Below is an interesting article publichsed by the International Jounal of Wilderness way back in 1995. do you guys think these same trends are continuing?

Trends in Recreation Use and Management of Wilderness
by Barbara Cook and William Borrie

Introduction

THIRTY YEARS AFTER PASSAGE of the U.S. Wilderness Act of 1964, more than 115 wilderness allocation laws have also been passed to designate additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System and sometimes to clarify wilderness stewardship direction. This is a good time to look at the character of the wilderness and the people who use it. Have the characteristics of the American people who use wilderness changed over the past 30 years? Have their patterns of use changed, or their preferences for how wilderness is managed?

At the Fourth International Symposium on Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends in St. Paul, Minnesota, May 14-17, 1995, two sessions were devoted to discussing trends in wilderness users, resource conditions, and management.1 A mixture of wilderness managers and planners, commercial and institutional outfitters, federal agency and university scientists, students, and other wilderness interests were assembled to discuss these trends based on results of scientific studies and personal experiences. The following is a highlight of important points made in that discussion.

Recreation User Trends

Only recently have we had the opportunity to document trends in wilderness recreation use and user characteristics. An earlier attempt by Roggenbuck and Watson (1988) to document user trends summarized results from 30 studies conducted at different places at different times, but they found limited basis with which to compare results and trends. At that time only one study had specifically compared wilderness recreation use at one place over time. Lucas (1985) had compared user characteristics in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex in Montana in 1970 and 1982.

Cole, Watson, and Roggenbuck (in press) explore in more detail how wilderness recreation use has changed. The Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute recently conducted or funded replications of earlier visitor studies conducted in the Desolation Wilderness in California, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, and the Shining Rock Wilderness in North Carolina. The desolation study, conducted in 1990, compared results to two studies in 1972 (Lucas 1980; Stankey 1980). Shining Rock Wilderness visitors were also studied in 1990, replicating an earlier study there in 1978 (Roggenbuck, Watson, and Stankey 1982). A study in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in 1969 (Stankey 1971, 1973) was replicated in 1991. Additionally, studies by Burde and Curran (1986) in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park and a study by Lucas (1985) in the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex were aimed at similar purposes, provided complementary data, and are incorporated into this discussion of trends. These trend data, coupled with the expert knowledge held by symposium panelists, expanded the discussion.

Changes That Occurred

Based on the five studies described, there were only five of the 63 variables investigated that changed in a consistent way across at least three of the areas (older visitors, more women, more minorities, other nontraditional users, and higher education levels but not income; visitors had been to other wildernesses and litter was rated as less of a problem but still the biggest problem). There were no changes in the opposite direction on any of these variables.

Wilderness visitors today tend to be older than those who used wilderness in the past. For example, in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, the average age of users increased from 25 to 37 from 1967 to 1991, a trend confirmed by members of the symposium panel. Greg Lais, founder and executive director of Wilderness Inquiry, an organization that offers outdoor experiences to diverse groups of people including persons with disabilities, acknowledged that visitor age is increasing among his clientele. Bill Hansen, president of Sawbill Outfitters, also noted the trend toward older clients.

Hansen noted other demographic changes in clients too, including a higher percentage of women among all groups, and more groups of women taking wilderness trips. The increased percentage of women among wilderness user samples confirms this trend. For example, in Shining Rock Wilderness there was an increase from 25% women in the 1978 sample to 31% in 1990. Outfitters believe there is generally an increasing tendency for "nontraditional" users of wilderness (i.e., more women, more persons with disabilities, and more minorities, specifically Hispanics and Asians). The outfitters believed that these changes in visitor characteristics were related to increases in income and opportunity rather than cultural values regarding wilderness.

Use of wilderness by minorities and their ties to the land, is being examined in depth by Patricia Winter, a social scientist with the U.S. Forest Service's Wildland Recreation and Urban Culture Research Project in Riverside, California, one of the symposium panelists. Looking at wilderness users in urban-proximate wilderness, she is investigating whether urban-proximate wilderness visitor expectations are different from other wilderness users.

