international journal of wilderness, vol 09 no 1, april 2003

I N T E R N A T I O N A L

Journal of WildernessAPRIL 2003 VOLUME 9, NUMBER 1

3

4

9

14

19

20

30

32

34

38

41

46

48

FEATURESEDITORIAL PERSPECTIVESMindful EducationBuilding a Wilderness RenaissanceBY REBECCA ORESKES

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESSOlaus Murie’s Spiritual Connection with WildernessBY JAMES M. GLOVER

STEWARDSHIPProposal to Establish a Professional Societyfor Wilderness StewardshipBY WAYNE FREIMUND and CONNIE G. MYERS

Commentary on the Freimund-Myers WildernessStewardship Organization ProposalBY JOHN C. HENDEE

SCIENCE AND RESEARCHManaging Bushwalker Impacts in the TasmanianWilderness World Heritage Area, AustraliaBY MARK A. BENNETT, LORNE K. KRIWOKEN, and LIZA D. FALLON

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLDWILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTEReducing Barriers to Science-based ManagementBY VITA WRIGHT

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATIONEmerging Principles for Using Information/Education in Wilderness ManagementBY ROBERT E. MANNING

Wilderness Information and Education inthe Three Sisters WildernessBY LES JOSLIN

Leave the Rocks for the Next GlacierLow Impact Education in a High Use National ParkBY CHARLIE JACOBI

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION, cont.Frontcountry Visitor Information/EducationProgramsAre There Lessons for Wilderness?BY YU-FAI LEUNG and ARAM ATTARIAN

Yosemite’s Principled Approach to WildernessEducationBY LAUREL BOYERS, GARY KOY, and BARB MIRANDA

The Superstition Wilderness Education ProgramA Vision That Made a DifferenceBY GREGORY HANSEN

An Evaluation of the Wilderness and Land EthicCurriculum and Teacher WorkshopsBY KARI GUNDERSON and LEO H. McAVOY

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVEWilderness Research in South AfricaDefining Priorities at the Intersection of Qualities,Threats, Values, and StakeholdersBY MARETHA SHROYER, ALAN WATSON, and ANDREW MUIR

WILDERNESS DIGESTAnnouncements and Wilderness Calendar

Book ReviewsThe Wilderness from Chamberlain Farm: A Story of

Hope for the American WildBy Dean BennettREVIEW BY STEVE HOLLENHORST

Natural Selections: National Parks in AtlanticCanada, 1935–1970By Alan MacEachernREVIEW BY JOHN SHULTIS

13

28

36

FRONT COVER image shows the sandstone canyon walls and waterfall ofKings Canyon, Watarrka National Park, Northern Territory, Australia. INSET PHOTOis of a Thorny Devil (Moloch horridus) Alice Springs Desert Park, Alice Springs,Northern Territory, Australia. Both photos are courtesy of Alan Watson/Forest Light,Caledonia, Findhorn, Forres IV360YY, Scotland Tel: 01309-690934/691 1292.

2 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2003 • VOLUME 9, NUMBER 1

EDITORIAL BOARDAlan W. Ewert, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind., USA

Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation, Ojai, Calif., USAAlan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont., USA

John Shultis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., CanadaSteve Hollenhorst, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA

Wayne A. Freimund, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USARebecca Oreskes, White Mountain National Forest, Gorham, N.H., USA

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFJohn C. Hendee, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho, USA

MANAGING EDITORChad P. Dawson, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y., USA

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—INTERNATIONALGordon Cessford, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand; Karen Fox, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Andrew Muir,Wilderness Foundation Eastern Cape, South Africa; Ian Player, South Africa National Parks Board and The Wilderness Foundation, Howick, Natal, Republic ofSouth Africa; Vicki A. M. Sahanatien, Fundy National Park, Alma, Canada; Won Sop Shin, Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, Korea; Anna-LiisaSippola, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland; Franco Zunino, Associazione Italiana per la Wilderness, Murialdo, Italy.

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—UNITED STATESGreg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo.; David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont.; John Daigle, University ofMaine, Orono, Maine; Don Fisher, USFS, Washington D.C.; Lewis Glenn, Outward Bound USA, Garrison, N.Y.; Glenn Haas, Colorado State University, FortCollins, Colo.; Troy Hall, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; William Hammit, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.; Greg Hansen, U.S. Forest Service, Mesa,Ariz.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg.; Bill Hendricks, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif.;Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Jim Mahoney, Bureau of Land Management, Sierra Vista, Ariz.; Bob Manning, University of Vermont,Burlington, Vt.; Jeffrey Marion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Leo McAvoy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Michael McCloskey,Sierra Club; Christopher Monz, Sterling College, Craftsbury Common, Vt.; Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.;Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz.; Marilyn Riley, WildernessTransitions Inc., Sausalito, Calif.; Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins,Colo.; Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg.; Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Rudy Schuster, SUNY-ESF,Syracuse, N.Y.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif.; Dave White, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe, Ariz.

International Journal of Wilderness

International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) publishes three issues per year(April, August, and December). IJW is a not-for-profit publication.

Manuscripts to: Chad P. Dawson, SUNY-ESF, 320 Bray Hall, OneForestry Drive, Syracuse, N.Y. 13210-2787, USA. Telephone: (315)470-6567. Fax: (315) 470-6535. E-mail: [email protected].

Business Management and Subscriptions: WILD Foundation, P.O.Box 1380, Ojai, CA 93024, USA. Fax: (805) 640-0230. E-mail:[email protected].

Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are inU.S. dollars only—$35 for individuals and $55 for organizations/libraries. Subscriptions from Canada and Mexico, add $10; outside NorthAmerica, add $20. Back issues are available for $15.

All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright© 2003 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation.Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to makefair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.

Submissions: Contributions pertinent to wilderness worldwide aresolicited, including articles on wilderness planning, management,and allocation strategies; wilderness education, including descriptionsof key programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, andenvironmental education; wilderness-related science and research fromall disciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects ofwilderness; and international perspectives describing wildernessworldwide. Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, bookreviews, announcements, and information for the wilderness digest areencouraged. A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines isavailable from the managing editor.

Artwork: Submission of artwork and photographs with captions areencouraged. Photo credits will appear in a byline; artwork may be signedby the author.

World Wide Website: www.ijw.org.

Printed on recycled paper.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS• Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute • Indiana University, Department of Recreation and Park Administration • NationalOutdoor Leadership School (NOLS) • Outward Bound™ • SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry • The WILD®

Foundation • The Wilderness Society • University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center • University of Montana, School of Forestryand Wilderness Institute • USDA Forest Service • USDI Bureau of Land Management • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service • USDINational Park Service • Wilderness Foundation (South Africa) • Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa)

The International Journal of Wilderness links wilderness professionals, scientists, educators, environmentalists, and interestedcitizens worldwide with a forum for reporting and discussing wilderness ideas and events; inspirational ideas; planning, management,

and allocation strategies; education; and research and policy aspects of wilderness stewardship.

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2003 • VOLUME 9, NUMBER 1 3

FEATURES

E D I T O R I A L P E R S P E C T I V E S

Mindful EducationBuilding a Wilderness Renaissance

BY REBECCA ORESKES

On a rainy October afternoon in northern NewYork, I was surrounded by wilderness advocatesfrom the Adirondacks and across the country. In

the state that created wilderness by decree long before thefederal government thought to do the same, in these woodsthat sheltered the cabin from which Howard Zanhiser wrotemuch of the U.S. Wilderness Act, I felt privileged to be inthe company of women and men whom had devoted longand illustrious lives to the preservation of wild places. Inthis company of scientists, writers, lawyers, teachers, art-ists, and managers, I felt surrounded by the ideals of therenaissance: broad thinkers with openness to new ideas andgrowth. At that moment, I felt deeply that understandingwilderness is about creating a renaissance—a new birth withnew ways of thinking. This new birth allows people to holdmultiple values—to exalt in the artistic and the intellectual,the scientific and the spiritual; to understand our humanityand the life force of nature as part of our existence. Thesetraits are all part of an expanding spirit, a piece of the mind-fulness of which Bob Manning writes in this issue.

If mindfulness is our goal, then we can explore its possi-bilities through this issue devoted to wilderness educationand outreach. How do we enliven people’s minds to helpthem nurture and protect wilderness? James Glover takesus through the life of Olaus Murie and helps us to see thedeeply personal traits of wilderness: humility, spirituality,and the meaning we must all seek behind the trappings ofoutward endeavors.

If Murie’s life and work had unconscious ties to the Tao,then Bob Manning’s article makes a direct tie to helpingwilderness visitors become mindful of their actions in

wilderness. “A mindful visitor …consciously thinks about appro-priate ways to behave.” The articlesthat follow give the managers’perspectives on the challenges ofcreating mindfulness.

Would our work, as mindfulwilderness stewards, be furtheredby a professional organization, assuggested by Connie Meyers andWayne Freimund? John Hendeeresponds by wondering if a newprofessional organization mighthelp or hurt the cause of wilder-ness stewardship.

All too often education isused as nothing more than a forum for propaganda andchanneling rather than opening people’s minds. Wheneducation is truly grounded in helping us better under-stand ourselves and our place in the world, as so manyarticles in this issue point out, then it helps us reachmindfulness and begin to create the kind of renaissancethat values wilderness. Laurel Boyers, Gary Koy, and BarbMiranda share their vision that “in education is the pres-ervation of wilderness.” Perhaps mindfulness througheducation leads to the expression that “in mindfulnessis the preservation of wilderness.”

REBECCA ORESKES is recreation and wilderness program leader,White Mountain National Forest, and an IJW editor. E-mail:[email protected].

Article author Rebecca Oreskes.


S O U L O F T H E W I L D E R N E S S

FEATURES

Olaus Murie’s SpiritualConnection with Wilderness

BY JAMES M. GLOVER

In the early 1950s the U.S. National Park Service con-sidered building a church on the south rim of the GrandCanyon. Olaus J. Murie thought it was a bad idea.

“Architectural gymnastics,” he argued, would not add tothe sacredness of the place. He continued as follows:

The Grand Canyon and the other beautiful andmeaningful dedicated portions of our wonderfulearth, should not be cluttered with mere man-made-contrivances. … And we human beingsshould forget our modern exultation in materialprogress and approach the Grand Canyon andsimilar places with humility, in the hope that wecan improve ourselves (Murie, ca 1953).

By that time Murie was intohis sixties but still active in wilder-ness issues. As reflected in thatquote, he had developed a spiri-tual attitude toward the Earth andits natural processes that was re-flected in nearly everything he did.

Murie rarely gets mentionedthese days among the great heroesof wilderness preservation. But heshould, for several reasons. Forstarters, through direct experi-ence, he was probably morefamiliar with the wildest places inNorth America than anyone hasever been. His skills as a wilder-ness traveler were extraordinary,

built up over years of studying caribou, elk, grizzlies, andmany other species for the U.S. Biological Survey. He madelandmark studies of North American elk and caribou, wasone of the first scientists to point out the ecological rela-tionship between wolves and caribou, and was among the

first scientists to take up the cause of predators and raptorson both ecological and ethical grounds. As an activist, hewas directly involved in several of the most significant pres-ervation efforts of the 20th century. He wrote prolifically ofthe American wilderness and its wildlife. He illustrated sev-eral books with very accomplished drawings of animals andlandscapes. In his later years, he served as a kindly mentorto a variety of young naturalists and conservationists whowould in turn make an impact in conservation (Glover1989; Kendrick 1978; Murie 1952).

But despite all his tangible accomplishments (and therewere many more than those mentioned here), what fasci-nates me most, and what I admire most, about Murie, isthat deep spiritual connection to the earth. He felt it asearly as the summer of 1920, when he found himselfcamped in Denali National Park as part of his landmarkstudy of Alaskan caribou ecology. Writing to his fiancée,Margaret Thomas, back in Fairbanks, he said: “I guess I amstill enrolled in the Lutheran Church at home, but there isno one church or creed with which I fully agree. For onething, I am crazy about Nature, and almost worship it, butisn’t Nature the direct work of God?” (Murie 1920)

This spirituality of Murie’s, then, was not some costumehe wore to impress others, or a fad he went through on theway to maturity. It was his maturity. It takes maturity toreally accept the unimportance of human achievements, orto recognize how much humans do not know, or to under-stand that it’s sometimes best to leave things alone.

These and other aspects of Murie’s philosophy, it turnsout, are remarkably similar to those advocated some 2,500years ago, in the Tao de Ching. I say “remarkably” becausethere’s no evidence that Murie ever read much or receivedany instruction about Taoism. He seems to have found iton his own without realizing it had a label. Or, perhapsmore likely, he had some idea that his philosophy was much

Article author James M. Glover.


like the ancient Taoists, but did notcare to label himself.

In either case, Murie’s philosophy andactions fit well into such Taoist principlesas noninterference, nonaction, the im-portance—even the beauty—of death,the value of intuitive knowledge, and thesacredness of cycles.

Another Taoist precept is humility,which Murie valued greatly. If you willforgive the paradox, he took greatpride in his humility. He also thoughtit should be carefully developed in ev-ery child, cultivated by every nation.

What Murie saw instead was a cul-ture growing increasingly arroganttoward other cultures and toward na-ture. Examples, for Murie, wereeverywhere, especially in the years af-ter World War II when a sort of blindfaith in technology seemed to sweep thecountry. The arrogance was there in theeffort to do away with “harmful” formsof wildlife, in the construction of enor-mous dams to “control” wild rivers, inthe spraying of chemical pesticidesfrom airplanes in the cattle country ofthe west, and in the usurpation of wild-lands by a rapidly growing military.

Murie expressed concern about allthese major issues. Even more reveal-ing, perhaps, was his concern with thesmall signs of expanding human arro-gance. He was disgusted by therelatively harmless practice of namingnatural features after human beings.Similarly, he opposed the constructionof human monuments, especially inplaces where the much greater powerand mystery of natural processes wereon display. This opposition resulted inan ironic situation when he died, inthe fall of 1963. Admirers wanted tobuild a rather large monument toMurie in Jackson, Wyoming. Hiswidow, Margaret, had to argue strenu-ously to prevent them from doing so,knowing that it would violate one ofOlaus’s strongest beliefs.

You might be surprised that Muriewas not especially keen on the effortby his partner in The Wilderness So-ciety, Howard Zahniser, to get awilderness bill passed. As most read-ers know, Zahniser’s effort did resultin The Wilderness Act of 1964 andthe creation of a federal wildernesssystem. Murie’s uncertainty was basedon two concerns. The first was thatZahniser, for about eight years, wasfocusing nearly all of The WildernessSociety’s resources on a piece of leg-islation that stood an excellent chanceof never being adopted, much like ahigh stakes gambler who bets it allon one hand. In the meantime, Muriefeared, real wilderness in real placeswas slipping away.

Second, Murie was suspicious ofefforts to create a centralized govern-mental “system” to solve a problemthat, in his view, could best be ad-dressed through educational effortsand grassroots movements in specificregions. Much of Murie’s viewpointon this issue was colored by his ownexperience working for the federal

government—the U.S. Biological Sur-vey—for nearly 25 years. He had seenthe potential for corruption, incom-petence, and counterproductiveresults that such a centralized systemholds. He had personally experiencedbeing given orders from an office5,000 miles away that had no rel-evance to his real work. He had seenhis agency sold out to industries benton extirpating everything fromwolves to magpies in order to bettermass-produce corn and cattle. He hadseen some of his own research sup-pressed when it did not conform tobureau policies. And, on at least oneoccasion, he found himself forbiddento give a presentation at a wildlifeconference because of what he hadto say.

And so, his own experience rein-forced what his Taoist-like intuitionprobably told him: that centralized,legalistic approaches to problems areeasily corrupted—or are a sign of aculture already corrupted. One is re-minded of the chapter in the Tao deChing that reads in part:

Members of the 1954 Murie Arctic Expedition that resulted in establishment of Arctic National Wildlife “Range” in1960. Left to right: Olaus Murie, Mardy Murie, Murie family doctor who visited, George Schaller, Brina Kessel.Courtesy Robert Krear.


The more laws and restrictions there are,The poorer people become …The more rules and regulations,The more thieves and robbers(Lau Tzu 1989).

It seems today that Murie waswrong and Zahniser was right, havingwon his all-or-nothing gamble. Nodoubt, had he lived to see this, Muriewould have been delighted to beproven wrong. In any case, again,Murie’s skepticism about a wildernessbill, though surprising at first glance,was consistent with his philosophy.

The great challenge for Murie wasto do what he could within a culturewhose institutions seemed increasingly

to represent values he opposed, suchas the single-minded pursuit of wealth.Murie’s written statements, speeches,and letters are full of reminders thateconomic values are not the only oneshumans ought to have. He enjoyedpointing out, much like Thoreau did,that material wealth can be more en-slaving than liberating. Once, inresponse to the common cry that wil-derness was just a playground for therich, he replied, “Many of us whotravel in wilderness have not beenburdened by large bank accounts.”

In his writing, Murie was aminimalist before it was considered acultural trend. He used short, cleardeclarative sentences. There was noacademic jargon, and no wastedwords. The result was four books anda couple hundred articles ranging fromtechnical academic reports to essaysin magazines like Audubon, The LivingWilderness, and The Atlantic Monthly. To me, his masterpiece is A Field Guideto Animal Track. First published in1954, it was one of the first guides inthe famous Peterson series, and it’s stillin print. To borrow an overused phrasefrom the marketing business, it’s muchmore than a field guide. Murie did hisown drawings for it, including picturesof most mammals, their tracks, andtheir other signs. In the drawings, theanimals all have a friendly look aboutthem that I believe subconsciously ex-presses Murie’s affection for them. Thenarrative, meanwhile, goes way beyondidentification marks of tracks, describ-ing the animals’ behaviors and Murie’s

experiences with many of them. Myfavorite is this one, about wolves:

One night four of us,including our year-old baby,were encamped on a gravelbar of the Porcupine River, innortheastern Alaska. It wasclear September weather, andwe slept that night in theopen without a tent. At dawnwe were awakened by a voiceacross the river. Soon werealized we were beingserenaded by two wolves, oneupstream, the other below ourcamp. First one, then theother, raised its muzzle andhowled. Apparently we wereintruding on their homeground. At any rate, we laythere in the crisp autumnmorning, comfortable in oursleeping bags, and listened tothis song of the Arcticwilderness with a feeling ofawe. (Murie 1954, p. 93)

You don’t get something like that intoo many field guides.

The two most important preser-vation efforts that Murie led were theaddition of Jackson Hole Valley toGrand Teton National Park in Wyo-ming and the establishment of theArctic National Wildlife Range (nowRefuge).

The Jackson Hole National Monu-ment controversy began in March 1943when President Franklin Roosevelt cre-ated a national monument from some221,610 acres (89,720 hectares) of na-tional forest, state, and private land inthe flat sage country east of Grand TetonNational Park. Murie thought this wasa good idea because he saw the Tetonsand the adjacent valley as a whole unit.He saw little point in preserving themountains while developing the adja-cent valley, which would likely be doneif some protection were not given it.

The majority of Jackson Hole resi-dents, however, were bitterly resentful

It takes maturity to really accept the unimportance ofhuman achievements, or to recognize how muchhumans do not know, or to understand that it’s

sometimes best to leave things alone.

Murie in Alaska with favorite sled dog, Jack. Photo by JesseRust, courtesy Mardy Murie.


of Roosevelt’s act and vowed to do ev-erything possible to fight themonument. The argument becameheated, emotional, and sometimespersonal. Murie was accused of vari-ous misdeeds. A false rumor wentaround that he had stated that a mousewas more important than a human. Hewas thought to be a tool of the federalgovernment, and was called variousunflattering names.

No fewer than four conservationgroups also opposed the monumentat first. Two of these were The Wilder-ness Society (of which Murie was notyet director) and the National Parksand Conservation Association. Theymainly objected because the newmonument would include a large hu-man-made intrusion, the Jackson LakeDam. Murie turned those two groupsaround, primarily through an articlecalled “The Spirit of Jackson Hole,” inwhich he emphasized the ecologicalconnection between the valley and theadjacent mountains.

