was made to those who did not respond to thefirst mailing. The second mailing included a new coverletter and a copy of the questionnaire. A total of 465responses was obtained to the first and second mailings.The final response rate was 86%.

Instruments

Wilderness Attitude

It is widely accepted that wilderness users holdvarying, and at times, contradictory notions of whatwilderness is. The wilderness ‘‘purism’’ scale, developedby Stankey (1973), provides a means to differentiatebetween various types of wilderness users. Purism maybe described as attitudes characterized by a high level ofexpectations of, and an acute sensitivity to, variations inthe quality of something—in the present case, wilder-ness. The scale measures the degree of purism in theattitudes of wilderness users toward wilderness, andtheir involvement, concern, and knowledge about wilder-ness. It consists of 14 items on the basic dimensions ofwilderness, as defined by the US Wilderness Act (1964).Each item has five semantic differential answer catego-ries ranging from very desirable to very undesirable.Responses are rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with puristsscoring 5 and nonpurists scoring 1.

The usefulness of the purism scale has been demon-strated by several studies. Stankey (1973) used it tocharacterize categories of wilderness users. Wilderness

users with high purism scores tended to be mostsatisfied in a wilderness environment with few othervisitors, few facilities, and a minimum of regulations;wilderness users with low purism scores tended to besatisfied in areas with more facilities, more people, andmore regulations governing their activities. Young (1978)found that knowledge of wilderness influences opinionsabout wilderness: knowledge about wilderness and pur-ism scores were positively correlated. Young (1983) alsoobserved that the frequency of wilderness use was lessassociated with purism and more associated with theavailable time for, and ease of, wilderness visits. Jaaksonand Shin (1993) found that the purism scale consistsprimarily of four interdependent factors that character-ize sets of wilderness attitudes related to: (1) size of anddistance to wilderness areas, (2) a minimum level ofhuman interference in wilderness, (3) natural ecosys-tems, and (4) man-made infrastructure in wildernessareas. They also found that the purism scale has a highinternal consistency.

Subjective Wilderness Quality

‘‘Wilderness’’ is a very subjective concept. Wilder-ness perception is likely influenced by individual values,beliefs, emotions, previous experiences, etc. Therefore,it is desirable that the visitors themselves should classifywilderness quality. This wilderness quality as perceivedby the users themselves is one of the key variables in thisstudy.

Perceived quality is a form of attitude in the sensethat it is an overall evaluation of a service or object(Olshavsky 1985). It is a psychological dimension thatexists in the mind of individuals and is usually measureddirectly by self-report techniques. In the present study,an overall evaluation of wilderness quality is much moremeaningful because aspects of quality are different fordifferent individuals and only the overall perceivedquality is of interest. Therefore, a single item that askspeople to grade the quality of the wilderness they visitedwas used for this study. The respondent was then askedabout what wilderness attributes influenced the ratinghe or she had assigned.

Objective Wilderness Quality

The Wilderness Attribute Rating System (WARS)(US Forest Service 1977) was used to define the objec-tive quality of wilderness. This system is a procedure forascribing objectively derived scores to areas possessingwilderness quality (Stankey 1989). This system does notpurport to measure wilderness quality as a subjectiveconcept that can vary from one person to another.Instead, the system is focused upon criteria specificallymentioned in the Wilderness Act. To improve reliabil-

Wilderness Quality and Attitudes 227

ity, the Wilderness Attribute Rating System emphasizessystematic procedures and the use of as much objectiveor descriptive data about each area as possible.

The system rates, on a seven-point scale, the fourrequisite wilderness attributes described in the USWilderness Act (1964). These wilderness attributes are:(1) natural integrity, (2) apparent naturalness, (3)outstanding opportunity for solitude, (4) supplementalattributes which the act says wilderness may contain,including outstanding ecological, geological, scenic,and cultural features. A seven-category scale rating from(1) very low, to (4) moderate, and (7) very high isprovided for each attribute based on evaluations ofspecifically defined components (US Forest Service1977).

