Management Dilemmas that will Shape Wilderness in the 21st Century
by David Cole.
Journal of Forestry 99(1): 4-8 Leopold Publication Number 419

Abstract:
How we resolve two management dilemmas will determine the future nature and value of wilderness. The first dilemma is providing for use and enjoyment while protecting wilderness conditions. The second is whether wilderness ecosystems should be left wild and "untrammeled" or, paradoxically, be manipulated toward a more natural state. Alternative solutions are explored. Because compromises between value systems will tend to homogenize wilderness areas, such that no area will fully meet any goal, we should consider allocating separate lands to each goal. Expanding our conception of wilderness will help us develop a diverse system that satisfies multiple needs.

Goal Interference and Social Value Differences:
Understanding Wilderness Conflicts and Implications for Managing Social Density
Watson, Alan E. 2001. In: Freimund, Wayne A.; Cole, David N. comps. Visitor Use Density and Wilderness Experience. 2001 June 1-3; Missoula, MT U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Ogden, UT Proc RMRS-P-20: 62-66 - Leopold Publication Number 430

Abstract:
Wilderness conflict research has mostly followed the direction of recreation research in the U.S. An interpersonal recreation conflict model proposed in the late 1970's has guided much of the conflict research in wilderness, with emphasis on determining the amount of interpersonal conflict resulting from goal interference and how much one or more hypothesized contributors actually influence the occurrence of conflict. This approach is heavily rooted in expectancy-valence theory explanations of human recreation behavior and may contribute to an understanding of how social densities influence perceptions of conflict. The contributions of activity style, resource specificity, mode of experience, and lifestyle tolerance to understanding interpersonal conflict arising from crowding largely comes in the form of understanding the role of expectations and importance attached to social density preferences. Today, however, wilderness conflict extends beyond recreation within the boundaries of wilderness, beyond interpersonal interaction, and beyond the boundaries of wilderness to competing demands for the wilderness resource. Understanding of the causes for differences in attitudes toward wilderness and the meaning various subpopulations attribute to wilderness resources will be critical to developing solutions for conflict management and managing the social mix among all demands in the future.

Use Density, Visitor Experience and Limiting Recreational Use in Wilderness: Progress to Date and Research Needs
Freimund, Wayne A.; Cole, David N. 2001. In: Freimund, Wayne A.; Cole, David N. comps. Visitor Use Density and Wilderness Experience. 2001 June 1-3; Missoula, MT U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Ogden, UT Proc RMRS-P-20: 3-8 - Leopold Publication Number 431

Abstract:

Recent increases in demand have revitalized interest and controversy surrounding use limits and the effect of visitor density on wilderness experiences. A workshop held in Missoula, Montana, in June of 2000 addressed the potential for social science to contribute to understanding and managing increasingly populated wilderness conditions. Scientists identified progress in our understanding of use density impacts on the wilderness visitor. Management frameworks such as Limits of Acceptable Change have proven beneficial in assisting managers. Science has also advanced the ability to assess and interpret visitor opinion about use density. However several limitations to our understanding and research needs emerged from this workshop. Contemporary visitor assessments have largely been constrained to current visitors of individual management units. Visitor opinion tends to focus on indicators rather than the actual experience of individuals. We need an improved understanding of the multidimensionality of the wilderness experience and how solitude is defined as one dimension of experience. Poor understanding of the impacts of use limits on visitor experiences and population dynamics is also a problem. The absence of information about visitors at regional scales, poses problems to understanding how visitor populations are affected by use limits or why objections to limits are prevalent in some places and not others. To address these issues, the science community will need to be inclusive of additional research methods based on a broader suite of conceptual frameworks that can be integrated at multiple scales.

Day Users in Wilderness: How Different are They?
Cole, David N. 2001. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-31. 29 p. - Leopold Publication Number 435

Abstract:
This study describes the trip and visitor characteristics, evaluations, and preferences of day users in wilderness, by contrasting them with overnight users. Data from the Three Sisters (OR), Desolation (CA), Bob Marshall (MT), Charles Deam (IN), Caney Creek (AR), Shining Rock (NC), and Cohutta (GA) Wildernesses are presented. Primary conclusions were that: (1) day users and overnight users are not profoundly different; (2) day users are more tolerant of relatively crowded conditions and less likely to see an immediate need to limit use (at least in places that receive substantial day use); (3) day users are typically as experienced in wilderness travel, and as attached to wilderness and supportive of wilderness protection as overnight users; (4) day users may be as interested in a wilderness experience as overnight users, although there is some evidence to the contrary; and (5) day use of wilderness might be considered less wilderness dependent than overnight use. Implications related to meeting the needs and desires of day users and the management of wilderness trails and destinations that receive heavy day use are discussed.