The other two groups whose mindshe changed were the game-orientedIzaak Walton League and Federationof Western Outdoor Clubs. At a gath-ering of the latter group in Utah, a clubofficial who thought the monumentwould destroy elk hunting in the re-gion tried to prevent Murie fromspeaking. A motion overruling the of-ficial had to be passed. Murie thenexplained that elk migration routeswould be protected by the monumentand that adjacent national forestswould continue to allow hunting. Theclubs, as Murie later recalled, then“changed their attitude” toward themonument.

There were various other turf dis-putes, lawsuits, and congressionalhearings before the monument wasfinally added to Grand Teton NationalPark in 1950. In one of the suits, Muriewas a star witness for the Park Service,

again asserting that the valley and themountains should be seen as a unit.

Had Murie not been willing to beostracized in his community, or un-able to change the minds of fourconservation groups, the Jackson HoleValley might look much different to-day than it does. There would still besome wildlife around, but the buffalowould be roaming and antelope play-ing among a lot more condominiums,T-shirt shops, putting greens, andmotels than is now the case.

Crowning Achievement:The Arctic NationalWildlife RefugeAs many know, the Arctic NationalWildlife Refuge of northeast Alaskaand adjacent Northern Yukon NationalPark of Canada, comprise one of thelast great wild places on Earth and oneof the last great wildlife spectacles.Every summer, the coastal plain turnsinto a riot of color and animal activity.Caribou, musk ox, grizzly bears, po-lar bears, wolves, and other largemammals have the space they need.G’witchen people still build their cul-ture around the wide-rangingporcupine caribou herd.

Murie first visited the region in1926 and felt it was a very specialplace. By the 1950s he and a few othersdecided that it urgently needed pro-tection from military, oil, mineral,and other interests that were impact-ing the arctic regions. And so, in1956, Murie organized and led asummer-long expedition to inven-tory the natural history there. Theinformation would be used in a pro-posal to make the region a two-nationinternational park.

The expedition crew was small:Murie, his wife Mardy, two universityscientists, and an undergraduatezoology major named George Schaller

who had written Murie offering towork for free.

The survey lasted a couple ofmonths. All would later agree it wasamong the highlights of their lives. Thework involved seemed almost inciden-tal to the magical experience of livingin one of the last great wild places inthe world—the “Serengeti of theNorth,” as it is sometimes called.Murie had given the crew a littlespeech at the beginning of the sum-mer, reminding them to be aware ofthe experience for its own sake, andwhat a privilege it was to have it.

In any case, the data were collected,a film was made, and at summer’s endthe crew disbanded. Olaus and MardyMurie went back home and spent mostof the next four years convincing theU.S. government to protect that re-gion. They organized people, wrotearticles, talked to groups around thecountry, and went to Washington totestify at hearings on the matter. Atsome point it became clear that theUnited States was not going to go for

Murie painting an albatross aboard the Brown Bear, August 1937.Photo by Victor Scheffer. Courtesy Scheffer and National Archives.


the permanent protection that nationalpark status would offer. Canada, ofcourse, did make a national park onits side of the border. Finally, however,in 1960 the U.S. interior secretary de-clared a large chunk of the region aNational Wildlife Range. It was lessthan hoped for, but it gave Murie anenormous sense of joy and relief. Uponhearing the news, he wept openly—one of the few times in his adult lifehe did so.

The “range” was made a “refuge,”and expanded to eight million acres(3.2 million hectares) in 1980 as partof the famous Alaska National InterestLands Conservation Act. Today, ofcourse, it remains controversial becauseof the large amount of oil that may (ormay not) lie under the coastal plain.

A TransitionMurie died, at age 74, in October1963. He was interested in wildernessand environmental matters until theend. He sent information on westernpesticide abuse to Rachel Carson andbegan referring to the Cold War era as“the age of poison.”

He was not bitter, though. One day,George Schaller, the former studentwho joined Murie on the 1956 Arcticsurvey, came to visit. Schaller had beenstudying primates in Africa. His laterbook, The Serengeti Lion: A Study inPredator-Prey Relationships (1972)would win the National Book Awardand he would be awarded the WorldWildlife Fund Gold Medal for contrib-uting to the protection of endangeredspecies. Schaller once said that Murie

had taught him “that the collecting ofscientific facts is only the first step ofa long process to give work meaningand value” (Schaller 1986). When hevisited Murie, they took a short hikeinto the Teton hills. Murie was weakand could not go far, yet he still lovedbeing outside. Schaller watched withadmiration as Murie carefully snappedphotographs and remarked at the vi-brant colors of wildflowers he had seenand photographed hundreds of timesbefore. Soon after that hike, Muriedied and Schaller published his firstbook, The Mountain Gorilla (1963). Itwas dedicated to Olaus Murie.

REFERENCESGlover, J. M. 1989. Thinking like a wolverine:

The ecological evolution of Olaus Murie.Environmental Review (Fall/Winter), 29–45.

Kendrick, G. D. 1978. An environmentalspokesman: Olaus J. Murie and a demo-cratic defense of wilderness. Annals of Wyo-ming, 50 (Fall), 213–302.

Lau Tzu. 1989. Tao de Ching. G. Feng and J.English, trans. New York: Vintage. (Origi-nal work published ca. 350–250 B.C.)

Murie, M. E. 1952. Two in the Far North. NewYork: Knopf.

Murie, O. J. 1920. Personal correspondence,Margaret E. Murie personal files.

———. Ca. 1953. Typescript letter. Olaus MuriePapers, Denver Public Library, Colo.

———. 1954. A Field Guide to Animal Tracks.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Schaller, G. 1963. The mountain gorilla: ecol-ogy and behavior. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

———. 1972. The Serengeti Lion: A Study inPredator-Prey Relationships. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.

———. 1986. Personal correspondence toJames M. Glover, December 20.

JAMES M. GLOVER is an associateprofessor at Southern Illinois University andcan be reached at [email protected].

Olaus and Mardy Murie in Jackson Hole in late 1950s. Courtesy Mardy Murie.


Proposal to Establisha Professional Society forWilderness Stewardship

BY WAYNE FREIMUND and CONNIE G. MYERS

IntroductionIt is both an exciting and challenging time for people witha passion for wilderness. The 1990s in particular were aperiod when the land area and demand for quality wilder-ness grew dramatically (Cordell et al. 1998; Meyer andLandres 2000). However, a recent report on the state ofwilderness management in the United States (Brown 2002),along with our own experiences, reminds us that there isstill considerable progress to be made. In this article webriefly review developments of the wilderness stewardshipcommunity during the end of the last century. We suggestthe establishment of a membership organization for wil-derness stewardship to provide a valuable forum for linkingwilderness managers, scientists, and others to addresscommon stewardship challenges and bring focus to theprofession of wilderness stewardship. Within such a venue,we could move toward an integrated and collaborativesystem of wilderness stewardship. This organization wouldserve as a professional home for people who wish to seethemselves as wilderness professionals.

ProgressDuring the end of the 20th century, we saw a number ofdevelopments building the professional capacity of wilder-ness managers. In 1993, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)founded the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness TrainingCenter (ACNWTC). The ACNWTC provides wildernesstraining, information, and education to reconnect agencyemployees and the public with their wilderness heritage.The ACNWTC is funded and staffed by the Bureau of LandManagement (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), USFS,and the National Park Service, and reports to an interagency

steering committee. The Aldo Leopold National WildernessResearch Institute (ALNWRI) was also dedicated in 1993.The ALNWRI grew out of the USFS’s wilderness researchprogram and is now complemented by a scientist from theUnited States Geological Survey and also gains financialsupport from the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI),BLM, and FWS. The ALNWRI provides scientific leader-ship in developing and using the knowledge needed tosustain wilderness ecosystems and values.

Education on wilderness to an international audiencecontinued throughout the decade at Colorado State University(CSU). Through consortia between CSU, the University ofMontana (UM), University of Idaho, and USFS, the Officeof International Programs, an annual international seminaron protected area management, developed with related regional

STEWARDSHIP

Article co-authors Wayne Freimund and Connie G. Myers.


seminars throughout the world. The UMWilderness Management Distance Edu-cation Program continues to be offered.Each of these educational endeavors issupported by ongoing research and edu-cational materials provided by ALNWRI,ACNWTC, and colleagues at universi-ties and in agencies.

Wilderness stewards have con-vened on several occasions, such as the6th and 7th World Wilderness Con-gresses in India and South Africa, a1999 wilderness science conference inMissoula, Montana, and a 1996 con-ference dedicated to eastern wildernessheld in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. TheWilderness Society and regional advo-cacy groups also sponsored severalwilderness conferences.

Communication about wildernesswas greatly enhanced in 1995 with thelaunching of the IJW. The journal, nowin its ninth year, with financial supportand sponsorship by wilderness manage-ment agencies, wilderness organizations,and universities, has grown in circula-tion, and has published hundreds ofarticles on the stewardship of wilderness.In 1996 Wilderness.net, a cooperativeproject between the UM Wilderness In-stitute, ACNWTC and ALNWRI, wasdeveloped (Besancon and Freimund2002). This resource provides electronicaccess to wilderness information, includ-ing a library of over 600 downloadablearticles, textual and graphic information

on each U.S. wilderness area, currentnews, and a discussion forum.Wilderness.net is visited by approxi-mately 800 people per day. During thetime between December 14, 2001, andJanuary 13, 2002, approximately 8,000documents were downloaded from thelibrary to over 20 countries. Wilder-ness.net was selected by the John F.Kennedy School of Government atHarvard University as a case study forsuccessful use of the Internet to achieveagency goals. Research from the NationalSurvey on Recreation and the Environ-ment is being used by nongovernmentorganizations (Cordell et al. 1998) toraise public awareness of wildernessthrough development of audience-ap-propriate wilderness messages.

In 2000 a National WildernessPolicy Council was formed. This coun-cil, composed of high-ranking officialsfrom each federal agency charged withmanaging wilderness in the UnitedStates, was tasked with seeking agree-ment on systemwide wilderness policy.To the extent that the council embracesits leadership potential, wilderness willbe well served (Brown 2002).

No list of accomplishments wouldbe complete without recognizing theincredible work being done on theground by wilderness managers allacross the country, in spite of dramaticreductions in staff and funding. Finally,in the last decade, the National Wil-

derness Preservation System (NWPS)had added units constituting over 8million acres (3.3 million hectares) ofdesignated Wilderness to increase thesize of the NWPS to over 106 millionacres (42.5 million hectares).

This is not intended to be an ex-haustive list of the accomplishmentswithin the United States wildernesscommunity over the past 12 years.Rather, it is an indication of a growinginstitutional capacity for the steward-ship of wilderness. Our wildernessmanagers today must be better pre-pared then ever because the intensityof demands upon them continues toincrease, and there are more threatsand issues than ever surrounding themanagement of wilderness (Hendeeand Dawson 2001). Whether it is theresult of high use areas, exotic species,fire policy, or acid rain, the decisionmaking associated with wilderness isincreasingly complex.

Enduring ChallengesIn spite of the growing NWPS describedabove, there remain significant internaland external wilderness stewardshipchallenges. Internally, our current sci-ence, administrative structure, programfunding, accomplishment reporting,and leadership inadequately reflect thesignificant contributions that wilder-ness makes to the public land systemand to society. Externally, legislativeproposals challenging wilderness stew-ardship programs and the integrity ofthe NWPS are on the increase. There isno cohesive national wilderness move-ment focused on management andstewardship of the NWPS, and themajority of Americans do not under-stand what designated wilderness isand how it is linked to their lives. Thesechallenges and the lack of an integratedapproach to address them continue tofrustrate wilderness managers acrossthe country. Indeed, these and other

We suggest that establishment of a membershiporganization for wilderness stewardship to providea valuable forum for linking wilderness managers,scientists, and others to address common stewardshipchallenges and bring focus to the profession ofwilderness stewardship.


issues were specifically identified in arecent report to the federal agencies ascontributing to the NWPS functioningas a set of subsystems rather than anintegrated and collaborative system oflands. Brown (2002) points out thatactions of wilderness stewardship arespread across four agencies, vast geo-political regions, and institutionalcultures. Further, the nature of wilder-ness results in a dispersed workforcethat continues to function with limitedfunding, and often part-time assign-ments or split job responsibilities.

It is our opinion that this lack of co-hesion in stewardship of the NWPSrepresents perhaps our greatest currentchallenge. Brown (2002) concludes thatthere is a need to forge an integrated andcollaborative system across the four wil-derness management agencies. Webelieve one way to move toward thatintegration is to establish a professionalmembership organization for wildernessstewardship. Such an organizationwould provide a valuable forum for link-ing wilderness managers, scientists, andothers to explore and collaboratively ad-dress common stewardship challengesand bring focus to the profession of wil-derness stewardship. A critical mass oforganized, focused wilderness profes-sionals crossing agency, organization,and academic boundaries can help en-sure an enduring resource of wilderness.

A Field-Driven Approachto Integration andCollaborationThe Brown (2002) Commission pro-cess of hearings demonstrated thatwilderness managers have little troublearticulating the unique values of wil-derness; rather, they have troublearticulating those values to the policymakers. When newly elected officialsand appointed administrators are wel-comed to Washington by letters with

recommendations for policy from or-ganizations representing thousands ofprofessionals (e.g., The Society ofAmerican Foresters), the voice for wil-derness management and stewardshipis too often absent. This is not to dis-credit the hard work by our friends inorganizations such as The WildernessSociety, but rather to point out that theirmission is not to create a professionalmembership organization dedicated tothe stewardship of wilderness. Forestry,range management, wildlife biology,and many other disciplines enjoy thesupport and benefits of professionalmembership organizations. We believeit is the right time to integrate wilder-ness and the stewardship of thisresource through establishment of aprofessional membership organization.

The typical functions and activitiesof a professional society focus on com-munication forums that build andconnect a critical mass of kindred spir-its. These forums include journals,newsletters, websites, and conven-tions. Conventions and conferencesare generally designed around profes-sional development, technologytransfer, working-group activities, dis-cussion or debate of contemporaryissues, and development of positionpapers on those issues. Annual orsemiannual conferences allow for thebuilding of connections and relation-ships over time. Some organizationsdevelop resolutions on specific policy-issue positions and lobby theirpositions to agency leadership, Con-gress, and the administration.

Value is added in the organized guid-ance of these processes and theopportunity exists to address system-wide issues. Ideas can be thoroughlydeveloped, debated, and clearly articu-lated and promoted. Ideas such asprofessional certification, academicaccreditation, or the criteria for a pro-fessional employment classification

series can be agreed upon and promoted.Recommendations on staffing, funding,research, internal training, and externaleducation can be developed and success-fully promoted. In our observation, thewilderness stewardship community cur-rently needs the organization aprofessional society would provide.

Challenging QuestionsWhile discussing this concept with pro-fessionals from many sectors of thewilderness community, we have beenasked some difficult questions. First, isthere a critical mass of people whowould like to be viewed as wildernessprofessionals first and disciplinarianssecond? Since wilderness, it is argued,is a land designation and not a discipline,if an organization for wilderness stew-ardship were established, how manyprofessionals would join? A counter-point to this argument is that wildernessis more than a land designation. It is anidea as integral to American values asecology and wildlife. Total demand forsuch an organization is very difficult togauge. What we do know is that thereare 644 units in the NWPS, all of whichhave someone who is responsible forthem. The IJW has been able to survivefor eight years with the help of its spon-sors and subscribers. We are alsoreminded of the numerous people re-sponsible for the progress in science andstewardship that has been made to date.

Second, how big would such a pro-fessional wilderness organization needto be to be effective? Perhaps it couldstart small and focus on the coordina-tion of existing efforts and conferences.Certainly, there is little room for di-luting the hard work people arealready doing.

Third, what about joining an exist-ing professional organization? This isalso an excellent question. Perhaps thebest way to get organized would tobecome a subsidiary of an existing and


larger organization such as the Soci-ety of American Foresters WildernessWorking Group. The fundamentalchallenge lies in the unique composi-tion of wilderness values. Each existingorganization was developed with fairlyclear missions and scope. We are un-sure of where the development of awilderness stewardship professionalfits within those various missions.

ConclusionIn welcoming readers to the first is-sues of IJW in 1995, John Hendeeexpressed that after 20 years of dis-cussion about a wilderness journal that“the time is right.” Given the successof the journal and several other initia-tives over the past 12 years, it is clearthat he was correct. The idea of a wil-derness profession has been discussedfor over a decade and perhaps the timeis right for that as well. We would liketo envision a future in which studentscould get degrees in wilderness stew-ardship that would prepare them for

long and rich careers dedicated to theprotection of our global wildernesstreasures. Moreover, we would like tosee an integrated and collaborative sys-tem of wilderness stewardship forgedacross the four wilderness managementagencies in the United States. Given theinstitutional and disciplinary fragmen-tation of wilderness stewardshipprofessionals, we see these goals as acontinued uphill climb. The voice of acommitted critical mass of wildernessstewards could be an important de-velopment, and a professional societyfor wilderness stewardship could bethat voice.

REFERENCESBesancon, C., and W. Freimund. 2002. Inter-

national wilderness websites: Current statusand suggested direction. IJW, 8(2): 26–29.

Brown, P. J. 2002. A summary of the report:Ensuring the stewardship of the National

Wilderness Preservation System. IJW, 8(1):10–12.

Cordell, H. K., M. A. Tarrant, B. L. McDonald,and J. C. Bergstrom. 1998. How the publicviews wilderness: More results from the USASurvey on Recreation and the Environment.IJW, 4(3): 28–31.

Hendee, J. C. 1995. The Time is Right. IJW, 1(1): 3.Hendee, J. C., and C. P. Dawson. 2001. Stew-

ardship to address the threats to wildernessresources and values. IJW, 7(3): 4–9.

Meyer, S., and P. Landres. 2000. A NationalWilderness Preservation System Database:Benefits, Limitations, and Future Needs. IJW,6(1): 13–18.

WAYNE FREIMUND is the ArkwrightProfessor of Wilderness Studies anddirector of the Wilderness Institute,University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA.E-mail: [email protected].

CONNIE G. MYERS is the director of theArthur Carhart National WildernessTraining Center, Missoula, MT, USA. E-mail:[email protected].

limited travel funding, this is often notpossible. Therefore, in addition to con-ducting site visits and givingpresentations at management work-shops, the Leopold Institute intends tocontinue synthesizing existing informa-tion on key wilderness issues. We willalso continue to identify barriers to re-search application as well as potentialsolutions. While research results are in-teresting to inquiring minds, they areof little use to wilderness stewardshipwhen managers are not aware of rel-evant results.

VITA WRIGHT is the Research ApplicationProgram leader at the Aldo LeopoldWilderness Research Institute, P.O. Box8089, Missoula, MT 59807, USA. E-mail:[email protected].

From ALDO LEOPOLD on page 19

Stankey, G., and R. Schreyer. 1987. Attitudestoward wilderness and factors affecting visi-tor behavior: A state-of-knowledge review.In R. C. Lucas, comp. Proceedings—NationalWilderness Research Conference: Issues,State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions. FortCollins, Colo.: USDA Forest Service, Gen-eral Technical Report INT-220, 246–93.

Stewart, W., D. N. Cole, R. E. Manning, W.Valiere, J. Taylor, and M. Lee. 2000. Pre-paring for a day hike at Grand Canyon:What information is useful? In D. N. Cole,S. F. McCool, W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Louglin,comp. Wilderness Science in a Time ofChange Conference Ogden, Utah: USDAForest Service, Rocky Mountain ResearchStation. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4, 221–225.

Taylor, D., and P. Winter. 1995. Environmentalvalues, ethics, and depreciative behavior inwildland settings. In D. J. Chavez, comp. Pro-ceedings of the Second Symposium on So-cial Aspects and Recreation Research.Ontario, Calif.: USDA Forest Service, Gen-eral Technical Report PSW-156, 59–66.

Uysal, M., C. McDonald, and L. Reid. 1990. Sourcesof information used by international visitors toU.S. parks and natural areas. Journal of Parkand Recreation Administration, 8: 51–59.

Vander Stoep, G., and J. Gramann. 1987. Theeffect of verbal appeals and incentives on de-

preciative behavior among youthful park visi-tors. Journal of Leisure Research, 19: 69–83.