In the present study, for more efficient measurementof objective quality, each study area park was dividedinto several subareas based on its management plan.Each park manager was asked to evaluate the parksubareas. The campers were asked to indicate wherethey camped by listing names of lakes or trails so thatthe objective quality and their specific camping areascould be determined.

Data Analysis

Because the data in this study were characterized asordinal and interval, most analyses were performedusing nonparametric techniques. For the purpose ofstatistical analysis, purism scores and, objective andsubjective qualities of wilderness evaluations were catego-rized as low, medium, or high based on the percentile ofone third.

Results

Sample Profile

Respondents ranged in age from 15 to 75 years with amean of slightly over 37 years. Most respondents weremale (81.7%) and highly educated (mean formal educa-tion years 5 17.2). A majority of the sample (72.1%)was currently living in an urban or suburban area.

A majority of respondents (60.3%) in this studystated that they had 10 years or more of wildernessexperience. Their major reported motivation to visitwilderness was ‘‘to enjoy nature’’ (27.2%), ‘‘to escapenoise and crowds’’ (25.5%), and ‘‘to reduce tension’’(20.9%). The data revealed that there were a number ofactivities performed in the wilderness including canoe-ing, hiking, and camping, with no single activity predomi-nating, except possibly canoeing.

Wilderness Attitudes and Wilderness Quality

To explore whether there were any associationsbetween purism scores and wilderness quality, Mantel-Haenszel statistics (Norusis 1990) were calculated. TheMantel-Haenszel statistic is a measure of correlationbetween two ordinal variables. For all of the cases, thevalues of each variable are ranked from smallest tolargest and the correlation coefficient is computed onthe ranks (Norusis 1990). Tables 1 and 2 present theresults of the tests. The Mantel-Haenszel statistics forthe sample in total (Mantel-Haenszel statistics for objec-tive quality 5 5.733, P 5 0.010; for subjective qual-ity 5 4.508, P 5 0.033) indicate that based on the signifi-cance level of P , 0.05, there are significant correlationsbetween purism scores and wilderness quality of placesvisited: low purism scores are correlated with low qualityof wilderness areas, and high purism scores are corre-lated with high quality of wilderness areas. The datawere further tested separately by subgroups as listed inTables 1 and 2. When controlling for these subgroup

Table 1. Correlation between objective wildernessquality and purism scores by some variables

Variable NaMantel- Haenszel

statistic P

Total 460 5.733 0.010ParkAlgonquin 115 0.293 0.588Killarney 122 1.237 0.266Quetico 152 0.004 0.945

GenderMale 322 6.814 0.009Female 67 0.038 0.846

Age (yr)10–29 111 3.536 0.06030–39 132 3.239 0.07140–49 91 0.019 0.88950–59 31 0.383 0.536over 60 24 1.577 0.209

ExperienceLess than 5 yr 146 0.164 0.6855 or more yr 241 6.419 0.011

EducationSecondaryUniversity or college 49 2.544 0.110Graduate or professionaldegree 340 3.804 0.050

Place of residenceUrban or suburban 193 0.101 0.750Small city or large town 122 0.799 0.371Small town or rural area 74 7.720 0.005

Wilderness visits (N/yr)1–2 208 2.252 0.1333–4 88 0.192 0.6615 or more 93 4.025 0.044

aThe number of respondents in each category may not add up to 540because of missing data.


variables, the primary relationships between purismand subjective wilderness quality shown in the totalsample disappear, except in the case of education. Inthe case of objective wilderness quality, some sub-groups, such males, graduate or professional degreeholders, small town or rural residents, and frequentwilderness users, exhibit wilderness attitude levels corre-lated with wilderness quality as evaluated by wildernessmanagers.

Subjective and Objective Wilderness Qualities

Table 3 presents the summary of Mantel-Haenszelstatistics between the objective and subjective wilder-ness qualities. The Mantel-Haenszel statistic of 1.372(P 5 0.265) suggests that there is no significant associa-tion between the two variables for the total sample.There appears to be no significant association betweenhow wilderness visitors perceive the wilderness and howthe objective wilderness quality is evaluated by wilder-ness managers using the Wilderness Attributes Rating

System. This confirms earlier findings in the literature(Hendee and Harris 1970).