Winter found that only 8% of a sample of San Gorgonio Wilderness users were racial minorities (mainly Hispanics and Asians), although the nearby communities of Los Angeles are 20 to 40% Hispanic. While minorities are not well represented among wilderness users, even in wilderness areas with high numbers of minorities in nearby communities, continued growth in this segment of the population suggests the need for better knowledge about the values minorities associate with wilderness.

Another strongly consistent change across the wilderness studies spectrum was the increased educational level of visitors. Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness visitors increased from a median education achievement level of 13.1 years in 1969 to 16.4 years in 1991. Over half of the 1991 visitors had a four-year college degree. Despite these consistent and dramatic education changes, income was found to increase only slightly. The median household income of desolation visitors, for example, (in 1990 U.S. dollars) was near $50,000 per year in both 1972 and 1990.

Another strongly consistent change was the proportion of visitors who have visited other wilderness areas. In the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, this proportion changed from 45 to 58%. Of course, there are many more wilderness areas today that provide people with more opportunities to visit a federally protected wilderness than there have been at any time in the past.

The last strongly consistent change was a tendency for visitors to evaluate litter as significantly less of a problem than they reported in earlier studies. Even though it was consistently rated as less of a problem than in the earlier studies, litter was still the most serious problem, according to visitors, of the problems investigated.

Things That Did Not Change

From the five wilderness studies there were 14 user characteristics that showed no change between years. Characteristics that remained the same were length of stay; percentage of visitors from urban areas (wilderness users continue to be mostly urban residents); the percentage of people who hike, swim, or photograph; visitor evaluations of wear and tear on resource conditions; distance traveled off-trail; ability to find a preferred level of solitude; number of groups encountered around campsites; and attitudes toward facility development (day users remained ambivalent about facilities and overnighters still slightly oppose them). Thus, visitor characteristics changed more than the kind of trips they took, the experiences they sought, or the evaluations of their visits.

Things to Watch for in the Future

Bill Hansen reported his perception that the persons who use outfitters are seeking solitude, renewal, and a wilderness experience, the same as nonoutfitted users. Outfitted visitors, however, are willing to pay for better food, lightweight canoes, and better equipment. At the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, for example, they are expecting this market to continue to increase. Bulky aluminum canoes are being replaced by lightweight, new technology canoes, and the visitors are willing to pay the difference it takes to use them.

Use by nontraditional visitors is expected to increase. Wilderness Inquiry, the organization that offers trips at places such as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, the Everglades, Grand Canyon, and Yellowstone by canoe, kayak, horseback, or on foot, surveyed wilderness managers across the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) and asked them to estimate use by persons with disabilities. The gross estimate was 16,000 persons with disabilities visiting wilderness each year, and these numbers are increasing. Past research suggests that for persons with disabilities the high points of a wilderness visit are scenery, location, a sense of achievement, personal relationships with other group members, and solitude. The low points--rugged terrain, physical discomfort, poor access at entry points, and uncooperative group members--are similar to those of the general wilderness-using population. Persons with disabilities want the same experience as other wilderness visitors. They want wilderness on its own terms, not modified or changed. Wilderness managers would do well to note that persons with disabilities understand the risks and challenges that come with wilderness and look forward to them.

Future Changes in Wilderness Use

Is the way we use and value wilderness going to change? Recreation is still one of the biggest uses of wilderness (or at least the most studied/reported on) and the types of recreation activities pursued in wilderness remains roughly the same. Bill Hansen of Sawbill Outfitters, says Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness visitors are first and foremost seeking the wilderness values of solitude and renewal. Fishing, once a major attraction for his company's clients, is no longer a primary focus for most users.

Wilderness managers and the public alike are beginning to focus more on values beyond the purely recreational use of wilderness. One of the key points made by Dan Williams of the University of Illinois, is that what we value about wilderness, in addition to what we do in wilderness, should guide how we describe and manage it. To date, most studies have focused on recreational use of wilderness, but Williams now sees more interest by scientists in studying relationships between humans and nature and suggests this will continue to be the focus of many future studies and of future management.