Vander Stoep, G., and J. Roggenbuck. 1996.Is your park being “loved to death?”: Usingcommunication and other indirect techniquesto battle the park “love bug.” In Crowdingand Congestion in the National Park Sys-tem: Guidelines for Research and Manage-ment. St. Paul, Minn.: University ofMinnesota Agricultural Experiment Stationpublication 86-1996, 85–132.

Vaske, J., M. Donnelly, and R. Deblinger. 1990.Norm activation and the acceptance of be-havioral restrictions among over sand vehicleusers. In T. More, ed. Proceedings of the 1990Northeastern Recreation Research Sympo-sium. Radnor, Pa.: USDA Forest Service,General Technical Report NE-145, 153–59.

Wagstaff, M., and B. Wilson. 1988. The evalua-tion of litter behavior modification in a riverenvironment. In Proceedings of the 1987Southeastern Recreation Research Conference.Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia, 21–28.

ROBERT E. MANNING is a professor in theRecreation Management Program, School ofNatural Resources, University of Vermont,356 Aiken Center, Burlington, VT 05405,USA. E-mail: [email protected].

From EMERGING PRINCIPLES on page 27


Commentary on theFreimund-Myers Wilderness

Stewardship OrganizationProposalBY JOHN C. HENDEE

Thank you Wayne and Connie for advocating theformation of a professional wilderness stewardshiporganization. Your leadership is timely, as was your

session on the topic at the 7th World Wilderness Congressin Port Elizabeth, South Africa, in fall 2001.

I fully embrace the need for more professional dialogueabout and involvement in wilderness stewardship, but I mustbe candid in my concerns about creating yet another wilder-ness organization. Would it empower existing organizationsand their collective support for wilderness stewardship, orwould it dilute them by competing for already stretched pro-fessional time and membership dues? We don’t want toweaken the focus and strength of any organization’s wilder-ness stewardship voice—the challenge is to bring them alltogether to make a more powerful voice.

Perhaps there is a synergistic way to append a wilder-ness stewardship society or association to an existingorganization, as you mention, or to be linked to many ofthem in a coalition. Regardless of the approach, the IJWstands ready to embrace any collective effort to strengthenwilderness stewardship, and to serve it as an ongoing com-munication vehicle.

My experiences in helping found and produce IJW foreight years makes me cautious about your proposal. Are thereenough professionals in wilderness stewardship? Could theybe a political voice since most work for public agencies? Wereit not for the sponsorship of 15 wilderness organizations thatbelieve in IJW as an independent wilderness informationmedium, we would not exist, because subscriptions by wil-derness stewards and others are only half-sufficient to produce

IJW. Would it be different for a new wilderness stewardshiporganization? Would it detract from IJW subscriptions, ormembership in other organizations’ wilderness stewardshipactivities, such as the Society of American Foresters Wilder-ness Working Group, similar groupings in The WildernessSociety, the Sierra Club, Wilderness Watch, and many othernational and local environmental organizations? Would it fur-ther divide wilderness users, advocates, and managers, whoneed to work more closely together toward the integratedand collaborative system we need? Can other new organiza-tions offer instructive experiences, such as the Forest StewardsGuild (www.foreststewardsguild.org)?

Perhaps a survey of wilderness stewards and others wouldhelp define whether there are sufficient potential members will-ing to join and financially support a new wilderness stewardshiporganization. And we need to think broadly about who wouldbe eligible to join. It is a continuing challenge to bring everyonetogether in support of wilderness stewardship—scientists, man-agers, educators, citizen environmentalists, wildernessusers—and the thousands of volunteers and nonprofessionalseasonal employees who are at the front lines of wilderness stew-ardship. IJW is especially interested in an effort that will expandcooperation, communication, and support for wilderness stew-ardship among all of the wilderness constituencies—the largestpossible critical number of members is needed.

JOHN C. HENDEE retired in 2002 as emeritus professor and directorof the University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center; and formerdean of the University of Idaho College of Natural Resources 1985–1994. He is IJW editor in chief and vice president for science andeducation at the WILD Foundation. E-mail: [email protected].

STEWARDSHIP


Managing Bushwalker Impactsin the Tasmanian Wilderness

World Heritage Area, AustraliaBY MARK A. BENNETT, LORNE K. KRIWOKEN, and LIZA D. FALLON

Abstract: As recreational use of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area in Australia increases, associatedenvironmental impacts must be controlled. Tasmanian bushwalkers were surveyed to obtain their opinions andattitudes toward potential tools to manage impact problems and an overnight permit system. There was support fornine of the 11 potential tools, with most support for priority erosion control, track stabilization, and rerouting.Respondents did not support the introduction of an overnight walker permit system for the entire TasmanianWilderness World Heritage Area, but did support a permit system if it was targeted at impacted areas.

IntroductionThe Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area (TWWHA)was added to the World Heritage List in 1982 (World Heri-tage Commission 1982) and extended in 1989 (WorldHeritage Commission 1989) to become one of Australia’slargest conservation reserves. The TWWHA occupies ap-proximately 20% of the state of Tasmania (1.38 millionhectares, or 3.4 million acres) and is managed by the Tas-manian Parks and Wildlife Service (TPWS) in accordancewith the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Manage-ment Plan (TPWS 1999) (see Figure 1). The TWWHAincludes five main national parks: Cradle Mountain-LakeSt Clair National Park, Walls of Jerusalem National Park,Franklin-Gordon Wild Rivers National Park, SouthwestNational Park, and Central Plateau Conservation Area.

The World Heritage Commission (WHC) lists 730 prop-erties on the World Heritage List globally (World HeritageCentre 2002). The TWWHA is a mixed property, satisfyingall criteria for natural values and three of seven criteria forcultural values. The undisturbed natural values of theTWWHA are largely free from human interference (TPWS1999). These values include glacially formed landscapes andkarst systems, extensive unmodified coastal formations, al-pine and rainforest ecosystems, and endemic and threatenedflora and fauna. The outstanding cultural value of the

(PEER REVIEWED)

SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Article co-authors (top) Mark A. Bennett,(left) Lorne K. Kriwoken, and (right) LizaD. Fallon.


TWWHA is the significant number ofrelatively undisturbed Aboriginal sites over35,000 years old. In addition, the morerecent colonial convict sites are outstandingearly examples of major global socialphenomenan, and along with other historicsites including Huon pine logging andmining, they provide a source of reflection,inspiration, and testimony to cultures thathave disappeared (TPWS 1999).

Limited, and often conflicting, data areavailable concerning the number of visi-tors to the TWWHA, but estimates placeapproximately 245,000 bushwalkers inthe area each year, including 22,000 over-night bushwalkers (TPWS 1996). Visitornumbers to the TWWHA are believedto be increasing by 7% per annum(TPWS 1996).

Increasing visitor numbers to theTWWHA has resulted in environmentalimpacts to some of the area’s internation-ally significant values (see Figures 2 and3). Physical and biological effects includevegetation damage, track (trail) formation,soil loss and compaction, water pollution,and the spread of weeds and pathogens(Whinam and Chilcott 1999; TPWS1998; Sun and Liddle 1993; Calais andKirkpatrick 1986; Calais 1981). Gener-ally, impacts of these types tend to beconcentrated in high-use areas, such ascampsites and tracks, while nearby areasare often relatively undisturbed (Cole1995; McEwen and Tocher 1976).

In response to increased levels of envi-ronmental impacts, the TPWS produceda walking track management strategy forthe area in 1994 (TPWS 1998), basedlargely on relevant literature that consid-ered strategies for managing impacts onnatural areas. For example, Cole, Petersen,and Lucas (1987) detailed managementstrategies for combating common wilder-ness recreational problems, and Cole(1994) identified six mechanisms to man-age impacts: controlling type of use,encouraging low impact use behavior,avoiding use when areas are vulnerable,

encouraging use of durable sites, constrict-ing use in popular areas, and dispersing usein lightly used areas. A contentious issue dis-cussed in the strategy was the introductionof an overnight walker permit system as amechanism to help manage and limit thenumber of walkers to the TWWHA. Thissystem was proposed as a suitable manage-ment option, proposing to divide theTWWHA into walking areas with quotasspecifying usage limits, depending on theenvironmental sensitivity of each area.

The proposal was rejected by Tasmania’sbushwalking community, who believedthat a permit system would unnecessarilyinterfere with freedom in the TWWHA.The Tasmanian state minister responsiblefor the TWWHA subsequently formed theTrack Assessment Group (TAG) in 1999to recommend the most appropriate solu-tion to the bushwalker impact problem(TAG 2000).

The aim of this article is to reportresearch on the level of support by Tas-manian bushwalkers for 11 potentialtools discussed by TAG and the intro-duction of an overnight walker permitsystem in the TWWHA.

Track Assessment GroupTAG included representatives of majorstakeholder and interest groups, includ-ing the TPWS, TWWHA ConsultativeCommittee, Tourism Tasmania, Federa-tion of Tasmanian Bushwalking Clubs,independent bushwalkers, and theUniversity of Tasmania.

In response to the minister’s request,TAG made preliminary recommendationsfor user regulations in the TWWHA (TAG2000). TAG members were selected fortheir expertise on the TWWHA,bushwalking, and natural area environ-mental impacts. Management tools weredeveloped at meetings held in late 1999 toearly 2000 and the final report included adiscussion of 11 potential managementtools to solve bushwalker-impact problems.These management tools varied in their level

of acceptability and implementation costsand are listed here in the order of expecteddecreasing acceptability to bushwalkers:

• Create education/self-regulationsystem to encourage walkers to useless impacted tracks

• Promote Tasmania’s “Great Bush-walks” and other appropriate or lessimpacted tracks

• Use volunteers to help manage theTWWHA

• Undertake priority erosion control,track stabilization, and rerouting

• Liaise with organizations to obtainagreement to minimize use inenvironmentally sensitive areasand advise on more suitable areas

• Change patterns of use (e.g., trackrotation, disperse use, and the

Figure 1—Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

Figure 2—Vegetation damage and soil compaction caused bybushwalkers in the Western Arthur Range, TWWHA, that haveresulted in degradation to natural values. Photo courtesy of theTPWS Track Management Team Slide Library.


formation on Tasmanian bushwalkerswas an Australian Bureau of Statistics(1995) survey that investigated partici-pation in Tasmanian sporting andphysical recreational activities. The sur-vey estimated that 19,700 Tasmaniansaged 15 years or older (9.3% of the to-tal adult population) had bushwalkedin the 12 months prior to October 1994(50.8% were male; 49.2% were female).

A mail-out, random probability sur-vey, as described by de Vaus (2001), wasused with one follow-up mailing. Mem-bers from Tasmania’s bushwalking clubswere targeted, and an unbiased simplerandom sample was drawn. Bush-walking clubs with at least 20 memberswere invited to participate. Thirteenclubs were approached, with 10 willingto participate. In total, 15% of membersfrom each club were selected, resultingin a total of 277 potential subjects.

The second research phase relied ontargeting available subjects from thebroader Tasmanian bushwalking com-munity. The reliance on nonprobabilityavailability sampling is an extremelyrisky sampling method, as this techniquedoes not allow any control over the rep-resentativeness of the sample (Babbie2002; Henry 1990; Gardner 1976).Therefore, great caution has been exer-cised in generalizing the results from thedata (Hall and Hall 1996), and the find-ings have only been used to verify thereliability of the random survey results.Consequently, 327 questionnaires wereopportunistically and anonymously dis-tributed at workshops, at nature-basedslide presentations throughout Tasma-nia, at adventure stores, and at walkerregistration booths in the TWWHA. Re-spondents were provided with apostage-paid reply envelope to returntheir completed questionnaires.

Researchers realized that bushwalkerswith some awareness of TAG and releasedrecommendations would potentially pro-vide more informed responses, but may

nonprovision of certain facilities) toreduce overuse of vulnerable areas

• Remove information (e.g., trackmarkers, maps, routes, and obscur-ing entrances) facilitating access tosensitive areas

• Establish party size limits to reduceunacceptable impacts by regulatingusage

• Create new tracks to take pressureoff currently overused tracks

• Impose quotas to regulate usage• Close pads (camping areas) either

temporarily or permanently to pre-vent further degradation or allowthe recovery of the areas

TAG recognized that environmentalimpact varies across sites and that no singlemanagement approach would be success-ful for the entire area. The minister statedthat the system (or systems) recommendedby TAG must meet three conditions: itmust be (1) workable and cost effective,(2) environmentally effective, and (3) sup-ported by bushwalkers. An often-quotedfigure of 70% had been estimated forbushwalker support of a permit system,but this was frequently refuted bybushwalkers who did not support a per-mit system (Bennett 2000; TPWS 1996).

Research DesignA self-administeredquestionnaire surveywas used with bush-walkers who wereclassified into twouser groups: (1) thosein Tasmania’s bush-walking clubs and (2)the broader Tasma-nian bushwalkingcommunity. The sur-vey was administeredto samples of bothgroups using twodifferent methods.Though it may havebeen desirable, surveyswere not distributeddirectly to visitors ofthe TWWHA viatrailhead contacts dueto the immediate needto obtain bushwalkerinput over the winterseason (May–July2000). Respondentswere considered mem-bers of the bush-walking community,not as participants dur-ing specific outings.

The most reliableexisting source of in-

Table 1—Level of Support for Potential Tools As Discussed by TAG

Undertake priority erosion control, track 93 92stabilization and rerouting

Establish party size limits appropriate to the 85 85walking area and campsites on specific tracks

Use volunteers to help manage the WHA 85 80(working with walking community, maintenanceof tracks, adopt-a-track)

Liaise with organizations and the public that 84 83hold walks to obtain agreement to minimizeuse in sensitive areas and advise of moresuitable areas

Promote the “Great Bushwalks” and other 81 81appropriate tracks to encourage walkers to useless impacted tracks

Create new tracks to take pressure off currently 73 55overused tracks, to provide different/newwalking experiences

Create education/self-regulation system 68 66(Internet and telephone)

Change patterns of use, such as track rotation, 58 64fan out, nonprovision of certain facilities

Close pads (camping areas) and tracks to 50 56prevent further degradation and, in some cases,to allow the recovery of pads

Impose quotas to reduce unacceptable walker 33 44impacts by regulating usage through a quota system

Remove information facilitating access to sensitive 26 31areas, such as track markers, maps, routes,and obscuring entrancesa Percentages include the sum of “support” and “strongly support” responses from ascale: strongly support, support, uncertain, do not support, strongly against, and cannotdecide/not enough information.

Primary Validationinstrument instrument

Bushwalking Bushwalkingclub communityrespondents respondents(%)a (%)a

Potential strategies as discussed by TAG


have a predisposition toward solutions.As a result, researchers asked if respon-dents were either aware of, or had read,the draft TAG report. Given that the avail-ability sample targeted participants, thesecond research phase was likely to in-clude a bias toward those who had readthe report. Alternatively, bushwalkingclub respondents were randomlysampled; therefore, it was likely that thenumber of these respondents who hadread the report would be lower. Althoughthe results from the random sample areless likely to be biased, the otherbushwalkers may have a better under-standing and knowledge of the issuesinvestigated here.

Results and DiscussionOf the questionnaires distributed tobushwalking club members, 196 werereturned (71% response). Of the 327questionnaires distributed to thebroader bushwalking community, 176completed questionnaires were re-turned (54% response).

The majority of respondents fromboth the random (bushwalking clubs,69.4%) and availability (broaderbushwalking community, 74.4%)samples were aware of the TAG report.Furthermore, 16.8% of bushwalkingclub respondents had read the report,as had 40.9% of the broader bush-walking community.

Males represented 47% of thebushwalking club sample, and 53% werefemale; for the broader bushwalking com-munity, 62% were male and 38% werefemale. Bushwalking club membersranged from 14 to 85 years in age (meanand median of 52). The broaderbushwalking community ranged from 17to 80 years (mean and median of 44).

Bushwalking club respondents indi-cated the highest level of support forpriority erosion control, track stabiliza-tion, and rerouting (see Table 1). The twoleast supported tools were the removal

of information facili-tating access tosensitive areas (26%)and the imposition ofquotas (33%). Thevalidation survey datafrom the broaderbushwalking commu-nity is comparable.

Bushwalking clubrespondents wereasked to list their levelof support for the in-troduction of an over-night permit system(see Table 2). A major-ity of these respon-dents (61%) supportthe introduction of an overnight walkerpermit system where they can be dem-onstrated to effectively deal with theparticular area/problem. The broaderbushwalking community results arecomparable. A minority of bushwalkingclub respondents (27%) do not supportpermits in any shape or form anywherein the TWWHA, and53% of respondentsonly support permitsafter other manage-ment options havebeen tried and failed.Only 17% of bush-walking club respon-dents supported apermit system for allthe TWWHA.

Table 3 presentsthe 11 potential man-agement tools in theorder of expected ac-ceptability projectedby TAG. There wasnotable variation inranking of severalitems. For instance,for education/self-regulation tool, TAG(2000) expected this

I support permits where they can be demonstrated 61 60to effectively deal with the particular area/problemat hand

I support permits only after management options 53 44(apart from closure) have been tried and failed(e.g., education, track work)

I do not support permits “in any shape or form” 27 13anywhere in the TWWHA

I support a permit system for all the TWWHA 17 15a Percentages include the sum of “support” and “strongly support” responses from a scale:strongly support, support, uncertain, do not support, strongly against, and cannot decide/not enough information.

Table 2—Level of Support for an Overnight WalkerPermit System in the TWWHA

Respondents were asked if they supportedthe following statements:


Bushwalking Bushwalkingclub communityrespondents respondents(%)a (%)a

Create education/self-regulation system 1 68 7 66 6

Promote the “Great Bushwalks” and 2 81 5 81 4other appropriate tracks

Use volunteers 3 85 2 80 5

Undertake priority erosion control and 4 93 1 92 1track stabilization

Liaise with organizations 5 84 4 83 3

Change patterns of use 6 58 8 64 7

Remove information facilitating access 7 26 11 31 11to sensitive areas

Limit party size 8 85 2 85 2

Create new tracks 9 73 6 55 9

Impose quotas 10 33 10 44 10

Close pads 11 50 9 56 8a Level of acceptability as expected by TAG.b Percentages include the sum of “support” and “strongly support” responses from ascale: strongly support, support, uncertain, do not support, strongly against.

Table 3—Level of Support for Potential Tools asDiscussed by TAG


Rank (%)b Rank (%)b Rank

Bushwalking Bushwalkingclub communityrespondents respondents

Potential strategies as discussedby TAG TAGa

tool would be the most acceptable,whereas bushwalking club respondentsranked it seventh. In addition, bush-walking club respondents indicatedpriority erosion control and track sta-bilization to be the most supportedmanagement tool, whereas TAG hadprojected this tool to be fourth.


Gardner, G. J. 1976. Social Surveys for Social Plan-ners. Sydney, Australia: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Hall, D., and I. Hall. 1996. Practical Social Re-search: Project Work in the Community.Houndmill, U.K.: Macmillan.

Henry, G. T. 1990. Practical Sampling. SagePublications. Thousand Oaks, California.

McEwen, D., and S. R. Tocher. 1976. Zone manage-ment: Key to controlling recreational impact in de-veloped campsites. Journal of Forestry, 74: 90–93.

Sun, D., and M. J. Liddle. 1993. A survey oftrampling effects on vegetation and soil ineight tropical and subtropical sites. Environ-mental Management 17 (4): 497–510.

Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service. 1996. UserRegulation in the Tasmanian Wilderness WorldHeritage Area: Draft Report on Walking PermitSystems and their Application in Tasmania. Hobart,Australia: Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service.

———. 1998. Walking Track ManagementStrategy for the Tasmanian WildernessWorld Heritage Area. Hobart, Australia:Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service.

———. 1999. Tasmanian Wilderness WorldHeritage Area: 1999 Management Plan.Hobart, Australia: Tasmanian Parks andWildlife Service.

Track Assessment Group. 2000. A Way Throughthe Wilderness: Draft Report by the Track As-sessment Group to the Parks and Wildlife Ser-vice. Hobart, Australia: Track Assessment Group.

Whinam J., and N. Chilcott. 1999. Impacts ofTrampling on Alpine Environments in Cen-tral Tasmania. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, 57 (3): 205–220.