Discussion

Although the Mantel-Haenszel statistics indicatedthat there were associations between the purism scoresof wilderness visitors and the environmental quality ofvisited areas, the statistical relationships are relativelyweak. It is possible that there may be other (unknown)variables that influenced the observed associations andthus account for the weak power. Another possibleexplanation for the weak power may be the ‘‘ceilingeffects’’ of the data, that is, the respondents’ purismscores were clumped at the high end of the range ofpossible scores on the scales. For instance, the majority(95.3%) obtained over 50 points out of a possible 70points. However, one could also argue that much higherscores are to be expected, given the nature of thewilderness population that was surveyed. If the general

Table 2. Correlation between subjective wildernessquality and purism scores by some variables

Variable NaMantel- Haenszel

statistic P



Age (yr)10–29 136 1.542 0.21430–39 150 1.779 0.18240–49 109 0.143 0.70550–59 38 3.168 0.075over 60 27 0.119 0.729






Table 3. Correlation between subjective andobjective wilderness qualities by some variables

Variables NaMantel- Haenszel

statistic P



Age (yr)10–29 110 0.007 0.93530–39 133 0.541 0.46240–49 92 2.299 0.12950–59 31 2.520 0.119over 60 24 1.559 0.212







population (consisting of a wide range of people otherthan just wilderness visitors) was to be surveyed, onemight expect a wider range in the purism scores.

The weak statistical power (albeit statistically signifi-cant at P # 0.05) may also be the result of the fact thatthe campers surveyed were unable to select for their usea wilderness area that would (better) fit their (ideal)wilderness preferences. The three provincial parks maybe used because of a combination of attractions: theparks may provide only adequate wilderness but theirrelative ease of access may also influence why they arevisited. Given more ideal conditions (say, where traveltime and cost would not be a constraint), the users ofthese three provincial parks may well prefer to visitmore distant wilderness areas that better match theiractual wilderness expectations. Because wilderness us-ers visit one particular wilderness park does not necessar-ily mean that the park fully meets their wildernessexpectations; the park may, instead, meet their traveldistance–cost constraints. Further studies are needed toclarify to what extent the respondents’ choice of awilderness environment may be reflected by their pref-erences for the selected wilderness, as contrasted toalternative wilderness environments and/or as influ-enced by trade-off of other, nonwilderness variables,such as distance to wilderness, life circumstances ofwilderness users (unmarried, married with children),etc. Purists may chose to visit a wilderness setting thatbetter meets their expectations, even though it mayrequire greater time and cost of travel. Life circum-stance suggests that biological or social factors may limitleisure behavior and may predispose people to certainleisure patterns, and that these life circumstance influ-ences change with age. Wilderness campers are mostlikely to be younger males, and they tend to have morefavorable conditions for visiting wilderness areas, bothin a biological way (strong physical condition) and socially(no dependents), than do people in other life stages, suchas married couples with small children or the elderly.

Although both the perceived and the objective quali-ties of wilderness where the respondents camped werepositively associated with their level of wilderness atti-tudes, those two qualities were not associated with eachother, perhaps because campers’ perceptions of wilder-ness quality are also affected by the social conditions inthe wilderness, such as crowding and noise. The wilder-ness measures do not capture this because the objectivewilderness quality is determined mainly by the physicaland biological conditions of wilderness. In some cases,campers fail to notice weak, unhealthy, or damagedconditions of the wilderness as damage.

Wilderness managers who are at the front-line ofprotecting such environments would gain from a betterunderstanding of both the physical–biological wilder-

ness environment, as well as the social–behavioral wilder-ness environment. Physical and biological research hasbeen the emphasis in wilderness research to date, whilerelatively less is known about how individuals perceivehow the resource contributes to their wilderness experi-ence. While the physical and biological attributes ofwilderness are of particular importance to managers,wilderness users’ perceptions of the environment arealso important, although they should not overrule thephysical and biological factors considered for manage-ment. The results of this study can contribute to abalanced approach for management of wilderness,combining the psychological and the biological–physical understandings of wilderness environments.