..we must begin to consider how people experience and value places. "A sense of place," ... depends not only on how we value or use wilderness when we are there, but how we value it when we are not there.

There is also more interest in scientific study of ecological values of wilderness. Some managers and university scientists believe that over the last five years recreational values of wilderness has received less emphasis, compared to ecological values. Alan Ewert of the University of Northern British Columbia fears that the importance and power of the wilderness experience will be downplayed. Coupled with less emphasis on environmental education by natural resource agencies, Ewert speculates this could lead to a decline in youth participation in wilderness. Managers need to ensure that the values, interests, and skills related to being in a natural environment are encouraged in young people, and recreation is one way of experiencing and inculcating these values.

The way we use and value wilderness has become global in scale. At the 1989 celebration of the 25th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act, Williams cited Michael McClosky's suggestion that we export the concept of wilderness to other countries in order to protect some of the earth's last wild places. This, too, has been the subject of much debate in recent years among wilderness managers and academics. Williams reminds us that our concept of wilderness is uniquely American. The historical context that led us to protect wilderness as part of our national heritage cannot be transferred cross-culturally. Other countries do not have the same reasons for preserving wild places, or the same types of use. Indeed, for indigenous populations, recreational use of the scale that America has may be an anathema. In the United States we see wilderness as an uncivilized place where humans are only visitors. For developing countries whose indigenous populations must exist in and depend on the resources, this concept does not fit into their cultural context.

Williams suggests two viewpoints to put recreational use of wilderness into perspective. First, perhaps we should question the idea of recreation as a strictly utilitarian use of wilderness. Recreation can be nonutilitarian as well as provide a flow of experiences and benefits, and should not be considered the key concept of wilderness. It is a mistake, however, if wilderness advocates minimize the value of recreational use of wilderness in an effort to bolster the case for nonutilitarian values. Much of that recreational use is an expression of the greater value of wilderness; its meaning is not merely seeking a wilderness experience but a statement of the human value of that type of place. Second, we must begin to consider how people experience and value places. A "sense of place," so often talked about by landscape architects and others today, depends not only on how we value or use wilderness when we are there, but how we value it when we are not there. Wilderness has cultural meaning to us and individuals bring their own cultural meanings and expectations with them to create their wilderness experience. Cultural values, such as subsistence or ancestral values, are not usually addressed in studies which focus on recreational use.

Perhaps it is time for development of a broader wilderness ethic. Julia Parker, with the Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultural Research Project in Riverside, California, suggested that different kinds of people with different kinds of values will view wilderness differently. Do our present concepts of wilderness reflect the diversity of values of the American population? Perhaps they did at one time, but in the last 30 years the racial and ethnic make-up of the American population has changed. Parker suggests it is time for a greater democratization of wilderness concepts; otherwise, we run the risk of having income, opportunity, and cultural background become determining factors in who uses wilderness. Wilderness runs the risk of being thought of as an elitist value and if we don't collect more data on ethnic minorities and other nonusers we won't know if wilderness is indeed an elitist notion or if it has broad support.

Management Implications

Since visitor attitudes toward wilderness and visitor use patterns have remained relatively consistent despite sociodemographic changes in the U.S. population, wilderness managers may have less need to worry about shifts in the sociodemo-graphic characteristics we have traditionally monitored (e.g., age, education, income) and more need to focus on ethnicity changes in society or neighboring communities, disabled and minority uses of wilderness, general public awareness of wilderness concepts and values, and risks of income and opportunity becoming determining factors in wilderness access.

Trends in Wilderness Management

The NWPS has grown from nine million acres designated in 1964, to more than 104 million acres. Thus, the American public has voiced its approval of wilderness through Congress and the presidential administration's actions. John Twiss, the National Wilderness Program Leader for the U.S. Forest Service in Washington, D.C., has an answer for that oft-asked question, "How much more wilderness can be designated?" By his estimate, there's another possible 60 million acres out there, including former RARE II areas, protected areas, and de facto (roadless) wilderness. The 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act and the 1994 California Desert Protection Act suggest that wilderness designation is still feasible. Congress will respond when the support for wilderness designation is strong enough. The current focus is on potential wilderness additions in Utah, Alaska, Arizona, and New Mexico, with significant additional opportunities in Idaho, Montana, and other states.