World Heritage Centre. 2002. Properties Inscribedon the World Heritage List. Paris: UNESCOWorld Heritage Centre. Retrieved August 26,2002, from http://whc.unesco.org/nwhc/pages/doc/mainf3.htm.

World Heritage Commission. 1982. Report ofthe World Heritage Committee Sixth Session,December 13–17, Paris.

———. 1989. Report of the World HeritageCommittee Thirteenth Session. December11–15, Paris.

MARK A. BENNETT is the faculty executiveofficer, Faculty of Science and Engineering,University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-50Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia. E-mail:[email protected].

DR. LORNE K. KRIWOKEN is coordinator ofthe Centre for Environmental Studies, Schoolof Geography and Environmental Studies,University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-78Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia.

LIZA D. FALLON is a Ph.D. candidate,Centre for Environmental Studies, School ofGeography and Environmental Studies,University of Tasmania, Australia.

Finally, this article highlights that al-though TAG followed assumptionsfrequently made about user support formanagement actions, they were often differ-ent than those currently held by bushwalkers.Consequently, this research indicates thatpredictions held by those managing wilder-ness and heritage areas can be differentthan those held by the users of these areas.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank Dr. Helen Dunn foradvice concerning research methodol-ogy and questionnaire design; the TPWSand members of TAG for their assistance;and Grant Dixon for distributing thequestionnaire surveys.

REFERENCESAustralian Bureau of Statistics. 1995. Partici-

pation in Sporting and Physical RecreationalActivities, Tasmania, October 1994 (cat. no.4175.6). Canberra, Australia: AustralianBureau of Statistics.

Babbie, E. 2002. The Basics of Social Research,2nd ed. Chapman University, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Bennett, M. A. 2000. The Management ofBushwalker Impacts in the Tasmanian Wilder-ness World Heritage Area. Unpublished gradu-ate diploma of environmental studies honorsthesis, Centre for Environmental Studies, Uni-versity of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.

Calais, S. S. 1981. Analysis of Visitor Impacts onthe Environments of the Cradle Mountain-LakeSt Clair National Park and Implications forRecreational Management. Unpublished mas-ter of science thesis, Department of Geogra-phy, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.

Calais, S. S. and J. B. Kirkpatrick. 1986. Im-pact of Trampling on Natural Ecosystems inthe Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair NationalPark. Australian Geographer, 17: 6–15.

Cole, D. N. 1994. Backcountry impact manage-ment: Lessons from research. Backcountry Rec-reation Management/Trends 31 (3): 10–14.

———. 1995. Disturbance of natural vegeta-tion by camping: Experimental applicationsof low-level stress. Environmental Manage-ment, 19 (3): 405–416.

Cole, D. N., M. E. Petersen, and R. C. Lucas.1987. Managing Wilderness RecreationUse: Common Problems and Potential Solu-tions. General Technical Report INT-GTR-230. Ogden, Utah: USDA, Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station.

de Vaus, D. A. 2001. Research Design in SocialResearch. London, U.K. Sage Publications.

The rankings of some tools did notvary between TAG and the bushwalkers.For example, TAG’s ranking of the ex-pected level of acceptability for theimposition of quotas was identical to therankings derived from bushwalkers. Asexpected, a minority of bushwalking clubrespondents (33%) supported the tool.

ConclusionsAs the TWWHA is increasingly recognizedand marketed for its nature-based tourismand bushwalking opportunities, it is likelythat bushwalker associated environmentalimpacts will continue to increase unlesscontrols are implemented. This researchfound that the majority of bushwalkerssurveyed did not support the introductionof an overnight walker permit system forthe whole TWWHA or the removal of in-formation facilitating access to sensitiveareas. However, support was found for nineof the 11 potential management tools in-vestigated. In addition, the majority ofbushwalkers surveyed support the introduc-tion of an overnight walker permit systemin the TWWHA if it is targeted at impactedareas where it can be shown to effectivelymitigate negative environmental impacts.This finding is important, as it is contrary tothe belief espoused by some bushwalkers.

Figure 3—Unplanned track development and associatedenvironmental deterioration caused by walkers at LakeCygnus, TWWHA. Photo courtesy of the TPWS TrackManagement Team Slide Library.


SCIENCE and RESEARCH

P E R S P E C T I V E S F R O M T H EA L D O L E O P O L D W I L D E R N E S S R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

Reducing Barriers toScience-based Management

BY VITA WRIGHT

Each of the United States federal wilderness man-agement agencies requires access to the best available scientific information to meet legislative and

policy mandates. Scientists, including those in federal agenciesand universities, have worked diligently to develop and pub-lish scientific knowledge to support policy and managementdecisions. However, wilderness managers report a varietyof barriers to their ability to access and use scientific infor-mation. These barriers include, but are not limited to, heavyworkloads and a lack of time to search for scientific infor-mation, a large body of seemingly irrelevant research, theabsence of research on specific topics, contradictory researchresults, publications written for scientific audiences, lackof training, and managers’ attitudes toward science.

Working cooperatively with the federal wilderness man-agement agencies (Bureau of Land Management, Fish andWildlife Service, Forest Service, National Park Service, andU.S. Geological Survey), the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Re-search Institute (Leopold Institute) strives to develop andapply the science needed to sustain wilderness resources andvalues. To improve the application of wilderness science, theLeopold Institute initiated its Research Application Program(RAP) in 1999. The RAP is dedicated to understanding andminimizing barriers to the use of science by managers. Thisincludes increasing access to and understanding of scientificinformation, as well as identifying information needs.

Researchers and managers can work together to im-prove research application through two avenues: (1)identifying pertinent questions for future research, and(2) exchanging information about research results that arealready available. Several national agency efforts wereimplemented to identify future research needs as well asto improve collaboration between scientists and manag-ers. However, less attention has been given to helping

managers search through the plethora of currently avail-able research information.

Recognizing that managers have limited time to search forscientific information, the Leopold Institute’s RAP has focusedearly efforts on improving access to scientific information.Specifically, the RAP has been working to organize researchresults by subject, so managers working in short time framescan quickly access pertinent information. Managers can nowsearch for Leopold Institute publications as well as currentand past research project descriptions by subject on a website(http://leopold.wilderness.net). Additionally, a new series ofannotated reading lists summarizes existing knowledge aboutbroad topics such as managing fire, visitor experiences, userfees, and invasive plants in wilderness. The most relevant pub-lications are annotated and organized according to subtopicsthat allow managers to easily find publications addressing thespecific issues in which they are interested (http://leopold.wilderness.net/resapp.htm).

Developing personal relationships between researchersand managers may ultimately be the most effective solutionto the need for better communication about scientific infor-mation; however, in the face of increasing workloads and

Continued on page 12


Emerging Principles for UsingInformation/Education inWilderness Management

BY ROBERT E. MANNING

Abstract: Studies on information/education as a wilderness management practice are highly diverse, pro-viding both theoretical and empirical understanding, employing a variety of message types and media, andaddressing a variety of management issues and target audiences. Generally, these studies suggest that infor-mation/education can be an effective and desirable management tool. Moreover, a number of principles forusing information/education tools are emerging from this literature.

EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION

IntroductionInformation/education isgenerally seen as an “in-direct” and “light-handed”wilderness managementtool; it is designed to per-suade visitors to adoptbehaviors that are com-patible with wildernessmanagement objectiveswithout regulating visitorsdirectly. This approachtends to be viewed favor-ably by wilderness visitors(Roggenbuck and Ham1986; Stankey and Schreyer1987; McCool and Lime1989; Roggenbuck 1992;Vander Stoep and Roggen-buck 1996; Hendee andDawson 2002). Research

suggests that information/education can be effective, anda set of principles for application to wilderness manage-ment is emerging.

Conceptual and Theoretical FoundationsProblem behaviors of wilderness visitors can be classified intofive basic types (see Table 1), and this conceptual approach sug-gests the potential effectiveness of information/education on each.At the two ends of the spectrum, problem behaviors can beseen as either deliberately illegal or unavoidable. In these in-stances, information/education may have limited effectiveness.However, the other three types of problem behaviors—carelessactions, unskilled actions, and uninformed actions—may beconsiderably more amenable to information/education programs.

Another approach to describe the application of informa-tion/education relates to the “mindfulness” or “mindlessness”of visitors (Moscardo 1999). “Mindlessness” relies on existingbehavioral routines, and this may limit a visitor’s ability to rec-ognize and process new information. Alternatively, a “mindful”visitor actively processes new information, creates new cat-egories for information, and consciously thinks aboutappropriate ways to behave. Strategies to enhance mindful-ness can facilitate learning and better decision-making(Moscardo 1999).

A third conceptual approach to the application of informa-tion/education is based on two prominent theories of moraldevelopment (Kohlberg 1976; Gilligan 1982). Both theoriessuggest that people tend to progress through stages of moraldevelopment, ranging from being very self-centered to highly

(PEER REVIEWED)

Article author Robert E. Manning.


altruistic, based on principles of justice,fairness, and self-respect. A wildernessvisitor may be at any of the stages ofmoral development. Management im-plications are that information/education should be designed to reachvisitors at each of these stages(Christensen and Dustin 1989;Duncan and Martin 2002). For ex-ample, to reach visitors at lower levelsof moral development, managersmight emphasize extrinsic rewards orpunishments for selected types of be-havior. However, communicating withvisitors at higher levels of moral de-velopment might be more effective byemphasizing the rationale for selectedbehaviors and appealing to a sense ofaltruism, justice, and fairness.

Fourth, communication theory sug-gests that the potential effectiveness ofinformation/education is dependentupon a number of variables associatedwith the content and delivery of mes-sages to visitors (Roggenbuck and Ham1986; Stankey and Schreyer 1987;Manfredo 1989; Vaske et al. 1990;Manfredo and Bright 1991; Manfredo1992; Roggenbuck 1992; Bright et al.1993; Bright and Manfredo 1995;Basman et al. 1996; Vander Stoep and

Roggenbuck 1996). For example, visi-tor behavior is at least partially drivenby attitudes, beliefs, and normativestandards. Information/educationaimed at “connecting” with or modify-ing relevant attitudes, beliefs, or normsmay be successful in guiding or chang-ing visitor behavior. Moreover, thesubstance of messages and the mediaby which they are delivered may alsoinfluence the effectiveness of informa-tion/education programs.

Finally, from a theoretical stand-point, information/education can beseen to operate through three basicmodels (Roggenbuck 1992):1. Applied behavior analysis. This ap-

proach to management focusesdirectly on visitor behavior ratherthan antecedent variables such asattitudes, beliefs, and norms. Forexample, visitors can be informedof rewards or punishments that willbe administered dependent upontheir behavior. Applied behavioranalysis is the simplest and mostdirect theoretical model of informa-tion/education. However, since itdoes not address underlying behav-ioral variables such as attitudes,beliefs, and norms, its effectiveness

may be short-term and dependentupon continued application.

2. Central route to persuasion. In thismodel, relevant beliefs of visitorsare modified through delivery ofsubstantive messages. New ormodified beliefs then lead to de-sired changes in behavior. Whilethis is a less direct and more com-plex model, it may result in morelasting behavioral modification.

3. Peripheral route to persuasion. Thismodel emphasizes nonsubstantiveelements of information/educationmessages, such as message sourceand medium. For example, mes-sages from sources considered byvisitors to be authoritative or pow-erful may influence behavior, whileother messages may be ignored. Thismodel may be especially useful insituations where it is difficult to at-tract and maintain the attention ofvisitors, such as at visitor centers, en-trance/ranger stations, and bulletinboards, all of which may offer mul-tiple and competing information/education messages. However, likeapplied behavior analysis, the pe-ripheral route to persuasion may notinfluence antecedent conditions ofbehavior and, therefore, may nothave lasting effects.

Empirical Evaluations ofEffectivenessEmpirical studies have examined theeffectiveness of a variety of wilderness-related information/education programs.These studies can be described as: (1)those designed to influence visitor usepatterns; (2) studies focused on enhanc-ing visitor knowledge, especiallyknowledge related to minimizing eco-logical and social impacts; (3) studiesaimed at influencing visitor attitudes to-ward management policies; and (4)studies that address depreciative behav-ior such as littering and vandalism.

Table 1. Application of Information/Education toWilderness Management Problems

(adapted from Hendee, Stankey, and Lucas 1990; Roggenbuck 1992; andVander Stoep and Roggenbuck 1996.)

Illegal actions Theft of Indian artifacts; use of wilderness by Lowmotorized off-road vehicles

Careless actions Littering; shouting Moderate

Unskilled actions Selecting improper campsite; building Highimproper campfire

Uninformed Using dead snags for firewood; camping in Very highactions sight or sound of another group

Unavoidable Disposing of human waste; trampling ground Lowactions cover vegetation at campsite

Type of Example PotentialProblem effectiveness

of information/education


1. Visitor Use Patterns. Wilderness visi-tor use patterns are often of unevenspatial and temporal distribution.Campsite impacts and crowding maybe reduced if use patterns could bechanged. An early study in theBoundary Waters Canoe Area in Min-nesota explored the effectiveness ofproviding visitors with informationon current use patterns as a way toalter future use patterns (Lime andLucas 1977). Visitors who had per-mits for the most heavily used entrypoints were mailed an informationpacket including a description of usepatterns, noting in particular heavilyused areas and times. A survey of asample of this group who again vis-ited the study area the following yearfound that three-fourths of respon-dents felt that this information wasuseful, and about one-third were in-

fluenced in their choice of entry point,route, or time of subsequent visits.

A study in the Shining RockWilderness Area, in North Caro-lina was designed to dispersecamping away from a heavily usedmeadow (Roggenbuck and Berrier1981, 1982). In one treatment, abrochure explained resource im-pacts associated with concentratedcamping and showed the locationof other nearby camping areas. An-other group was given thebrochure in addition to personalcontact with a wilderness ranger.Both groups dispersed their camp-ing activity to a greater degree thana control group, but there was nostatistically significant differencebetween the two treatment groups.

Prior to obtaining a backcountrypermit, a sample group of hikers inYellowstone National Park (Mon-tana, Wyoming, and Idaho), wasgiven a guidebook that described theattributes of lesser-used trails(Krumpe and Brown 1982). Througha later survey and examination ofpermits, it was found that 37% of thisgroup had selected one of the lesser-used trails compared to 14% of acontrol group. Results also indicatedthat the earlier the information wasreceived, the more influence it hadon behavior. Studies employing user-friendly microcomputer-basedinformation approaches (e.g., “touchscreen” programs) have also beenfound to be effective in influencingrecreation use patterns (Huffman andWilliams 1986, 1987; Hultsman1988; Harmon 1992; Alpert andHerrington 1998).

Hikers in the PemigewassetWilderness in New Hampshirewere studied to determine the in-fluence of wilderness rangers as asource of information/education(Brown, Halstead, and Luloff

1992). Only about 20% of visitorsreported that the information re-ceived from wilderness rangersinfluenced their destination withinthe study area. However, visitorswho were less experienced andwho reported that they were morelikely to return to the study areawere more likely to be influencedby the information provided.

Potential problems in using in-formation/education to influencevisitor use were illustrated in a studyin the Selway-Bitterroot Wildernessin Montana (Lucas 1981). Brochuresdescribing current recreation usepatterns were distributed to visitors.Follow-up measurements indicatedlittle effect on subsequent use pat-terns. Evaluation of this programsuggested three limitations on its po-tential effectiveness: (1) manyvisitors did not receive the brochure,(2) most of those who did receivethe brochure received it too late toaffect their decision making, and (3)some visitors doubted the accuracyof the information contained in thebrochure.

2. Visitor Knowledge. A second cat-egory of studies has focusedprimarily on enhancing visitorknowledge to reduce ecologicaland social impacts. In RockyMountain National Park in Colo-rado (Fazio 1979b), informationwas provided on low-impactcamping practices through a seriesof media. Exposure to a slide/sound exhibit, a slide/sound ex-hibit plus a brochure, and a slide/sound exhibit plus a trailhead signresulted in significant increases invisitor knowledge. Exposure to atrailhead sign and brochure wasnot found to be very effective.

In a more recent study, a sampleof day hikers to subalpine meadowsin Mt. Rainier National Park in

Figure 1—Information can be provided through simple brochureson site.


Washington state was given a short,personal interpretive program onreasons for and importance of com-plying with guidelines for off-trailhiking (Kernan and Drogin 1995).Visitors who received this programand those who did not were laterobserved as they hiked. Most visitors(64%) who did not receive the inter-pretive program did not comply withoff-trail hiking guidelines, while themajority of visitors (58%) who didreceive the interpretive program com-plied with the guidelines.

A study of day hikers at GrandCanyon National Park in Arizonafound that an aggressive informa-tion/education campaign featuringthe message “heat kills, hike smart”presented in the park newspaperand on trailhead posters, influencedthe safety-related hiking practices(e.g., carrying sufficient water, start-ing hikes early in the day) of amajority of visitors (Stewart et al.2000). Bulletin boards at trailheadshave also been found to be effec-tive in enhancing visitor knowledge(Cole, Hammond, and McCool1997). Visitors exposed to low-im-pact messages at a wildernesstrailhead bulletin board were foundto be more knowledgeable aboutsuch practices than visitors whowere not. However, increasing thenumber of messages posted beyondtwo did not result in increasedknowledge levels.

Workshops and special programsdelivered to organizations can also beeffective in enhancing knowledge lev-els as well as intentions to followrecommended low-impact practices.For example, Leave No Trace (LNT)is a public/private national educa-tional initiative that integrates outdoorrecreation research into wildernesseducation. LNT establishes a collabo-rative framework connecting

managers and researchers and pro-viding visitors with currentminimum-impact skills and informa-tion (Monz et al. 1994). Theeffectiveness of these types of infor-mation/education programs has beendemonstrated in several studies(Dowell and McCool 1986; Jones andMcAvoy 1988; Cole, Hammond, andMcCool 1997; Confer et al. 1999).Research also suggests that commer-cial guides and outfitters can betrained to deliver to clients informa-tion/education programs that areeffective in enhancing visitor knowl-edge (Seig, Roggenbuck, andBobinski 1988; Roggenbuck, Will-iams, and Bobinski 1992) and thattrail guide booklets can also be effec-tive (Echelberger, Leonard, andHarnblin 1978).

Not all research has found in-formation/education programs tobe as effective as indicated in theabove studies. A study of theeffectiveness of interpretive pro-grams at Great Smoky MountainsNational Park in North Carolinaand Tennessee found mixed results(Burde et al. 1988). There was nodifference in knowledge aboutgeneral backcountry policies be-tween backcountry visitorsexposed to the park’s interpretiveservices and those who were notexposed. However, the formergroup did score higher on knowl-edge of park-related hazards. A testof a special brochure on appropri-ate behavior relating to bears foundonly limited change in actual orintended behavior of visitors

(Manfredo and Bright 1991). Visi-tors requesting information onwilderness permits for the Bound-ary Waters Canoe Area Wildernessin Minnesota were mailed the spe-cial brochures. In a follow-upsurvey, only 18% of respondentsreported that they had receivedany new information from the bro-chure, and only 7.5% reported thatthey had altered their actual or in-tended behavior.

3. Visitor Attitudes. A third category ofstudies has examined visitor attitudestoward a variety of managementagency policies (Robertson 1982;Olson, Bowman, and Roth 1984;Nielson and Buchanan 1986; Cableet al. 1987; Manfredo, Yuan, andMcGuire 1992; Bright et al. 1993;Ramthun 1996). These studies havefound that information/educationcan be effective in modifying visi-tor attitudes so they are moresupportive of wilderness and relatedland management policies. For ex-ample, visitors to YellowstoneNational Park in Montana, Wyoming,and Idaho were exposed to interpre-tive messages about fire ecology andthe effects of controlled-burn poli-cies (Bright et al. 1993). Thesemessages were found to influenceboth beliefs about these issues andattitudes based on those beliefs.