Implications for Management

As populations increase and as outdoor recreationresources are placed under greater pressure, attentionshould turn to the preservation of wilderness resourcesthat are unique environments and can provide opportu-nities for solitude, environmental conservation, andself-experience. One of the important goals of manag-ing wilderness recreation resources is to provide visitorswith opportunities for quality wilderness experiences.Wilderness management includes government and citi-zen activity to identify goals and objectives for classifiedwilderness and the planning, implementation, andadministration of policies and management actions toachieve them. Wilderness management applies con-cepts, criteria, guidelines, standards, and proceduresderived from the physical, biological, social, andmanage-ment sciences to preserve naturalness and outstandingopportunities for solitude in designated wildernessareas (Hendee and others 1990). However, as Nash(1982) mentions, wilderness management is a paradox.‘‘Wilderness’’ is supposed to be an area where humaninfluence is absent, but ‘‘management’’ suggests peoplecontrolling nature (Hendee and others 1990). Hendeeand others (1990) explain, however, that ‘‘wildernessmanagement is essentially the management of humanuse and influence to preserve naturalness and solitude’’(Hendee and others 1990). Lucas and Krumpe (1986)agree and state that ‘‘managing wilderness resources islargely a matter of managing use, mainly recreationaluse, to protect resources and to provide visitors opportu-nities for quality wilderness experiences’’ (Lucas andKrumpe 1986).

The present study, which focused on purism as oneof the key wilderness benefits, contributes to an under-standing of how wilderness environments can be man-aged to help sustain a quality wilderness experience.One result of this study reveals, for example, thatpurism is correlated with wilderness quality. As stated


before, purism identifies the intensity with which differ-ent wilderness user groups hold certain values. Both thesubjective and the objective wilderness qualities arepositively correlated with the campers’ purism scores.According to Stankey (1973), who developed the pur-ism scale, individuals whose definition of wildernessmost closely resembles the definition in the US Wilder-ness Act (1964) approve of the wilderness concept moststrongly. Persons who know most about wilderness alsotend to have the highest purism scores. Young (1978)found that respondents with high purism scores alsoappreciate wilderness more. Based on these findings,individuals with high purism scores tend to appreciatethe uniqueness of wilderness values and have positiveattitudes toward their preservation. It is assumed thatindividuals who know about a subject and approve of itsvalues, appreciate the subject better than those who donot know the subject or do not know it well. In thissense, wilderness campers with high purism scores maybe expected to have a ‘‘better’’ wilderness experiencethan would users with a low purism score. Managementof wilderness should emphasize the educational valuesof wilderness and the benefits of wilderness to theenvironment and to society.

Wilderness campers in this study have very highpurism scores (mean 5 59.89, SD 5 6.07). Themajorityof respondents to the survey were strong purists (55.4%),who can be expected to demand the most undisturbedwilderness. Therefore, an argument that there is a largenumber of people in the wilderness camper populationwho demand something less than ‘‘pure’’ wilderness, isnot supported by this study. Wilderness planners andmanagers should keep these findings in mind so thatthey could provide opportunities for an optimumwilder-ness experience. The attitudes of strong purists are ofparticular relevance to management, particularly fordecisions regarding appropriate use levels, use of con-trol techniques, and physical improvements of wilder-ness (Stankey 1973). How many other users the strongpurists would encounter on a wilderness trip can beexpected to influence the quality of the experience forthe purists. Strong purists report that meeting over twoparties daily adversely affected their wilderness experi-ence (Stankey 1973). Most strong purists reject thatregulations and controls are sufficient to maintainwilderness resources and users’ quality of experience(Stankey 1973). It is argued that managing wildernessprimarily for the benefit of the strong purist users iscompatible with wilderness preservation. To managewilderness for the nonpurist would pose the risk ofpotentially irrevocably ruining the wilderness for allusers (Young 1978). As a management strategy, nonpur-ists should be encouraged to visit wildland areas (ascontrasted to wilderness), where the outdoor experi-

ences they seek may be satisfactory. Management ofwilderness and of wildlands should not be considered tobe the same, although their management can be consid-ered to be complementary.

