We explore the extent to which visitor experiences and management preferences vary between the most heavily used places in wilderness and places that are less popular. We also contrast day and overnight users. The study was conducted in Forest Service administered wildernesses in Oregon and Washington using both on-site and mailback questionnaires. The on-site questionnaires were administered as visitors exited the wilderness at 36 trailheads in 13 wildernesses. The trail use ranged from very high to moderate. To include visitors who selected low use trails, we sent mailback questionnaires to self-issue permit holders. We describe visitor characteristics, trip characteristics, motivations and experiences, encounters with other groups, attitudes toward recreation management, and opinions about the Forest Service. Differences related to use level were surprisingly small. Differences between day and overnight users were also small. We found evidence that wilderness experiences were adversely affected at high use locations but most visitors consider these effects to be of little importance. Most visitors to the more popular places make psychological adjustments to heavy use, allowing most of them to find solitude and have what they consider "a real wilderness experience." Consequently, most are not supportive of use limits to avoid people related problems. We draw conclusions about potential indicators, standards, and management actions for heavily-used places in wilderness.

Excerpt from High-Use Destinations in Wilderness: Social and Biophysical Impacts, Visitor Responses, and Management Options Management responses to problems at high-use destinations are determined to a great extent by agency policy and tradition (fish and Bury National Park Service wilderness managers are much more likely to adopt a regulatory management program than managers of other agencies Considerable varia tion in response appears to result from personal opin ion and, in almost all cases, actions are taken without much pre-existing data on the nature and extent of the problems being attacked. Decisions about management of high-use destina tions should be based on a thorough understanding of levels of human impact in the area and the effects on visitors of conditions and of management responses to those conditions. Various management options should be considered regarding the improvements they might bring about and the costs of those actions - denied access, displacement of use and impact, and manage ment obtrusiveness. Managers need to answer such questions as. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.

We describe how wilderness visitors perceive changes in wilderness use, impacts, and management. We examine how visitors have responded to change, both behaviorally and cognitively. The study was based on a sample of visitors to 19 Forest Service wildernesses in Oregon and Washington. Many respondents said the types of wilderness trips they take have changed since their earlier wilderness trips. Most perceived adverse change. Use has increased (particularly day use), resulting in crowding and a widespread sense that these places seem less like wilderness than they did in the past. Most of these visitors learned to cope with these adverse changes by either adjusting the way they think about these places or by adjusting their behavior. Cognitive coping, particularly rationalization, is very common. Most visitors do not consider changing conditions to be very problematic, probably because their coping mechanisms are successful. This explains lack of support for management actions that restrict access. Very few visitors cannot cope with crowded conditions. Displacement of visitors away from crowded places does not seem prevalent enough for concern about increased crowding and biophysical impact in places in wilderness that are currently lightly used or the validity of on-site visitor surveys.