4. Depreciative Behavior. A fourth cat-egory of studies has focused ondepreciative behavior, especially lit-tering. A number of studies havefound that information/educationcan be effective in reducing litter-ing behavior and even cleaning up

Research suggests that information/education canbe effective, and a set of principles for applicationto wilderness management is emerging.


littered areas (Burgess, Clark, andHendee 1971; Clark, Hendee, andCampbell 1971; Marler 1971;Clark, Burgess, and Hendee 1972a,b; Powers, Osborne, and Anderson1973; Lahart and Barley 1975;Muth and Clark 1978; Christensen1981; Christensen and Clark 1983;Oliver, Roggenbuck, and Watson1985; Christensen 1986; Roggenbuckand Passineau 1986; Vander Stoepand Gramann 1987; Horsley 1988;Wagstaff and Wilson 1988;Christensen, Johnson, and Brooks1992; Taylor and Winter 1995). Forexample, samples of visitors to adeveloped campground were giventhree different treatments: a bro-chure describing the costs andimpacts of littering and vandalism,the brochure plus personal contactwith a park ranger, and these twotreatments plus a request for assis-tance in reporting depreciativebehaviors to park rangers (Oliver,Roggenbuck, and Watson 1985).The brochure plus the personalcontact was the most effective treat-ment; this reduced the number ofgroups who littered their campsitefrom 67% to 41% and reduced thenumber of groups who damagedtrees at their campsite from 20% to4%. Types of messages and relatedpurposes found to be effective in anumber of studies include incen-tives to visitors to assist withclean-up efforts and the use of rang-ers and trip leaders as role modelsfor cleaning up litter.

Other Types of StudiesSeveral other types of studies, whilenot directly evaluating the effective-ness of information/education, alsosuggest the potential of information/education for wilderness management.First, studies of visitor knowledge in-dicate that marked improvements are

possible, which could lead to im-proved visitor behavior. For example,campers in the Allegheny NationalForest in Pennsylvania were tested fortheir knowledge of the area’s rules andregulations (Ross and Moeller 1974).Only 48% of respondents answeredsix or more of the 10 questions cor-rectly. A similar study of visitors to theSelway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area inIdaho tested knowledge about wilder-ness use and management (Fazio1979a). Only about half of the 20questions were answered correctly bythe average respondent. However,there were significant differencesamong types of respondents, type ofknowledge, and the accuracy of vari-ous sources of information, providing

indications of where and how infor-mation/education might be channeledmost effectively. Visitors to the Allegh-eny National Forest in Pennsylvaniareceived an average score of 48% on a12-item true-false minimum impactquiz (Confer et al. 2000), while visi-tors to the Selway Bitterroot NationalForest in Montana received an aver-age score of 33% on a similar quiz(Cole, Hammond, and McCool 1997).

Second, several studies indicate thatinformation/education programs couldbe substantially improved (Brown andHunt 1969; Fazio 1979b; Cockrell andMcLaughlin 1982; Fazio and Ratcliffe1989). Evaluation of literature mailed inresponse to visitor requests has turnedup several areas of needed improvements,

Brochures .......................................................... 74 ........................ 2.5Personnel at agency offices ................................. 70 ........................ 2.7Maps ................................................................ 68 ........................ 2.1Signs ................................................................ 67 ........................ 2.3Personnel in backcountry .................................... 65 ........................ 3.8Displays at trailheads ......................................... 55 ........................ 2.6Displays at agency offices .................................. 48 ........................ 2.7Posters .............................................................. 48 ........................ 2.3Personnel at school programs ............................. 47 ........................ 2.9Slide shows ....................................................... 36 ........................ 2.9Personnel at campgrounds .................................. 35 ........................ 2.9Personnel at public meetings ............................... 34 ........................ 2.8Personnel at trailheads ....................................... 29 ........................ 3.3Personnel at visitor centers .................................. 26 ........................ 3.0Videos .............................................................. 21 ........................ 2.6Agency periodicals ............................................ 18 ........................ 2.3Displays at visitor centers .................................... 18 ........................ 2.5Guidebooks ....................................................... 13 ........................ 2.5Interpreters ........................................................ 11 ........................ 3.6Computers ......................................................... 11 ........................ 1.9Commercial radio ................................................ 9 ........................ 1.9Commercial periodicals ........................................ 8 ........................ 2.4Movies ................................................................ 7 ........................ 2.6Commercial television .......................................... 4 ........................ 2.3Agency radio ...................................................... 1 ........................ 2.4Mean of personnel-based techniques ................................................. 3.1Mean of media-based techniques ...................................................... 2.4Mean of all techniques ..................................................................... 2.6

Effectiveness scale: 1= “not effective”; 5 = “highly effective”

Table 2. Use and Perceived Effectiveness of 25 Information/Education Practices According to Wilderness Managers

(adapted from Doucette and Cole 1993)

Practice Percentage Mean perceivedused effectiveness rating


including more timely response, moredirect focus on management problemsand issues, greater personalization, morevisual appeal, and reduction of super-fluous materials.

Third, a survey of wilderness manag-ers identified the extent to which 25 visitorinformation/education practices were used(Doucette and Cole 1993). Study findingsare summarized in Table 2. Only six ofthese practices—brochures, personnel atagency offices, maps, signs, personnel inthe backcountry, and displays attrailheads—were used in a majority ofwilderness areas. Managers were also askedto rate the perceived effectiveness of infor-mation/education practices. It is clear fromTable 2 that personnel-based practices aregenerally considered to be more effectivethan media-based practices.

Finally, several studies have exam-ined the sources of information/education used by outdoor recreationvisitors for trip planning (Uysal,McDonald, and Reid 1990; Schuett1993; Confer et al 1999). Many re-spondents report using information/education sources that are not directlyproduced by management agencies,such as outdoor clubs, professionaloutfitters, outdoor stores, guidebooks,newspaper and magazine articles, andtravel agents. This suggests that man-agement agency linkages with selected

private and commercial organizationsmay be an especially effective ap-proach to information/education.

Emerging Principles forDesigning and ImplementingWilderness Information/Education Programs

Despite the fact that the studies de-scribed above are diverse in terms ofgeographic area, methods, and issuesaddressed, a number of principles forusing information/education are emerg-ing from the scientific and professionalliterature (Roggenbuck and Ham 1986;Brown, McCool, and Manfredo 1987;Manfredo 1989, 1992; Roggenbuck1992; Doucette and Cole 1993; Bright1994; Basman et al. 1996; Vander Stoepand Roggenbuck 1996):

• Information/education programsmay be most effective when ap-plied to problem behaviors that arecharacterized by careless, un-skilled, or uninformed actions.

• Information/education programsshould be designed to reach visi-tors at multiple stages of moraldevelopment.

• Information/education programsdesigned to “connect” with ormodify visitor attitudes, beliefs, or

norms are likely to be most effec-tive in the long-term, and torequire less repeated application.

• Use of multiple media to delivermessages can be more effectivethan use of a single medium.

• Information/education programsare generally more effective withvisitors who are less experiencedand who are less knowledgeable.

• Brochures, personal messages, andaudiovisual programs may be moreeffective than signs.

• Messages may be more effective whendelivered early in the visitor experi-ence, such as during trip planning.

• Messages from sources judgedhighly credible may be especiallyeffective.

• Strongly worded messages and ag-gressive delivery of such messagescan be an effective way of enhanc-ing the “mindfulness” of visitors,and may be warranted when ap-plied to issues such as visitor safetyand protection of critical and/orsensitive resources.

• Computer-based information sys-tems (e.g., “touch screen” educationalprograms) can be an effective meansof delivering information/education.

• Messages at trailheads and bulle-tin boards should probably belimited to a small number of issues,perhaps as few as two.

• Training of volunteers, outfitters, andcommercial guides can be an effective

Figure 2—Southeast Alaska Discovery Center. Photo byRobert Manning.

Figure 3—Old Faithful Visitor Center. Photo by Robert Manning.


and efficient means of communicat-ing information/education.

• Nonagency media, such as news-papers, magazines, and guidebookscan be an effective and efficientmeans of communicating informa-tion/education.

• Information on the impacts, costs,and consequences of problem behav-iors can be an effective information/education strategy.

• Role modeling by wilderness rang-ers and volunteers can be an effectiveinformation/education strategy.

• Personal contact with visitors byrangers or other employees can beeffective in communicating infor-mation/education.

• Messages should be targeted to spe-cific audiences to the extentpossible. Target audiences thatmight be especially receptive includethose who request information inadvance and those who are leastknowledgeable.

• Messages should be targeted at is-sues that are least well understoodor known by visitors.

Studies on information/education sug-gest that this can be an effective anddesirable management tool. Generally,the 18 principles outlined above arebased on understanding both theoreti-cal and empirical studies reported todate, and they recommend employinga variety of message types and media andaddressing a variety of managementissues and target audiences.

REFERENCESAlpert, L., and L. Herrington. 1998. An interac-

tive information kiosk for the AdirondackPark visitor interpretive center, Newcomb,NY. Vogelsong, H. (comp.) In Proceedingsof the 1997 Northeastern Recreation Re-search Symposium. USDA Forest Service,Radnor, PA; General Technical Report NE-241, 265–67.

Basman, C., M. Manfredo, S. Barro, J. Vaske,and A. Watson. 1996. Norm accessibility:

An exploratory study of backcountry andfrontcountry recreational norms. Leisure Sci-ences, 18: 177–91.

Bright, A. 1994. Information campaigns thatenlighten and influence the public. Parks andRecreation, 29, 49-54.

Bright, A., and M. Manfredo. 1995. Moderat-ing effects of personal importance on theaccessibility of attitudes toward recreationparticipation. Leisure Sciences, 17: 281–94.

Bright, A., M. Manfredo, M. Fishbein, and A.Bath. 1993. Application of the theory oflearned action to the National Park Service’scontrolled burn policy. Journal of Leisure Re-search, 25: 263–80.

Brown, C., J. Halstead, and A. Luloff. 1992.Information as a management tool: Anevaluation of the Pemigewasset WildernessManagement Plan. Environmental Manage-ment, 16: 143–48.

Brown, P., and J. Hunt. 1969. The influence ofinformation signs on visitor distribution anduse. Journal of Leisure Research, 1: 79–83.

Brown, P., S. McCool, and M. Manfredo. 1987.Evolving concepts and tools for recreationuser management in wilderness. In R. C.Lucas comp. Proceedings—National Wilder-ness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions. Ogden, Utah:USDA Forest Service, General TechnicalReport INT-220, 320–46.

Burde, J., J. Peine, J. Renfro, and K. Curran.1988. Communicating with park visitors:Some successes and failures at Great SmokyMountains National Park. In National As-sociation of Interpretation 1988 ResearchMonograph, 7–12.

Burgess, R., R. Clark, and J. Hendee. 1971. Anexperimental analysis of anti-litter proce-dures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy-sis, 4: 71–75.

Cable, T., D. Knudson, E. Udd, and D. Stewart.1987. Attitude changes as a result of expo-sure to interpretive messages. Journal of Parkand Recreation Administration, 5: 47–60.

Christensen, H. 1981. Bystander Intervention andLitter Control: An Experimental Analysis of anAppeal to Help Program. Portland, Ore.: USDAForest Service, Research Paper PNW-287.

———. 1986. Vandalism and depreciativebehavior. A Literature Review: The President’sCommission on Americans Outdoors. Wash-ington, D.C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, M-73-M-87.

Christensen, H., and R. Clark. 1983. Increas-ing public involvement to reduce deprecia-tive behavior in recreation settings. LeisureSciences, 5: 359–78.

Christensen, H., and D. Dustin. 1989. Reach-ing recreationists at different levels of moraldevelopment. Journal of Park and RecreationAdministration, 7: 72–80.

Christensen, H., D. Johnson, and M. Brookes.1992. Vandalism: Research, Prevention, andSocial Policy. Portland, Ore,: USDA ForestService, General Technical Report PNW-293.

Clark, R., R. Burgess, and J. Hendee. 1972a.The development of anti-litter behavior in aforest campground. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 5: 1–5.

Clark, R., J. Hendee, and R. Burgess. 1972b.The experimental control of littering. Jour-nal of Environmental Education, 4: 22–28.

Clark, R., J. Hendee, and F. Campbell. 1971.Depreciative Behavior in Forest Campgrounds:An Exploratory Study. Portland, Ore.: USDAForest Service Research Paper PNW-161.

Cockrell, D., and W. McLaughlin. 1982. Socialinfluences on wild river recreationists. In D.W. Line comp. Forest and River Recreation:Research Update. St. Paul, Minn.: Universityof Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station,Miscellaneous Publication 18: 140–45.

Cole, D., T. Hammond, and S. McCool. 1997.Information quality and communication ef-fectiveness: Low-impact messages on wilder-ness trailhead bulletin boards. LeisureSciences, 19: 59–72.

Confer, J. J., J. D. Absher, A. Graefe, and A.Hille. 1999. Relationships between visitorknowledge of “Leave No Trace” minimumimpact practices and attitudes toward se-lected management actions. In H. Vogelsongcomp. Proceedings of the 1998 Northeast-ern Recreation Research Symposium.Radnor, Pa.: USDA Forest Service GeneralTechnical Report NE 255: 142–146

Confer, J. J., A. J. Mowen, A. R. Graefe, and J.D. Absher. 2000. Magazines as wildernessinformation sources: Assessing users’ gen-eral wilderness knowledge and specificLeave No Trace knowledge. In D. Cole, andS. McCool, eds. S.1999. Proceedings fromthe National Wilderness Science Confer-ence: A Time of Change. Ogden, Utah: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station GeneralTechnical Report P-15:(4) 193–197.

Doucette, J., and D. Cole. 1993. WildernessVisitor Education: Information About Alter-native Techniques. USDA Forest ServiceGeneral Technical Report INT-295.

Dowell, D., and S. McCool. 1986. Evaluationof a wilderness information disseminationprogram. In R. C. Lucas, comp. Proceed-ings—National Wilderness Research Con-ference: Current Research. Ogden, Utah:USDA Forest Service, General TechnicalReport INT-212, 494–500.

Duncan, G. and S. Martin. 2002. Comparingthe effectiveness of interpretive and sanctionmessages for influencing wilderness visitors’intended behavior. IJW, 8: (2) 20–25.

Echelberger, H., R. Leonard, and M. Hamblin.


1978. The Trail Guide System as aBackcountry Management Tool. UpperDarby, Pa.: USDA Forest Service, ResearchNote NE-266.

Fazio, J. 1979a. Communication with the wil-derness user. Wildlife and Range ScienceBulletin Number 28, Moscow, Idaho: Uni-versity of Idaho College of Forestry.

Fazio, J. 1979b. Agency literature as an aid towilderness management. Journal of Forestry,77: 97–98.

Fazio, J., and R. Ratcliffe. 1989. Direct-mail lit-erature as a method to reduce problems ofwild river management. Journal of Park andRecreation Administration, 7: 1–9.

Gilligan, C. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Harmon, D. 1992. Using an interactive com-puter program to communicate with the wil-derness visitor. In D. J. Chavez, comp.Proceedings of the Symposium on Social As-pects and Recreation Research. Albany,Calif.: USDA Forest Service, General Tech-nical Report PSW-GJR-132, 60.

Hendee, J., and C. P. Dawson. 2002. WildernessManagement: Stewardship and protectionof resources and values, 3rd ed. Golden,Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing.

Horsley, A. 1988. The unintended effects ofposted sign on littering attitudes and statedintentions. Journal of Environmental Educa-tion, 19: 10–14.

Huffman, M., and D. Williams. 1986. Computerversus brochure information disseminationas a backcountry management tool. In R. C.Lucas, comp. Proceedings—National Wil-derness Research Conference: Current Re-search. Odgen, Utah: USDA Forest Service,General Technical Report INT-212, 501–8.

———. 1987. The use of microcomputers forpark trail information dissemination. Jour-nal of Park and Recreation Administration,5: 35–46.

Hultsman, W. 1988. Applications of a touch-sen-sitive computer in park settings: Activity alter-natives and visitor information. Journal of Parkand Recreation Administration, 6: 1–11.

Jones, P. and L. McAvoy. 1988. An evaluationof a wilderness user education Program: Acognitive and behavioral analysis. NationalAssociation of Interpretation 1988 ResearchMonograph, 13–20.

Kernan, A., and E. Drogin. 1995. The effect ofa verbal interpretive message on day userimpacts at Mount Rainier National Park. InC. Dawson, ed. Proceedings of the 1994Northeastern Recreation Research Sympo-sium. Radnor, Pa.: USDA Forest Service,General Technical Report NE-198, 127–29.

Kohlberg, L. 1976. Moral stages and moraldevelopment. In Moral Development andBehavior: Theory, Research and Social Is-

sues. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Krumpe, E., and P. Brown. 1982. Using infor-

mation to disperse wilderness hikers. Jour-nal of Forestry, 80: 360–62.

Lahart, D., and J. Barley. 1975. Reducingchildren’s littering on a nature trail. Journalof Environmental Education, 7: 37–45.

Lime, D., and R. Lucas. 1977. Good informa-tion improves the wilderness experience.Naturalist, 28: 18–20.

Lucas, R. 1981. Redistributing Wilderness UseThrough Information Supplied to Visitors.Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Re-search Paper INT-277.

Manfredo, M. 1989. An investigation of the basisfor external information search in recreationand tourism. Leisure Sciences, 11: 29–45.

Manfredo, M., and A. Bright. 1991. A modelfor assessing the effects of communicationon recreationists. Journal of Leisure Re-search, 23: 1–20.

Manfredo, M., S. Yuan, and F. McGuire. 1992.The influence of attitude accessibility on at-titude-behavior relationships: implicationsfor recreation research. Journal of LeisureResearch, 24: 157–70.

Manfredo, J., ed. 1992. Influencing Human Be-havior: Theory and Application in Recreation,Tourism, and Natural Resources Manage-ment. Champaign, Ill.: Sagamore Publishing.

Marler, L. 1971. A study of anti-litter messages.Journal of Environmental Education, 3: 52–53.

McCool, S., and D. Lime. 1989. Attitudes of visi-tors toward outdoor recreation managementpolicy. Outdoor Recreation Benchmark1988: Proceedings of the National OutdoorRecreation Forum. Asheville, N. C.: USDAForest Service, General Technical Report SE-52, 401–11.

Mona, C. A., C. Henderson, and R. A. Brame.1994. Perspectives on the integration of wil-derness research and education. In C.Sydoriak, comp. Wilderness The Spirit Lives:6th National Wilderness Conference. Na-tional Park Services, Bandolier NationalMonument, Los Alamos, N.M.: 204–207.

Moscardo, G. 1999. Making Visitors Mindful: Vol-ume 2. Champaign, Ill.: Sagamore Publishing.

Muth, R., and R. Clark. 1978. Public Participationin Wilderness and Backcountry Litter Control:A Review of Research and Management Ex-perience. Portland, Ore.: USDA Forest Ser-vice, General Technical Report PNW-75.

Nielson, C., and T. Buchanan. 1986. A comparisonof the effectiveness of two interpretive programsregarding fire ecology and fire management.Journal of Interpretation, 1: 1–10.

Oliver, S., J. Roggenbuck, and A. Watson. 1985.Education to reduce impacts in forest camp-grounds. Journal of Forestry, 83: 234–36.

Olson, E., M. Bowman, and R. Roth. 1984. In-terpretation and nonformal education in

natural resources management. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 15: 6–10.

Powers, R., J. Osborne, and E. Anderson. 1973.Positive reinforcement of litter removal in thenatural environment. Journal of Applied Be-havioral Analysis, 6: 579–80.

Ramthun, R. 1996. Information sources and at-titudes of mountain bikers. In C. Dawson,ed. Proceedings of the 1995 NortheasternRecreation Research Symposium. Radnor,Pa.: USDA Forest Service, General Techni-cal Report NE-218, 14-16.

Robertson, R. 1982. Visitor knowledge affectsvisitor behavior. In D. W. Lime, comp. For-est and River Recreation: Research Update.St. Paul, Minn.: University of MinnesotaAgricultural Experiment Station Miscella-neous Publication 18: 49–51.

Roggenbuck, J. 1992. Use of persuasion to re-duce resource impacts and visitor conflicts. InM. J. Manfredo, ed. Influencing Human Be-havior: Theory and Applications in RecreationTourism, and Natural Resources. Champaign,Ill.: Sagamore Publishing, 149–208.