For the strong purists, several suggestions for wilder-ness management can be found in the literature.Stankey (1973) reported that the more purist the userswere, the more likely seeing a large party would reducethe feeling that they were in a wilderness. It is alsogenerally the case that large parties tend to be moredamaging to the physical environment than the samenumber of users distributed as several small parties overtime (Hendee and others 1990). The number of largeparties, and their size, needs to be limited in adherenceto the physical and the social carrying capacity of anarea. Stankey (1973) also found that the more purist therespondent the more he or she favored the reduction ofthe number of trails and the elimination of signs. Thiswould provide the strong purists with fewer controlsand make the area more primitive and natural. Regard-ing trails, Stankey (1973) also stated that the morepurist the users were, the more likely they were to rejectthe need for the improvement of trail quality. As trailsand other infrastructure are built in a wilderness area,the wilderness quality would diminish. Wilderness man-agers therefore have to keep in mind the balance betweenretaining the wilderness and the need for (minimal) infra-structure to make access to and use of the wildernesspossible, without degrading the quality of wilderness.

Wilderness managers should be aware of users’attitudes and preferences, but as Hendee and Harris(1970) suggested, management of the wilderness areascannot be based entirely on popular preferences. Thisdoes not mean, however, that wilderness managementshould operate entirely without regard to users’ prefer-ences. Rather, management alternatives should be de-fined based on the users’ preferences when the alterna-tives are not contrary to management goals or wouldnot degrade the wilderness. Clearly, the key responsibili-ties for wilderness managers are to seek an increasedunderstanding of the phenomenon of recreation behav-ior in order to identify the most useful types of informa-tion and to give careful thought to how such informa-tion fits into the decision-making framework formanagement.

To conclude the discussion of wilderness manage-ment, there remains a fundamental dilemma for allwilderness managers. Ideally, wilderness is a pristine,unspoiled area with no evidence of activity by man. Yetwilderness use for recreation is an activity by man in awilderness environment, and there has to be madeavailable some—even if only a minimal—infrastructureto facilitate such use. At a philosophical level, it couldbe argued, as an extreme position, that to keep wilder-


ness absolutely pure (assuming for the sake of argumenthere that this was to be feasible and desirable) wouldpreclude any use of wilderness, such as for recreation.Given any amount of wilderness recreation activity, itcould be argued that some (possibly a small) degree ofwilderness purity will have been lost by that activity. Thefundamental dilemma for wilderness managers is, there-fore, not whether or not to make any wilderness useavailable (it is assumed here that use will be madeavailable) but rather the type, intensity, location, andtiming of the wilderness use. Wilderness and wildernessuse management may appear to be contradictory terms,but if any amount of wilderness use at all is to beaccommodated, then wilderness use management isessential. A biologically pristine wilderness is probablyan elusive goal anywhere in the world today. To preserveand to protect remaining wilderness, it has to bemanaged. The term ‘‘management’’ itself is controver-sial, but in conclusion it should be pointed out that adecision not to do something is in itself management.

Literature CitedBell, P., J. Fisher, and S. R. Loomis. 1978. Environmentalpsychology. Saunders, Philadelphia.

Bultena, G., and M. J. Taves. 1961. Changing wilderness imageand forest policy. Journal of Forestry 59:167–171.

Hendee, J. C., and R. W. Harris. 1970. Foresters’ perception ofwilderness: User attitudes and preferences. Journal of Forestry68(2):759–762.

Hendee, J. C., W. R. Catton, L. D. Marlow, and C. F. Brockman.1968. Wilderness users in the Pacific Northwest. ResearchPaper PNW-61. USDA Forest Service, Pacific NorthwestForest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.