Natural processes won't cease no matter what, but challenges lie ahead too. Twiss identified the four greatest threats to wilderness as being: 1) distortion of natural processes, primarily due to the lack of fire (resulting in unnatural fuel buildup); 2) pollution to air and water, and introduction and spread of exotic species; 3) misuse and impacts by people, though recreation use occurs on only about 2% of the wilderness land base; 4) lack of scientific monitoring. Using the U.S. Forest Service as an example, less than $1 million is spent on research; that's less than one-half of one percent of the budget, and wilderness comprises about 20% of U.S. Forest Service lands. At present, it's hard to report to Congress on the condition of the NWPS without data. Twiss is adamant in calling for more baseline research and monitoring to detect changes in wilderness conditions.

Twiss also commented on legal trends. Interest from Congress is higher than ever, especially in wilderness allocation and management. There is also some interest from Congress in declassifying wilderness, a move that could set a new precedent. Twiss also expects an increase in lawsuits, more appeals over management actions or lack thereof, and prescriptive legislation telling managers how to manage wilderness. Allocation will continue, although more slowly.

Another trend is increased cooperation between agencies, with more exchange of information and research, and the combined management of some resources. An example would be a prescribed fire being allowed to burn across agency boundaries, or across wilderness boundaries. Managers can expect to deal with more nonconforming issues, and will be monitored more closely by watchdog groups focusing on how wildernesses are managed. More groups like Wilderness Watch or Friends of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness may form. Interest in wilderness and its management will go higher, and managers will need to be able to answer the questions Congress and the public will be asking.

Many wilderness managers had the chance to contribute their views of important trends in wilderness management through a survey at the Sixth National Wilderness Conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in November 1994. By ranking their concerns, Chris Barns of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management was able to compare results from a similar ranking done in 1983 at a wilderness conference in Moscow, Idaho. Topping the list of concerns by managers in 1994 was the absence of natural processes (28.3% of maximum possible standardized score of 100, compared to only 11% in 1983). Other high-rated concerns in 1994 included nonconforming legal uses (21% compared to 20% in 1983), ecosystem management outside wilderness (21% compared to 10.6% in 1983), and the need to educate nontraditional users (20.2% compared to 15.2% in 1983).

Interestingly, the role of wilderness in biodiversity and ecosystems, rated by 1994 respondents at 12.3%, was not even mentioned in the 1983 survey. In addition, the issue of handicapped accessibility, rated as a concern by 3.8% of managers, was the lowest-rated issue in 1983. The number one issue from 1983, Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) planning and recreation carrying capacity, was only listed by 10.6% of managers in 1994.

Barns reported the top five actions obtained from multiple meetings, which utilized the nominal group process facilitation method, at the National Wilderness Conference held in Santa Fe were the need to: 1) acquire legal authority and funding to retire nonconforming uses in wilderness; 2) develop and commit to a national strategy to address wilderness education; 3) restore the natural process of fire to wilderness ecosystems; 4) continue to fund a field-based work force; and 5) add wilderness education to environmental education curricula for grades K-12.

As a result of the changing issues and top actions recommended by the participants at the 1994 conference, Barns anticipates an increase in management's attention to the biophysical aspects of wilderness rather than concentrating on the recreational/social values. In discussing trends in wilderness education, he suggests there will be a move toward greater emphasis on the values of wilderness and away from education being primarily concerned with low impact methods of visitation.