Roggenbuck, J., and D. Berrier. 1981. Commu-nications to disperse wilderness campers.Journal of Forestry, 75: 295–97.

———. 1982. A comparison of the effective-ness of two communication strategies in dis-persing wilderness campers. Journal ofLeisure Research, 14: 77–89.

Roggenbuck, J., and S. Ham. 1986. Use of in-formation and education in recreation man-agement. A Literature Review: The president’sCommission on Americans Outdoors. Wash-ington, D.C.: US Government Printing Of-fice, M-59-M-71.

Roggenbuck, J. and J. Passineau. 1986. Use ofthe field experiment to assess the effectivenessof interpretation. In Proceedings of the South-eastern Recreation Research Conference. Ath-ens, Ga.: University of Georgia Institute ofCommunity and Area Development, 65–86.

Roggenbuck, J., D. Williams, and C. Bobinski.1992. Public-private partnership to increasecommercial tour guides’ effectiveness asnature interpreters. Journal of Park and Rec-reation Administration, 10: 41–50.

Ross, T., and G. Moeller. 1974. Communicat-ing Rules in Recreation Areas. USDA ForestService, Research Paper NE-297.

Schuett, M. (1993). Information sources and riskrecreation: The case of whitewater kayakers.Journal of Park and Recreation Administra-tion, 11: 67–72.

Seig, G., J. Roggenbuck, and C. Bobinski. 1988.The effectiveness of commercial river guidesas interpreters. In Proceedings of the 1987Southeastern Recreation Research Conference.Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia, 12–20.



Wilderness Informationand Education in the

Three Sisters WildernessBY LES JOSLIN


Manning’s emerging principles of wilderness in-formation and education (2003) [in quotes inthis article] reflect in the work of the Central

Oregon Wilderness Education Partnership (COWEP) throughwhich the Deschutes National Forest, two institutions of highereducation, and individual citizen volunteers and student in-terns promote wilderness experience and resource protectionin the Three Sisters Wilderness of Oregon (Joslin 2000).

For the past 10 summers, qualified uniformed U.S.Forest Service volun-teers—called WildernessInformation Specialist(WIS)—at trailheads andon trails have served asfriendly faces and helpinghands to thousands ofThree Sisters Wildernessvisitors. They implementManning’s principles that“personal contacts withvisitors by rangers … canbe an effective informa-tion/education strategy”and that “messages fromsources judged highlycredible may be especiallyeffective”. According toDoucette and Cole (1993),personnel at trailheadsand in the backcountryare the two most effectivewilderness informationand education practices.

These personal contacts occur daily at the Green LakesTrailhead Information Station at the most used entrance tothe Three Sisters Wilderness, and on weekends at thetrailhead used by the thousands who summit South Sisterduring the visitor season. Although trailhead contacts don’tcommunicate messages to visitors before they arrive attrailheads, they are delivered “early in the visitor experi-ence” and are especially effective for those who are lessexperienced and less knowledgeable. Also, since the WISpersonnel quickly “size up” each visitor or group of visitorsto ascertain information and education needs during a brieftrailhead contact, Manning’s principles that “messages attrailheads should be limited to a small number of issues”and “targeted at specific audiences to the extent possible”are observed. When the WIS provides the visitor with amap, regulation brochure, other printed information, oreven assistance in completing a self-issued wilderness per-mit (on which regulations are printed), the principle isfollowed that “use of multiple media to deliver messagescan be more effective than use of a single medium.”

Personal contacts on the trails reinforce trailhead con-tacts, and sometimes address “problem behaviors that arecharacterized by careless, unskilled, or uninformed actions”not prevented by previous information and education ef-forts. Additionally, the mere presence of uniformedpersonnel—even volunteer WIS personnel without enforce-ment authority—impresses on visitors the fact that theagency really cares about the quality of their wildernessexperience and their wilderness resource.

Wilderness personnel—volunteers and employees—must both appear to be and actually be credible, becausea volunteer WIS at the trailhead or on the trail may be theonly ranger many wilderness visitors meet, and because,

A volunteer wilderness information specialist assistshikers at the Green Lakes information station in theThree Sisters Wilderness. U.S. Forest Service photoby Les Joslin.


as Manning notes, “messages fromsources judged highly credible maybe especially effective.” WIS need toknow their stuff, and they need tolook like they know their stuff. Theyneed to look and act the part of theranger. Looking the part includeswearing the agency uniform properly.Acting the part means beingfriendly—and authoritative whennecessary. Even when strong mes-sages may be warranted in cases ofvisitor safety and protection of re-sources, they should be delivered ina manner respectful of the visitor.

Manning notes that “role modelingby wilderness rangers and volunteerscan be an effective information/edu-cation strategy.” Ensuring this is partof the wilderness manager’s leadershiprole of recruiting, training, supervis-ing, and setting the example for the rightpeople to carry out a well-designedpersonal contact program.

The fact that most trailheads are notstaffed and that many trails are notregularly patrolled places much of thewilderness information and educationburden on trailhead signs and bulle-tin boards. Communicating withvisitors through these media is not asstraightforward as it might first seem.Wilderness visitors at trailheads willread and heed a little information ifit’s presented properly, but will ignorepoorly presented and excessive infor-mation. Manning’s (2003) suggestionthat “messages at trailheads and bul-letin boards should probably belimited to a small number of issues,perhaps as few as two” challengesmanagers to realize that one bulletinboard won’t do the whole job and totherefore prioritize their messages.

Because the most accurate wilder-ness use data essential to managementprobably comes from mandatory visi-tor-permit systems (Hendee andDawson 2002), and because in the

Three Sisters Wilderness such permitscommunicate important wildernessmessages (e. g., regulations and LeaveNo Trace tips), self-issue of these per-mits at trailheads is a top priority.Visitor compliance with this require-ment, and the attendant benefits of usedata collection and information andeducation, can be diminished by clut-tered bulletin boards that confrontvisitors with a plethora of informationin which priority messages are lost.When this is the case, more effectivesigns that get the high prioritymessage(s) across clearly and quicklymust be developed and deployed.Competing lower priority messagesmust be eliminated. A review of ThreeSisters Wilderness trailhead permitstation and bulletin board messagepriorities is underway.

The fact that the best venue for pro-viding wilderness information andeducation is neither at the trailheadsnor on the trails, but at visitors’ homeswhere wilderness trips are planned, isrecognized by several of Manning’s(2003) emerging principles. In addi-tion to an annual community collegecourse and occasional talks to groups,COWEP has produced a 30-minutevideo entitled The Wilderness Conceptand the Three Sisters Wilderness, whichis shown on local cable television inorder to reach these audiences. Thepartnership is exploring use of othermass media and public venuesthrough which to communicate thewilderness message.

REFERENCESDoucette, J., and D. Cole. 1993. Wilderness

Visitor Education: Information About Al-

A volunteer wilderness information specialist assistsThree Sisters Wilderness visitors. U.S. Forest Servicephoto by Tom Iraci.

ternative Techniques. Ogden, Utah: USDAForest Service, General Technical ReportINT-295.

Hendee, J., and C. P. Dawson. 2002. WildernessManagement: Stewardship and protectionof resources and values, 3rd ed. Golden,Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing.

Joslin, L. 2000. A community-based wildernesseducation partnership in central Oregon.IJW, 6: (3) 27–30.

Manning, R. E. 2003. Emerging principles forusing information/education in wildernessmanagement. IJW, 9 (1): 21–28.

LES JOSLIN teaches wilderness managementas an Oregon State University adjunctinstructor, teaches a sequence of wildernesscourses at Central Oregon CommunityCollege, and coordinates the COWEPprogram as a seasonal DeschutesNational Forest wilderness ranger/wilderness educator. E-mail:[email protected].

Wilderness visitors at trailheads will read and heed alittle information if it’s presented properly, but willignore poorly presented and excessive information.


Leave the Rocks forthe Next Glacier

Low Impact Education in a High Use National Park

BY CHARLIE JACOBI


With 2.7 million annual visits and 45,695 acres(18,500 hectares), Acadia National Park,located in coastal Maine in the United States,

is not a designated wilderness. Yet park managers are con-cerned about preserving the wilderness values that remain,and they are acutely aware that management decisions andvisitor actions may easily erode these values. Acadia is aday hikers’ paradise with 130 miles (210 kilometers) oftrails enjoyed by some 5,000 or more hikers every summer

day. The low impacteducation challengesare substantial, but theyare not so different fromthose facing wildernessmanagers, except per-haps in scale.

In this article, wedescribe our ongoingefforts to address oneaspect of the Leave

What You Find principle from the Leave No Trace (LNT)Program. We illustrate multiple education principles as out-lined by Manning (2003). Finally, we will assess the successof our efforts.

Stone cairns mark the trails ascending Acadia’s granite-domed summits. With an ample supply of rock available,hikers frequently succumb to the all-too-human urge toleave some mark of their passage. They add and removerocks from cairns at will, build their own cairns (see Figure1) and other rock objects (see Figure 2), and destroy cairns.Park managers consider this a problem for three reasons:(1) resource damage—visitors remove rocks directly fromthin mountain soils, contributing to further soil erosion andplant loss; (2) loss of wilderness values—extra cairns androck objects degrade the natural landscape and the visitorexperience; and (3) safety—extra cairns may lead hikersoff the trail during inclement weather, leading to injuriesor lost hikers.

The cairn/rock issue is an example of uninformed be-havior by visitors. Our efforts have focused on informingvisitors of the impacts or consequences of their actions asdescribed above, and the following discussion illustrateshow we have used multiple media to deliver our message.

For five years we have had four ridgerunners out hiking,maintaining cairns, and talking to visitors about LNT, es-pecially Leave What You Find, as it relates to rocks andcairns. We find the two duties, maintenance and educa-tion, work well together. During a 12-week season,ridgerunners contact about 2,000 hikers with a substan-tive LNT message.

We have tried in many ways to reach visitors before theirhike. We constructed a cairn exhibit and installed it in the parkvisitor center. With partners, we developed a video entitled Leave

Figure 1—Unnecessary cairns built by visitors. Photo courtesy NPS.

Figure 2—Visitors build various rock sculpturesthroughout the park. Photo courtesy NPS.


We have not reached the bottom ofthe toolbox, either. Under a new con-cessions plan, the park will use spacein a gift shop on Cadillac Mountain tocreate a summit education center. Wecan use targeted LNT messages in parkcampgrounds more effectively. Morenonagency media are available. Butthere is the question of how much ef-fort we should expend to mitigate thisone issue. We have made a concertedeffort locally, but we believe the LNTethic must also permeate the broaderworld of outdoor enthusiasts to solvethis and other issues.

REFERENCESManning, R. E. 2003. Emerging principles for

using information/education in wildernessmanagement. IJW, 9(1), 21–28.

CHARLIE JACOBI is a natural resourcespecialist at Acadia National Park working onvisitor management issues. Acadia NationalPark, P.O. Box 177, Bar Harbor, ME 04609,USA. E-mail: [email protected].

No Trace in Maine. The cairn/rock is-sue was featured prominently in thevideo, which was distributed to morethan 200 summer camps, universityouting clubs, and other organizationsthroughout the state and the region.And several outdoor sports shopsaround the state play the video on tele-vision monitors in their shops.

We have used nonagency media fre-quently. Information about the cairnissue was included in one hikingguidebook, thanks to cooperative au-thors. In a series on science in Acadia,Maine Public Radio reported on anexperiment we conducted using signsto combat the cairn issue. We wrotean opinion piece about the issue for alocal newspaper; it was a very personalmessage and strongly worded. Withthe editor, we timed publication forthe July 4 holiday, in order to reachthe most readers possible. The articlewas repeated in the summer editionof the park’s visitor newspaper and inthe journal of the park friends group.

Visitor tampering with cairns ismost prevalent at the summit ofCadillac Mountain, the highest pointin the park, where an auto road andfour hiking trails converge. We con-ducted an experiment to test thehypothesis that visitor tamperingwould decrease with the installationof interpretive signs on a problematicsection of trail near the summit. Webuilt 67 simple four-stone cairns onthis section. With these simple cairns,any tampering would be obvious. Wemonitored cairn condition every fivedays for six weeks before placing thesigns. We then installed three signs(see Figure 3) at either end of the trailsection and at a trail junction in themiddle and continued monitoring foranother six weeks. The average per-cent of intact cairns (no tampering)increased from 64% without signs to81% with the signs. We had hoped for

better results and wonder if this resultjustifies three signs. It also raises ques-tions about the value of using signs tosolve this problem at other sites.

A graduate student observing visitorbehavior on Cadillac noted a few in-stances of children, with or without thetacit approval or assistance of parents,constructing or dismantling cairns. Wehad targeted children directly by devel-oping an LNT patch sold by the localcooperating association in park visi-tor centers. The patch reads: “Leavethe Rocks for the Next Glacier” andshows a picture of a cairn. Each patchis sold with a hang tag explaining moreabout the LNT message. We know,however, that adults were also respon-sible for tampering with cairns becauselarge rocks were moved.

After five years of a variety of edu-cation efforts, we believe many of ourvisitors are inexperienced, and we arenot convinced our efforts have beenvery effective yet. It takes significanttime and energy to maintain cairns anddestroy visitor-built cairns and otherobjects. Anecdotally,there may have beensome overall improve-ment parkwide, but it isdifficult to monitor con-ditions. Not all ourcairns are made of onlyfour stones. We also rec-ognize it may only takeone contrary person afew hours to undo muchof our effort. With morethan 500,000 visitors an-nually, Cadillac Mountainalone presents a hugechallenge that educationalone cannot solve.

Hikers frequently succumb to the all-too-human urgeto leave some mark of their passage.

Figure 3—An interpretive sign to reduce visitor-built cairns and rock sculptures.Photo courtesy NPS.


Frontcountry VisitorInformation/Education

ProgramsAre There Lessons for Wilderness?

BY YU-FAI LEUNG and ARAM ATTARIAN


Among various wilderness visitor information/edu-cation programs, the national Leave No Trace (LNT)program is one of the most consistent and well-

known efforts supported by all major federal landmanagement agencies. The LNT program and its sevenguiding principles originated and evolved primarily inwilderness and backcountry settings. However, there seemsto be a recent trend of the LNT program finding its place infrontcountry and urban recreation areas. The Boulder, Colo-rado, Open Space Do the Wild Things program was thefirst LNT frontcountry application that has shown a greatdeal of success (Jones 1999). A second LNT frontcountryprogram was initiated in the city of Durango, Colorado(Leung and Attarian 2002). Each of these LNT frontcountryprograms benefited tremendously from the knowledge gained

through wilderness applications. Given the recent interestand growth in frontcountry recreation, the question now be-comes, “What have we learned from the LNT frontcountryapplications that might benefit wilderness information/edu-cation programs?” We briefly highlight the Durango LNTprogram and discuss its relevance to wilderness management,particularly as it illustrates the emerging principles outlinedby Manning (2003).

We developed the Durango LNT program and evalu-ated its effectiveness for the Animas River Trail (ART)between 2000 and 2002. The ART runs through the heartof Durango, serving residents as an important recreationand commuting route. We identified six salient visitor im-pact issues based on discussions with City of Durango Parkand Recreation staff and local groups. The issues addressedin our LNT intervention included dogs being off leash, dogwaste, human litter, social trails, trespassing on private prop-erties, and not yielding to other visitors. The interventionconsisted of two types of posters (modern and traditional)containing exactly the same information. They differed onlyin design, with the modern poster containing rich graphicsand the traditional poster mimicking the typical U.S. fed-eral land management agency design (see Figure 1). Thegraphics for the modern poster were largely adapted fromthe Boulder Study (Jones 1999). Only one type of inter-vention was shown at one of three study locations during asampling period. Effectiveness of the posters was assessedthrough a variety of methods, including an on-site prefer-ence survey, an intervention study with on-site/mail-backquestionnaires, and behavior observation.

Figure 1—The modern graphic-rich and traditional posters developed for the LNT frontcountryprogram in Durango, Colorado. Photo by Yu-Fai Leung.


In July 2000 we contacted visitorson the ART and asked them to com-ment on the two poster designs. A totalof 169 surveys were completed. Theresults indicated that the vast major-ity of respondents chose the modernposter on all design variables except“authority,” for which 92% of the re-spondents preferred the traditionalposter. Most of those who preferredthe traditional poster for other designvariables were male (Wirsching 2001).

During the summers of 2000 and2001 an intervention study was con-ducted (Leung and Attarian 2002). A totalof 232 visitors participated in the on-sitepretest survey. One important componentof the pretest survey was to determinethe respondents’ current level of LNTknowledge as measured by a seven-itemknowledge test. Results suggested that themajority of respondents had a good levelof understanding of visitor resource im-pacts and had heard about the LNTprogram from a variety of sources. Thosewith high education levels, had previousexposure to the LNT program, or wereaffiliated with outdoor and conservationgroups, exhibited a higher level of LNTknowledge. A mail-back posttest surveywas conducted on the pretest respon-dents to evaluate their retention of LNTknowledge and possible effects of the in-tervention. A general increase in LNTknowledge between pretest and posttestwas found, particularly on questions re-garding the decomposition of orangepeels and the LNT program objectives.When data were classified into threegroups (control, traditional poster, andmodern poster), however, little changeof knowledge was noted following the in-tervention. The behavior observationresults showed that visitors were aboutas likely to stop and read the traditionalposter (4.4%) as the modern poster(2.6%). However, when a brochure boxcontaining copies of the miniature-sizemodern poster was attached to the mod-

ern poster, one in every 13 visitors (7.5%)stopped and read the modern poster.Walkers were more likely to stop and readthe posters compared to one out of 100joggers, cyclists, and river users (Leungand Attarian 2002).

Research findings and our experi-ences gained from the Durango studysupported a number of principles sum-marized by Manning (2003). Forexample, we found that using multiplemedia is an effective approach to expos-ing visitors to educational/informationprograms. Word of mouth, signs,trailhead contacts, and newspapers ap-peared to be the most common sourcesof LNT information in the Durangostudy. Also, providing brochures alongwith the poster may make visitors morelikely to stop, which is an essential firststep in the persuasive communicationprocess. Messages at trailheads shouldprobably be limited to a small numberof important issues, particularly for thetarget audience who move at a fasterpace (e.g., joggers or river runners).

The frontcountry application of theLNT program in Durango seems to havesome implications for wilderness pro-grams. First, graphic-rich design maynot necessarily be the most effective fordelivering LNT or related outdoor eth-ics information. Our findings show thatmost visitors preferred a graphic-richmodern poster design; however, thispreference did not translate into effec-tiveness, as indicated by measures ofobserved behavior and knowledge test-ing. Visitors were actually somewhatmore likely to stop and read the tradi-tional poster than the modern posterunless brochures were provided with the

latter, and the knowledge gained by visi-tors who were exposed to the modernposter was not significantly differentfrom those who were exposed to the tra-ditional poster. Second, the majority ofvisitors chose the traditional federalagency poster design for its authority(Wirsching 2001); hence, when author-ity is an important element in themessage, a traditional design might bemore effective.

While LNT applications in front-country settings are still at thebeginning stage, information/educationprograms can become stronger andmore effective if we share and learnfrom the experiences gained in bothwilderness/backcountry and urban/frontcountry settings.

REFERENCESJones, M. 1999. Leave No Trace: Pilot Study Re-

port. Boulder, Colo.: The City of Boulder OpenSpace and Mountains Parks. Retrieved on Dec.2, 2002 from http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/openspace/visitor/LNT/lntreport.htm.

Leung, Y.-F., and A. Attarian. 2002. Evaluatingthe effectiveness of the Leave No TraceFrontcountry Program in the city of Durango,Colorado. Final report. Boulder, Colo.: TheLeave No Trace, Inc.

Manning, R. E. 2003. Emerging principles forusing information/education in wildernessmanagement. IJW 9(1): 21–28.

Wirsching, A. 2001. Visitor Preferences of LeaveNo Trace Poster Designs. Unpublished mas-ters thesis, North Carolina State University,Department of Parks, Recreation and Tour-ism Management, Raleigh.

YU-FAI LEUNG ([email protected]) andARAM ATTARIAN ([email protected])are assistant professor and associateprofessor, respectively, in the Department ofParks, Recreation and Tourism Managementat North Carolina State University, Raleigh,NC 27695-8004, USA.