Hendee, J. C., G. H. Stankey, and R. C. Lucas. 1990. Wildernessmanagement, 2nd ed. North American Press, Golden,Colorado.

Ittelson, W. H., H. M. Proshansky, L. G. Rivlin, and G. H.Winkel. 1974. An introduction to environmental psychol-ogy. Holt, Rinehart Winston, New York.

Jaakson, R., and W. S. Shin. 1993. Purism and wildernesscampers. Journal of Social Psychology 133(4):489–493.

Lucas, R. C. 1980. Use patterns and visitor characteristics,attitudes and preferences in nine wilderness and otherroadless areas. Research Paper INT-253. USDA Forest Ser-vice, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Lucas, R. C., and E. E. Krumpe. 1986. Wilderness manage-ment. Pages 121–136 in A literature review—The President’sCommission on American Outdoors. US Government Print-ing Office, Washington, DC.

Lucas, R. C., and G. H. Stankey. 1989. Shifting trends inwilderness recreation use. Pages 357–367 in A. Watson(ed.), Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988. General Tech-

nical Report SE-52. USDA Forest Service, SoutheasternForest Experimental Station, Asheville, North Carolina.

Mehrabian, A., and J. A. Russel. 1974. An approach toenvironmental psychology. Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology Press, Boston.

Nash, N. 1982. Wilderness and American mind, 3rd ed. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Norusis, M. J. 1990. Data analysis for SPSS/PC1. SPSS, Inc.,Chicago.

Olshavsky, S. F. 1985. Perceived quality in consumer decisionmaking. Lexington Books, Toronto.

Roggenbuck, J. W., and R. C. Lucas. 1985. Wilderness use andusers characteristics: A state-of-knowledge review. In R. C.Lucas (ed.), Proceedings of the National wilderness re-search: Issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions, 23–26July 1985. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Roggenbuck, J. W., and A. E. Watson. 1989. Wildernessrecreation use: The current situation. Pages 346–356 in A.Watson (ed.), Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988. Gen-eral Technical Report SE-52. USDA Forest Service, Southeast-ern Forest Experimental Station, Asheville, North Carolina.

Schreyer, R., and B. L. Driver. 1989. The benefits of outdoorrecreation participation. Pages 472–484 in A. Watson (ed.),Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988. General TechnicalReport SE-52. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern ForestExperimental Station, Asheville, North Carolina.

Stankey, G. H. 1973. Visitor perception of wilderness carryingcapacity. Research Paper INT-142. USDA Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, 61 pp.

Stankey, G. H. 1989. Beyond the campfire’s light: Historicalroots of the wilderness concept. Natural Resources Journal29:9–24.

Stankey, G. H., and R. C. Lucas. 1989. Shifting trends inbackcountry and wilderness use. In M. Lee and P. J. Brown(eds.), Proceedings of the first national symposium on socialscience in resource management. 12–16 May 1986, Corval-lis, Oregon, 206 pp.

US Forest Service. 1977. RARE II Wilderness Attributes RatingSystem. Washington, DC.

US Forest Service. 1982. Recreation Opportunity Spectrumusers guide. Washington, DC, 38 pp.

US Wilderness Act. 1964. Public Law 88-577.78 Stat. 890.

Virden, R. J., and R. C. Knopf. 1989. Activities, experiences,and environmental settings: A case study of recreational oppor-tunity spectrum relationships. Leisure Science 11:159–176.

Wagar, J. A. 1966. Quality in outdoor recreation. Trends in Parksand Recreation 3(3):9–12.

Watson, A. E., J. W. Roggenbuck, and D. R. Williams. 1991.The influence of past experience on wilderness choice.Journal of Leisure Research 23(1):21–36.

Young, R. A. 1978. An analysis of wilderness concept andvalues. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Illinois,Urbana, Illinois, 197 pp.

Young, R. A. 1983. Toward an understanding of wildernessparticipation. Leisure Sciences 5(4):339–357.


Documents

Wilderness Quality and Visitors' Wilderness Attitudes: Management Implications