Implications

First, wilderness managers will need more expertise in legal aspects of wilderness. Such expertise will not only help in avoiding appeals and lawsuits, but a sound knowledge of pertinent wilderness legislation will ensure managers have firm ground for decision making. Second, as the number of watchdog groups increase, wilderness managers will need to cooperate with them, enlisting their aid in developing management standards and wilderness regulations. Third, more money is needed for baseline research and monitoring. More wilderness research information looking at ecosystem functions as well as user impacts will help managers make better decisions. Fourth, managers must place greater emphasis on restoring natural processes in wilderness, specifically by increasing the use of prescribed fire, both natural and management-ignited. Fifth and last, there must be more cooperation in managing wilderness that extends across agency units and to other agencies. There must be more consistency in management across the NWPS.

Trends in Higher Education for Wilderness Managers

One of the major opportunities to shape wilderness management in the future is the education of wilderness managers. Traditionally natural resource curricula have been sorely lacking in this area. Often superficial, sometimes omitted completely, academic courses in wilderness management have been scarce in universities, or just touched on in classes in recreation management. But students leaving universities with natural resource degrees need to have an appreciation of wilderness, an understanding of its complexities, and an awareness of current policy and management issues.

Perry Brown, dean of the School of Forestry at the University of Montana, believes education is a key path to achieving more holistic wilderness management. Brown expressed a view that wilderness study in a university curriculum should use a "wilderness and civilization" approach (an option at Montana) to teach students how wilderness fits into American life. In this approach, a combination of biology, music, art, history, religion, economics, and philosophy are interwoven to instill a personal wilderness ethic and an understanding of wilderness values. A second approach to wilderness is to emphasize management, but Brown states that curricula must embody a holistic view of land ethics, land management, and ecosystem management, focusing not just on biological and physical components of a landscape but on the human component and what the landscape means to humans. Brown insisted it's time to make a greater investment in wilderness managers, and he expressed a view that all natural resource curricula should offer opportunities for students to develop wilderness policy and legal expertise. He also suggested that the prevalent attitude has been that agency recreation and wilderness programs would provide wilderness education for their employees through hands-on experience and training.

Craig Mackey of Outward Bound suggests that agencies with wilderness stewardship responsibilities are still far behind in wilderness education. Mackey expressed disappointment that 31 years after passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964 there is still a great need for basic wilderness education of managers and the public in general. Implications: Wilderness may soon be recognized as its own field of specialization in natural resources, and universities will need to respond to a demand for more classes or programs in wilderness management. IJW

Barbara Cook, U.S. Forest Service, National Forests of Florida, Woodcrest Office Park, 325 John Knox Road, Suite F-100, Tallahassee, FL 32303 USA. William Borrie, School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. View Dr. Borrie's Wilderness on the World Wide Web site here.

1 Proceedings from the Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium (May 14-17, 1995) may be obtained from the University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources, 115 Green Hall, 1530 North Cleveland Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.

References

Burde, J. H., and K. A. Curran. 1986. User perception of backcountry management policies at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. In Wilderness and Natural Areas in the Eastern United States: A Management Challenge. D. L. Kulhavy, and R. N. Conner, eds. Nacogdoches, Texas: Center for Applied Studies, School of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University. 223-228.

Cole, D., A. Watson, and J. Roggenbuck. In press. Trends in Wilderness Visitors and Visits: Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Shining Rock, and Desolation Wildernesses. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Lucas, R. 1980. Use patterns and visitor characteristics, attitudes and preferences in nine wilderness and other roadless areas. Research Paper INT-253. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Lucas, R. 1985. Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and use patterns in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, 1970-1982. Research Paper INT-345. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Roggenbuck, J., and A. Watson. 1988. Wilderness recreation use: the current situation. In Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: Proc. of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum. A. Watson, comp. January 13-14, 1988, Tampa, Fla. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-52. Asheville, N.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 346-356.

Roggenbuck, J., A. Watson, and G. Stankey. 1982. Wilderness management in the Southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 6:147-152.

Stankey, G. 1971. The perception of wilderness recreation carrying capacity: a geographic study in natural resources management. Ph.D. diss. Michigan State University. East Lansing, Mich.

__________. 1973. Visitor perception of wilderness recreation carrying capacity. Research Paper INT-142. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

__________. 1980. A comparison of carrying capacity perceptions among visitors to two wildernesses. Research Paper INT-242. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.