The majority of respondents had a good level ofunderstanding of visitor resource impacts and hadheard about the LNT program from a variety of sources.


Yosemite’s Principled Approachto Wilderness Education

BY LAUREL BOYERS, GARY KOY, and BARB MIRANDA


In the heart of the most populous state lies one of thelargest wilderness areas in the lower 48. Yosemite’s Wil-derness, at 704,624 acres (285,273 hectares), makes

up almost 95% of this highly visited park. The YosemiteWilderness and the contiguous Forest Service and Park Ser-vice wildernesses form a Sierra Nevada wilderness complexof almost 2.5 million acres (1 million hectares). The man-agement challenges are large, and staff employ almost all ofthe educational principles outlined in Manning (2003) notonly to assure public access without harm to wildernessresources, but also to establish wilderness relevancy andlong-term stewardship for groups that aren’t current users.We strongly agree with all of the 18 principles outlined inthe article.

Yosemite employs a multitiered, interagency approach towilderness education, using a full spectrum of information/education principles and techniques. The targets of Yosemite’swilderness education program vary from addressing imme-diate on-the-ground concerns such as keeping bears wild, to

instilling an appreciation for wilderness values in nontradi-tional users and diverse populations. Consider the techniquesused to address the problem of keeping backpacker foodaway from black bears. Although many mitigation techniqueshave been tried, Yosemite black bears have proven them-selves more determined than humans to win the calories. In1993 bear-resistant food canisters became available and werean effective means of food storage that was consistent withthe wilderness values of self-reliance and minimizing struc-tures in wilderness. However, the canisters were bulky, heavy,and new. Wilderness staff were tasked with convincing peopleto use this untried device.

Messages were geared to the development level of thewilderness user and ranged from “Failure to use approvedfood storage techniques could result in a citation,” to “If abear gets your food your trip will be cut short,” to “You canhelp keep this a place where your grandchildren can stillsee wild bears by using a bear canister.” Staff sometimesused all arguments geared at any development level in or-der to make the point, but generally learned how to judgereceptiveness through initial discussions.

In addition to direct personal contact from crediblesources, such as uniformed and volunteer staff who hadused or were currently using the canisters (see Figure 1),information was presented through brochures, the parknewspaper, and trailhead signs. Information was added tothe park’s wilderness website and to written materials toreach wilderness users during their trip planning stage.Supporting information was disseminated by the ForestService and private organizations such as Leave No Traceand Pacific Crest Trail Club. An interagency website(www.sierrawildbear.gov) provided a computer-basedsource of information for visitors planning their trips fromhome. Although canister use is not mandatory except abovetreeline, the benefits of their use was pointed out at everyopportunity.

Figure 1—Bear resistant food canisters are used in Yosemite Wilderness. Photo courtesy of NPS.


Through an integrated information/education program, visitor attitudesand behaviors were changed. Currentsurveys of wilderness users show thatpeople are using canisters and think theyshould be mandatory. A survey con-ducted during the summer of 2001showed that nearly 87% of YosemiteWilderness users favored mandatory can-ister use, and in 2002, more than 85%were using food storage canisters ratherthan the still-legal hanging of food bags.

The WildLink program illustratesanother approach to wilderness edu-cation. WildLink, a product of theinteragency Sierra Nevada WildernessEducation Project, uses a combinationof web-based information (http:\\wildlink.wilderness.net), multimediamessaging, direct classroom outreach,hands-on fieldwork, and role modeling by

trained volunteers to take culturally di-verse students from rural and urbansettings through multiple levels of wil-derness development. Students are takenfrom a level of no wilderness awarenessto the role of wilderness ambassadors.After completing the program, studentsare asked to take the wilderness valuesthey have learned back to their schools,their friends, and their families. To date,over 160 kids have completed the pro-gram, and former WildLink students arenow mentors for current students.

“In wildness is the preservation ofthe world,” said Thoreau. The wilder-ness managers at Yosemite believe that

Through an integrated information/education program,visitor attitudes and behaviors were changed.

“in education is the preservation ofwilderness.”

REFERENCESManning, R. E. 2003. Emerging principles for

using information/education in wildernessmanagement. IJW, 9(1): 21–28.

LAUREL BOYERS is Yosemite Wildernessmanager ([email protected]),GARY KOY Yosemite Wildernessinformation and education specialist([email protected]), and BARBMIRANDA is Sierra Nevada wildernesseducation project director([email protected]);P.O. Box 577, Yosemite National Park,CA 95389, USA.

From EVALUATION OF WILDERNESS on page 40

learn and integrate the wildernesscurriculum into their existing curriculum.

The results of this study indicate thatschool-based wilderness education cur-ricula can be effective in educating thewilderness visitor and future visitors onappropriate wilderness behavior. Wilder-ness managers and teachers will benefitfrom reviewing the results of this studyto determine the most effective methodsof providing school-based wildernesseducation programs and professionaldevelopment for educators.

AcknowledgmentsThis research was supported by the AldoLeopold Wilderness Research Institute,Rocky Mountain Research Station, For-est Service, U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, and the Arthur Carhart NationalWilderness Training Center.

REFERENCESArthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center.

1995. The wilderness and land ethic curriculum.Huson, Mont.: USDA Forest Service.

Bissell, S. J. 1992. Evaluation of Project WILDdelivery activities in Colorado. Unpublishedreport. Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Dunne, M. L. 1992. A preliminary survey ofuse of Project WILD/Aquatic WILD by ur-ban teachers. New Jersey Division of Fish,Game and Wildlife.

Fleming, M. L. 1983. Project WILD evaluation:Final report of field test. Western RegionalEnvironmental Education Council.

Green, J. S. 1992. An evaluation of volunteerismin Project Learning Tree and Project WILD inTexas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Texas A & M University, College Station.

Gunderson, K. I. 2001. An evaluative study ofthe “Wilderness and Land Ethic” curriculum.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Univer-sity of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Henderson, K. A. 1991. Dimensions of choice:A qualitative approach to recreation, parks,and leisure research. State College, Pa.:Venture Publishing.

Hendricks, W. (1999). Persuasive communica-tion and grade level effects on behavioralintentions within a wilderness education pro-gram. IJW 5(2): 21-25.

McCool, S. F., and R. C. Lucas. 1990. Manag-ing resources and people in wilderness:Accomplishments and challenges. In Man-aging America’s enduring wilderness re-source: Proc. of the Conference, ed. D. W.

Lime. St. Paul, Minn.: University of Minne-sota Agricultural Experiment Station, 64–75.

Miles, M. B., and M. A. Huberman. 1994.Qualitative data analysis: An expandedsourcebook. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SagePublications.

North American Association for EnvironmentalEducation. 1996. Environmental educationmaterials: Guidelines for excellence. RockSprings, Ga.: NAAEE.

Pitman, B. J. 1996. Project WILD: A summaryof research findings from 1983–1995.Bethesda, Md.: Project WILD.

Shomo, A. 1993. West Virginia Project WILDsurvey of use. Charleston, WV: Departmentof Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources.

Zosel, D. A. 1988. Evaluation of teacher use ofProject WILD. Unpublished master’s thesis,University of Wisconsin, Madison.

KARI GUNDERSON worked for 24 yearson the Mission Mountains Wilderness as aseasonal ranger and is a postdoctorateresource management scientist at the AldoLeopold Wilderness Research Institute. Shecan be contacted by e-mail [email protected].

LEO H. McAVOY is a professor at theUniversity of Minnesota and can be contactedby e-mail at [email protected].


The Superstition WildernessEducation ProgramA Vision That Made a Difference

BY GREGORY HANSEN

Just as fire management cannot succeed without fireprevention, wilderness management cannot succeedwithout impact prevention, notes a founding father of

wilderness education, Jim Bradley. Through the 1970s and1980s, most wilderness education efforts primarily focusedon the prevention of physical resource impacts. Wilder-ness managers then began pondering the idea thatwilderness education should not merely center on improv-ing user behavior, but should also integrate messages thatconveyed the myriad benefits that the enduring resource ofwilderness provides. As a more balanced educational phi-losophy began to unfold, Bradley’s vision began to advance.The birth, lifespan, and effectiveness of the SuperstitionWilderness Education Program is an example of that vision… a vision that has made a difference.

The late 1970s found the urban-interface of the Supersti-tion Wilderness area in a management catastrophe. Due to itsproximity to a population of over 3 million people, an inter-national reputation gained through fictitious stories of lost goldand treasure, and the ever-growing interest in backpacking,this fragile arid-land wilderness was taking a real resource beat-ing. Legal and illegal mining activity was rampant and rogueoutfitting was the norm. Trail signs and information boardscould not be kept up for more than a few months at a time.

Campsites were endless chasms of fire-scarred rocksand soil, while pillaged desert vegetation and human

waste deposits filled the once flourishing riparian en-virons. Something had to be done to save thisWilderness Area from literally being loved to death andeducation was the answer.

In 1978, Forest Service wilderness manager George Mar-tin contacted a well-known wilderness specialist by the nameof Jim Bradley to help him evaluate and develop a manage-ment approach that would work to recapture the naturalintegrity and value of the Superstition area before it was lostforever. The two managers patrolled the country and care-fully analyzed the problems. They agreed that the only meansof moving this area back toward a natural condition wouldbe to implement a program that utilized education as thecommon thread that would tie all management decisions andactions tightly together. In 1979 the Superstition WildernessInformation Specialist (WIS) Program began, and a success-ful education model was born. The key was educating visitorson all possible fronts and adding stronger educational com-ponents into primary programs: in-town outreach efforts,trailhead education and data collection, and traditionalbackcountry and trail work projects.

WIS volunteers were the original backbone of the pro-gram and were rotated through these three program areas.Regular wilderness management activities were accom-plished as usual, and the additional focus was consistenteducational programming.

By 1984, under new leadership, edu-cation took on an even stronger role.Although volunteers still made up a por-tion of the primary workforce, paidpositions were created, and these newemployees were all trained to educate.An education coordinator was added to


The Superstition Wilderness education program madea difference and will continue to do so because of theefforts of many dedicated wilderness champions.


many dedicated wilderness champi-ons. Many of the individuals whoworked in the Superstition Wilder-ness have taken on leadership rolesthat entrust them with the protectionand care of America’s remaining wild-lands. Today, their voices can still beheard on a warm Superstition wind,just as Jim Bradley’s vision continuesto burn bright in the eyes of futurewilderness educators.

GREGORY HANSEN is the nationalLeave No Trace Program coordinator,Washington, DC, USA; he is also theoffice and grants/partnerships coordina-tor, Tonto National Forest. E-mail:[email protected].

Figure 1—Tonto National Forest staff interact with a second-grade class during a WoodsyOwl program. U.S. Forest Service photo.

Figure 2—Superstitution Wilderness staff connects with a fourth grade class during an ImpactMonster program. U.S. Forest Service photo.

plan, coordinate, and supervise in-town education presentations.Instead of offering only a few cannedwilderness programs, a progressiveeducational scheme was implemented.A 20-minute Woodsy Owl presentationwas delivered to second graders andwas used to build a solid foundation ofenvironmental awareness and respon-sibility (see Figure 1). The infamous“Impact Monster” program was rede-veloped and presented to fourth gradersas the second step in this progressiveeducational strategy (see Figure 2). TheJunior Ranger program was given at themiddle school level, and a variety of wil-derness awareness and low-impactpresentations were made available tothe numerous Superstition user groups.

Partnerships with local outfitterguides, hiking and equestrian clubs, andlocal school systems were in place andprospering. Upper and lower divisionwilderness management courses weredeveloped and taught by the Supersti-tion wilderness manager at Arizona StateUniversity, and fieldwork was incorpo-rated into the course curriculum.Students from these classes were selectedfor jobs in wilderness management,much to the benefit of local managers.Wilderness education also expandedinto the inner city and local AmericanIndian reservations. By 1986 the pro-gram was in full swing, with SuperstitionWilderness employees and volunteerscontacting an average of 45,000 visitorsand students annually.

So can wilderness education reallyimprove visitor behavior and minimizeresource impacts in your area? After onlyfive years of aggressive education, litterbecame almost nonexistent throughoutthe entire wilderness. Vandalism of trailsigns and trailhead information boardswas reduced by almost 90%. The con-struction of unwanted fire rings wasreduced by over 65%, and a newfoundunderstanding of wilderness and a sin-

cere feeling of owner-ship and responsibilityhad been instilled in thearea’s users. Between1979 and 1999 over ahalf million wildernessvisitors and studentshad been educated, andconditions in the Super-stition Wilderness notonly improved but havebeen maintained.

However, not all ofthe area’s managementconcerns were solved,nor will they all ever be completelysolved. Wilderness management is aconstant challenge that will continu-ally test the creativity, longevity, andtechnical skills of managers. The real-ity is that education will work if it iswell organized, has solid attainablegoals, and is aggressively implementedand evaluated. The following tipscould be helpful in starting a wilder-ness education program in your area:(1) know what your real managementproblems are, know who your targetaudiences are, and identify what edu-cational methods will work best tosolve each specific problem; (2) startwith priority issues, only expand as is-sues are solved or new ones arise andcontinually evaluateand report your edu-cational success; and(3) be aggressive withyour educational ef-forts; but do it in a waythat builds publicpartnerships and doesnot foster wildernessantagonists.

The SuperstitionWilderness educationprogram has made adifference and willcontinue to do so be-cause of the efforts of


An Evaluation of the Wildernessand Land Ethic Curriculum

and Teacher WorkshopsBY KARI GUNDERSON and LEO H. McAVOY

The Effectiveness of Wilderness EducationMany researchers and managers consider education the keyto solving recreational use problems in wilderness. They be-lieve education to be the most effective light-handedmanagement strategy to reduce impacts and conflict in wil-derness, while retaining visitors’ freedom of choice. Yet littleis known about the effectiveness of existing educational pro-grams in changing knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs ofvisitors. Despite the diversity of wilderness information andeducation techniques, there has been little research on thedesign, application, and effectiveness of wilderness educa-tion programs (McCool and Lucas 1990). Educating thepublic has long been considered an important function ofland stewardship. In the past, this has largely meant trainingwilderness visitors in low-impact camping techniquesand user ethics. However, many wilderness managers and

researchers believe wilderness education needs to expandby instructing visitors on how to build a shared understand-ing of the role and value of wilderness to society.

During the past decade wilderness managers have turnedto school-based programs as one wilderness education tech-nique (Hendricks 1999). These programs may be effectivein influencing the behavior of current and future wilder-ness users, but little is documented about that effectiveness.Wilderness education programs have not been tested fortheir effectiveness in changing levels of knowledge aboutdesired behavior, or changing behavior. This study soughtto determine how the Wilderness and Land Ethic curricu-lum and teacher workshops could be improved to betteraddress knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about wilderness.

Wilderness and Land Ethics Curriculumand Teacher WorkshopsThe K–8 wilderness education curriculum on Wildernessand Land Ethic is distributed by the interagency ArthurCarhart National Wilderness Training Center. It was designedto provide classroom teachers, land managers, and outdooreducators with an interactive resource to promote awarenessand appreciation of the cultural, environmental, and experi-ential values of wilderness. The curriculum lessons andactivities are tied to a collection of educational resources,including skulls, skins, puppets, maps, books, and videosknown as the Wilderness and Land Ethic Box (Arthur CarhartNational Wilderness Training Center 1995).

The teacher workshops are a vehicle for implementingthe Wilderness and Land Ethic curriculum and are designedto educate teachers about wilderness and to familiarize themwith the materials box and curriculum. Since 1992, teacher


Article co-authors Kari Gundersonand Leo H. McAvoy.


workshops have been led by workshopinstructors and are offered in a num-ber of states. Instruction is provided byenvironmental educators, K–8 teachers,professors, wilderness advocates, andwilderness managers. Content of theworkshops includes: (1) curriculum or-ganization and ideas for implementation;(2) information about wilderness values,the National Wilderness PreservationSystem, and an overview of the nationalhistory of the wilderness movement; (3)experiential teaching opportunities withlessons from the curriculum; and (4)participation in low-impact campingmethods. Workshop length ranges froma half-day to three days, and locationsvary from classroom settings to outdooreducation centers. Training in curricu-lum use has been offered for academiccredit from state colleges and universities.Teachers attending the workshops aresupplied with a copy of the curriculumand are asked to evaluate the workshopin a formal evaluation. Teachers whotake the workshop for academic creditare required to field-test lessons fromthe curriculum and report the resultsback to the workshop instructors.

Because the Wilderness and LandEthic curriculum and teacher trainingworkshops are modeled after ProjectWILD, a review of Project WILD re-search studies was conducted. ProjectWILD, a nationally recognized K–12interdisciplinary wildlife education pro-gram, has been widely used since itsinception in 1983 and has undergoneseveral evaluations for program effective-ness. Comprehensive studies conductedon teachers’ use of Project WILD identi-fied barriers to implementation andreasons why teachers attend workshops(Fleming 1983; Pitman 1996). A largemajority of Project WILD workshopparticipants used the materials in theirclassrooms. If teachers did not useProject WILD materials, the most com-mon reasons were: they were planning

on using them in the future, but had notyet; lack of planning time; lack of in-structional time; difficulty integratingmaterials into their curriculum; no op-portunity to use in their current position;and lack of administrative support.

MethodsThe research design in the Gundersonstudy (2001) used multiple qualitativeand quantitative data collection meth-ods. Evaluation of the Wilderness andLand Ethic curriculum used teacherinterviews and a mail-back survey. Theteachers selected for this study hadparticipated in a Wilderness and LandEthic workshop and had used the cur-riculum with their students.

Telephone interviews were con-ducted with 12 teachers, two fromeach of six geographic areas of theUnited States. The focus of these in-terviews was on three issues: (1) toarrive at a set of objectives that helpedguide the curriculum evaluation pro-cess; (2) to determine how teachersbelieve the curriculum influences stu-dents’ knowledge, attitudes, andbeliefs about wilderness; and (3) toidentify the patterns of curriculumuse, characteristics of teachers, andfactors influencing implementation.

Using the results from the initialtelephone interviews, a mail-back sur-vey was developed and administeredto a sample of 224 teachers who hadused the Wilderness and Land Ethiccurriculum to determine their percep-tions of its effectiveness and how itcould be improved. The survey useda multiple-choice scale and includedsome open-ended questions.

A follow-up telephone contact wasinitiated with 15 nonrespondents. Theintention was to telephone thesenonrespondents to determine why theyhad not responded, and if there weresignificant differences in responses fromthe 52% of teachers who had returned

surveys. The nonrespondent follow-upindicated responses similar to those ofteachers who had returned the survey.

In a third data collection method,teachers who had recently completed aworkshop were interviewed by tele-phone. Individual telephone interviewswere conducted with 24 teachers withinsix months of their participation in a train-ing workshop to (1) determine if therewas a relationship between workshop at-tendance and use of the curriculum, (2)determine if teachers were receiving ad-equate information on best practices forcurrent state and national educationalstandards, and (3) develop guidelines foran optimal training workshop model ordelivery mechanism to meet curriculumgoals and objectives. Comparisons weremade between information gatheredfrom teacher surveys and interviews

A teacher workshop field trip on the Rocky Mountain Front inMontana. Photo by Kari Gunderson.

Teachers and natural resource professionals study wildernessmaps. Photo by Kari Gunderson.


with teachers who attended trainingworkshops.

Results and DiscussionThe analysis of teacher mail survey re-sults indicated that 80% of the teacherswho responded have used the curricu-lum in their classrooms and tend to useit as individual, supplementary lessons.Over 90% of teachers surveyed who usedthe curriculum said the curriculum is welldesigned (see Table 1). Teachers who usedthe curriculum tended to use it to fulfilleducational standards (82%) and would

like a cross reference of lesson plans withscience, math, and social studies stan-dards. Two variables, where teachers grewup and the size of the school where theyteach—did not appear to influence cur-riculum use. However, teachers who liveclose to a designated wilderness (within100 miles) are more likely to be curricu-lum users (80%).

Teachers involved in this study in-dicated that the Wilderness and LandEthics curriculum was well designed,has a clear focus on wilderness con-cepts, improves students’ ability toaddress wilderness issues, and chal-lenges students to use critical thinkingskills. Teachers who used the curricu-lum to satisfy academic standardstended to rate the curriculum designhighly. If the curriculum is to be usedby teachers, individual lessons need tobe correlated with the Excellence inEnvironmental Education Guidelinesfor Learning by the North AmericanAssociation for Environmental Educa-

tion, and national and state standardsfor science, mathematics, social stud-ies, language arts, and physicaleducation. Through a constructivist ap-proach, lessons could be sequenced tobuild a level of background knowledgeon the subject of wilderness in orderto broaden its understanding.

Despite attendance at a teacherworkshop, teachers expressed a lackof confidence about introducing wil-derness concepts to their studentsand would like a guest speaker tocome into the classroom. Teachersalso expressed concern for relevancyof the curriculum to students. Oneteacher said, “Somehow we have tomake wilderness relevant to students.In their world wilderness isn’t even aconsideration.” Grade level relevancyis also a concern. Teachers suggestedthat the curriculum be separated intoindividual curricula for primary, el-ementary, and middle school levels.

Analysis of the telephone interviewswith 24 teachers six months after theyattended a workshop revealed that theworkshops increased teachers’ knowl-edge of wilderness, wilderness values,appropriate behaviors, and uses. Of theteachers who have used the curriculum,70% used it to supplement their scienceprogram. Teachers indicated that thegreatest strengths of the workshops were(1) the workshop format that allowedparticipants to teach and actively partici-pate in lessons from the curriculum, (2)the teaching resources made available tothem, and (3) the in-depth knowledge ofthe instructors. Teachers also indicated it isimportant to offer workshops for aca-demic credit (92%) and renewal credits(88%). Teachers want more age-appro-priate lessons and more professionalenhancement opportunities. They sug-gested that a wilderness educationcourseshould be made available onthe Web, so teachers in remote areas can

Has a clear focus on wilderness concepts 4.42

Helps students understand benefits of wilderness 4.31

Is well designed 4.24

Responds to different learning activities 4.24

Presents information and ideas relevant to wilderness 4.23

Challenges students to use critical thinking skills 4.23

Improves students’ ability to address wilderness issues 4.20

Is easy to use 4.16

Provides adequate background information 4.13

Offers adequate resource materials in the box 4.09

Has everything needed to teach the lessons 3.82

Meets curriculum standards 4.04

Gives teacher confidence to teach something previously taught 3.80by guest speakers

a Teachers responded on a 5-point scale with 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree,3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.

In general, the curriculum: Mean

Table 1—Teachers’ Evaluationa of the Wilderness andLand Ethic Curriculum in 2001

A horse-packing demonstration. Photo by Kari Gunderson. Continued on page 35


Wilderness Researchin South Africa

Defining Priorities at the Intersection of Qualities,Threats, Values and Stakeholders

BY MARETHA SHROYER, ALAN WATSON, and ANDREW MUIR

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

IntroductionWhile South Africa is a leader in wilderness conservation onthe African continent (Muir 2002), the term wilderness isoften used inconsistently by the public, the media, and evenby some conservation organizations. To many people, wil-derness means almost any natural outdoor recreation area inpublic or private ownership. In South Africa there is no for-mal, agreed-upon definition of wilderness, and the only legalprotection of wilderness is in State (national) Forests. TheNational Forest Act no. 84 of 1998 (part 2, section 8) givesthe minister power to declare protected wilderness areas. Per-missible land use in wilderness, however, is not stipulated,leaving it open to interpretation by reserve managers.

This article identifies, from recent literature on wilder-ness in South Africa, some potential defining qualities ofwilderness, threats to those qualities, and the values of wil-derness to different stakeholder groups. The ultimatepurpose is to arrive at some collective agreement on theimportant components of the definition of wilderness inSouth Africa and establish priorities for science to supportactions to identify and protect these places.

Forming a Partnership to IdentifyWilderness Qualities and Research PrioritiesAwareness about wilderness in South Africa was significantlystrengthened at the 7th World Wilderness Congress (WWC)in Port Elizabeth in November 2001. South Africans that at-tended the 7th WWC came from many sectors, including theMinister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, public sectormanagers, academic scientists, nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs), traditional healers, and owners of private areas pro-tected for wilderness character. Various scientists, academics,conservationist agencies, and NGO representatives presentedpapers and posters. A special session that focused on SouthAfrica, within the Symposium on Science and Stewardship toProtect and Sustain Wilderness Values, revealed the need toestablish a science program to inform wilderness training pro-grams and academic education, and to explain wildernessbenefits to the larger population.

A partnership project, funded by the Wilderness Founda-tion of South Africa, WILD Foundation (USA), the SierraFoundation, and the International Programs Office of the USDA

Article co-authors pictured left to right: Alan Watson, Maretha Shroyer, and Andrew Muir inPlettenberg Bay, South Africa.


Forest Service was launched in March2002. The purpose of this project wasto identify gaps in knowledge and therelative importance of these gaps in or-der to guide wilderness-related researchactivities for the next 5 to 10 years.

Defining WildernessQualities, Threats, Values,and StakeholdersThere were two methods used to ar-rive at a list of wilderness qualities,threats, values, and stakeholders forSouth Africa to use in providing thefoundation for an effort to prioritizeresearch needs. From papers submit-ted for publication in the Proceedings ofthe WWC Symposium on Science andStewardship to Protect and Sustain Wil-derness Values (Watson and Sproull inpress) and insight gained from inter-views with key individuals in thewilderness community, a unique set of18 wilderness qualities (see Table 1)and 15 threatening forces to wilderness(see Table 2) were identified as centralto wilderness in South Africa.

While some insight into the valuesthat would accrue from protection ofthese 18 wilderness qualities weregained from the papers submitted to theproceedings, the authors were mostlyinformed by the interviews with a vari-ety of wilderness interests in SouthAfrica. The interviews were aimed atarticulating the range of potential val-ues and identifying the stakeholdergroups that could lose or gain from wil-derness protection. Values (see Table 3),in this context, are the set of 18 mean-ings or outcomes (Watson 2000) derivedfrom protection of the set of wildernessqualities (see Table 1) from the set ofthreats described previously (see Table2). Stakeholders (see Table 4) represent18 identified interests with unique rela-tionships to wild places (Watson andBorrie 2002), from casual to intense,

local to distant. Rather than assuming aset of values extends across all segmentsof society, this approach is aimed at de-scribing unique relationships foridentifiable stakeholder segments basedupon unique sets of outcomes received.

Obtaining Input on PriorityInformation NeedsThe set of wilderness qualities andthreats were placed into a matrix, with

each quality representing a row of thematrix and each threat a column. Val-ues and stakeholders were similarlyplaced into a matrix. Representativesof the wilderness community in SouthAfrica were asked to evaluate the inter-section of each row and column in twoways: (1) the first entry from a respon-dent indicated the level of knowledgehe/she believes exists about the relation-ship between the threatening force and

Uncorrupted by humans—Places for sacred rituals and experiencing unspoiledenvironments that are out-of-bounds for ordinary daily human activities

Unmodified/undeveloped—Areas without roads, fences, windmills, buildings,communication masts, power lines, or other facilities evident to visitors

Wilderness-type experiences—Opportunities to enjoy nature in small groups oralone (e.g., solitude, harmony with nature, challenge)

Indigenous wildlife populations—Populations in natural predator/prey balance

Indigenous plant populations—Plant populations, without exotic or invasivespecies and without influence of human disturbance

Pristine water catchment—Water catchments with the ability to provide optimumflow of high-quality water

Low-density human presence—Low density of residents, managers, and visitorswithin the area

Extensive area—Wilderness is perceived to be large enough for individualisolation and natural functioning of ecosystems

Harsh conditions—Traveling in wilderness can lead to challenges and risks relatedto weather, landforms and hazards

Sacred pools, rivers, and landscapes—Many water bodies, forests, or mountainsare considered sacred and protection is desirable for rituals

Wildlife in natural habitat—Wilderness is home to wildlife in their natural,unmodified habitats

Clean water—Free of pathogens, carries no foreign objects, and is free ofturbidity

No motor vehicles, air traffic, or motorized watercraft—Wilderness has no motorvehicles, air traffic, or motorized watercraft, except in circumstances whereabsolutely necessary as a minimum management tool

Natural sound—Sounds that emanate from within the wilderness, principally thesounds of nature

Representative of critical, intact ecosystems—Areas represent importantecosystems to protect and are relatively intact

Natural disturbance regimes intact—Fires, mud slides, and floods occur withinnatural levels of variability

Low levels of technology—Visitors or residents possess items of very low levels oftechnology, and facilities or equipment for comfort and mechanicaladvantage are not appropriate

Scenically attractive—The landscape is an appealing representative of naturalforces

Table 1—Wilderness Qualities in South Africa


Club of South Africa, the Northern Prov-ince Department of EnvironmentalAffairs, an independent conservationconsultant, South African NationalParks, the Kwa-Zulu Natal Wildlife Ser-vice, and the Western Cape NatureConservation Board. After examining theresponses, it was decided to present thefindings in terms of where the most se-vere information needs exist. This wasdetermined by recording the rows andcolumns within each matrix with thegreatest number of cells indicated tohave “no knowledge about interactionbetween items in cells” and “the knowl-edge about interaction between items is

extremely crucial information withimplications for immediate application”(i.e., “1C” ratings).

ResultsThe highest-priority informationneeds were indicated by four qualitieswith the greatest number of “1C” ratingsacross the range of threats: (1) wilderness-type experiences, (2) representative ofcritical intact ecosystems, (3) unmodi-fied/undeveloped, and (4) sacredpools, rivers, and landscapes. Thethreats that were indicated to presentthe most severe needs for information:(1) privatization and commercializa-tion, (2) pressures to produce incomeor subsistence, and (3) off-road vehicles.Below these qualities and threats,there were substantial drops in num-bers of significantly important cellsindicated.

Generally, the indicated cells withthe highest level of importance were

the wilderness quality, or the ways thata particular stakeholder group gainsor loses on a particular value associ-ated with wilderness; and (2) thesecond entry from a respondent ineach cell indicated how important he/she believed that information will beto obtain within the next 5 to 10 yearsin order to make wilderness designa-tion or stewardship decisions.Evaluation ratings were made in eachcell according to the directions pro-vided in Table 5.

These evaluations were completed byrepresentatives of the Wilderness ActionGroup of South Africa, the Mountain

Water conservation

Spiritual fulfillment/sacred values

Healing

Pharmaceuticals

Economic/income

Quality of life

Scientific

Biodiversity protection

Protecting endangered species

Appreciative/experiential

Wildlife conservation

Traditional knowledge

Education

Personal growth

Cultural preservation

Resource harvesting

Identity (cultural icon)

Undefined or unanticipated futurevalues

Table 3—Wilderness Valuesin South Africa

Pollution—Contamination of soil, water, landscape, or air by artificial or foreigndevices or products (e.g., plastic bags, chemicals, fuel, exhaust fumes)

Development within protected areas—Infrastructure, roads, fences, or othermodifications to natural ecosystems within areas managed as national,provincial, or private reserves

Land/water use changes on adjacent lands—Development or changes ininfrastructure, roads, fences, agricultural practices, or other modificationsto conditions in areas adjacent to formally protected natural ecosystems

Alien flora and fauna—Exotic plant and animal species

Pressures to produce income—Internal or external demands to make profit fromwilderness resources

Off-road vehicles—Vehicles or motorcycles used by management or visitors

Facilities for comfort—Facilities providing visitor convenience versus providingresource protection

Mechanized wildlife management—Active manipulation of wildlife species by useof helicopters, vehicles and other motorized equipment

Island effect—Fragmentation of ecosystems or habitats to land units that do notprovide adequate opportunities for conservation of genetic diversity andbiodiversity

Land reforms and land claims—Change of land use or change in ownership ofland units

Recreation use and management—Recreation visitors and management of visitorbehavior and impacts

Dams—Artificially constructed structures to contain water

Agriforestry—High technology forestry practices aimed at maximizing fiberproduction

Privatization and commercialization—Change in ownership from public to privateenterprise or giving exclusive private access to public resources forcommercial purposes

Anthropogenic climate change—Climate change induced by human activities thatcontribute to carbon dioxide release, primarily from burning fossil fuels inindustry and automobiles

Table 2—Threatening Forces on Wilderness in South Africa


DiscussionWhile these results have brought somelevel of focus to the discussion of ap-propriate wilderness qualities to use todescribe wilderness in the South Afri-can context, these qualities have not yetbeen defined at the level needed to mapthem. An application priority is to rep-resent these attributes on maps ofspecific places, or across the whole ofSouth Africa in a way that allows exami-nation of the distribution of wild placesand to follow trends in wilderness char-acter of the national landscape. Carver,Evans, and Fritz (2002) have demon-strated the usefulness of such a mappingprocess in the United Kingdom, includ-ing obtaining human input into howthese attributes are valued.

The Mountain Club of South Africaand cooperating partners have proposedto measure the qualities listed here sothey can map wilderness conditions ofthe proposed Olifants River-Cederberg-Tankwa Karoo Mega-Reserve in theCape Floristic region of South Africa. Todo that wilderness condition mapping,they will need to operationalize eachconceptual quality. For instance, thequality indigenous plant populationsmight be represented by at least two in-dicators of the relationship between thatquality and the list of potential threats:(1) presence and distribution of alienflora, and (2) island effects and inbreed-ing due to existing boundaries issues.Similarly, the threats to wilderness-typeexperiences could be assessed by mea-suring the cumulative amount ofoff-road vehicle tracks per square kilo-meter, probability of encounteringcommercial activities each day, and thenumber of encounters with recreationgroups each day.

A proposed socioeconomic profilehas now become an assessment of therelationships (set of values) betweenthese wilderness qualities and stakehold-ers (e.g., local communities, private

Entry 1:

1 = no knowledge about interaction between items in cells;2 = limited knowledge about interaction between items in cells;

3 = good understanding about interaction between items in cells.

Entry 2:

A = the knowledge about interaction between items is not very important todevelop;

B = the knowledge about interaction between items is relatively important andworthy of effort to obtain;

C = the knowledge about interaction between items is extremely crucialinformation with implications for immediate application.

N/A (not applicable) = the relationship between items in the cell is not relevant inthe context of decisions to protect wilderness character.

Table 5—Instructions for Evaluating Wilderness Information Gapsin Survey about South African Wilderness

South African youth

Visitors to privately owned wilderness

Future human populations

South Africa National Parks andprovincial park visitors and trailusers

Traditional healers and theircommunities

Adjacent landowners

Urban residents

Consumers of science

Nongovernmental organizations

Guides, lodges, transportationproviders (i.e., tourism industry)

Mountaineers

Traditional authorities

Politicians

Neighboring communities

Ecosystems

Developers

Exchange students

International communities

Table 4—WildernessStakeholders in South Africa

individual cells found within the 12cells represented by the intersection ofthe four qualities and three threats listedabove. For example, the single cellwith the greatest agreement that it was

indeed both lacking knowledge andhigh priority was at the intersection of“wilderness-type experiences” and“pressures to produce income or sub-sistence.”

The four values indicated to be inmost severe need of information acrossthe range of stakeholders were (1) edu-cation, (2) biodiversity protection, (3)economic/income, and (4) water con-servation. Respondents consistentlyindicated three stakeholder groups ascentral to the most important infor-mation needs: (1) traditional healersand their communities, (2) politicians,and (3) future human populations.

The individual cells with the great-est information needs tended to beamong those 12 cells representing theintersection of these four values andthree stakeholder groups. For in-stance, the four cells with very highnumbers of “1C” evaluations werewithin the “traditional healers andtheir communities” column at the“education,” “biodiversity protection,”and “economic/income” rows. Oneexception was the very highest impor-tance cell, which was within the“traditional healers and their commu-nities” column, but in the row labeled“protecting endangered species.”


landowners, visitors, the tourism indus-try, and mountaineers). A mixture ofquantitative and qualitative methods willbe employed to understand these rela-tionships in such a way that GeographicInformation System overlays can be de-veloped that will map the meanings ofall places, with particular interest in de-picting the relationship betweenwilderness qualities and these values.

Greater exploration into the signifi-cance of these wilderness qualities,threats, values, and stakeholder groupsfor the future of wilderness conservationis vital to understanding and pursuingthese research priorities. For example, theneed to understand the range of wilder-ness-type experiences and how they areinfluenced by pressures to produce in-come or subsistence, off-road vehicles,privatization, and commercializationpoints to several important issues in re-source management in South Africa.With a challenging economy, there isgreat interest and incentive to benefitfrom ecotourism promotion and pub-lic-private partnerships via concessionagreements. Commercialization of wil-derness opportunities and pressures todevelop off-road opportunities to meettourist demands could directly impactmany wilderness qualities, and indirectlyimpact many of the unique values de-rived from these places. Similarly, thereis great interest in protecting or restor-ing relationships between the variety ofindigenous groups and natural and spiri-tual aspects of the landscape. However,these user pressures will have unknowneffects on the experiences of other us-ers, spiritual values associated withsacred places, and protection of critical,intact ecosystems. Better information isneeded in order to implement societalprograms and still retain wildernessqualities of some places and the manymeanings associated with them.

The expressed need to understandhow wilderness affects the values derived

by traditional healers and their commu-nities shows a commitment to this partof the local, rural population. Particularly,the educational, biodiversity protection,and endangered species protection val-ues of these wild places to this segmentof the population need to be clarified.Those in the wilderness community havealso expressed need for greater under-standing of how wilderness protectionrelates to politics and politicians, suggest-ing the educational challenge associatedwith moving beyond the emotional as-pects of protection to a logical explanationof the collective benefits to the populacein supporting legal protection efforts. Thechallenge associated with defining thevalues of wilderness protection to futuregenerations looms large on the SouthAfrican horizon. The contribution of wil-derness protection to water conservationand biodiversity protection for futuregenerations could be the dominant out-come of current efforts to understand,restore, and protect wilderness qualitiesin South Africa.

REFERENCESCarver, S., A. Evans, and S. Fritz. 2002. Wil-

derness attribute mapping in the UnitedKingdom. IJW, 8(1): 24–29.

Muir, A. 2002 Strengthening wilderness in SouthAfrica: strategies and programs of the Wil-derness Foundation. IJW, 8(2): 4–8.

Watson, A. E. 2000. Wilderness use in the year2000: Societal changes that influence hu-man relationships with wilderness. In Wil-derness science in a time of changeconference—volume 4: Wilderness visitors,experiences, and visitor management, D. N.Cole, S. F. McCool, W. T. Borrie, and J.O’Loughlin, comps., May 23–27, 2000,Missoula, Mont. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, Utah: USDA, Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station, 53–60.

Watson, A. E., and W. T. Borrie. 2002. Publiclands in the U.S.: Marketing versus protect-ing in response to increasing recreation de-mand. In Nature Tourism and Environment,R. Buckley, C. Pickering, and D. Weaver, eds.2002. Common Ground, Melbourne. Aus-tralia Academy of Sciences.

Watson, A. E., and J. Sproull, comps. In press.Proceedings, Seventh World WildernessCongress Symposium: Science and Steward-

ship to Protect and Sustain Wilderness Val-ues, November 2–8, 2001, Port Elizabeth,South Africa. Proceedings RMRS-P-000.Ogden, Utah, USDA, Forest Service, RockyMountain Research Station.

MARETHA SHROYER is the protected areadevelopment and establishment manager,North West Parks and Tourism Board, P.O.Box 4488, Mmabatho, South Africa.Phone: (018) 3861225; e-mail:[email protected].

ALAN WATSON is research social scientistwith the Aldo Leopold Wilderness ResearchInstitute and executive editor of theInternational Journal of Wilderness, P.O.Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807, USA.Phone: (406) 542-4197; e-mail:[email protected].

ANDREW MUIR is executive director, TheWilderness Foundation of South Africa,P.O. Box 91, Paterson, South Africa 6130.Phone: (042) 2031100; e-mail:[email protected].

Understanding the threats to wilderness-type experiences is a high-priority science issue. Roodeberg Peak in the Hex River Mountains,Western Cape, South Africa. Photo by Maretha Shroyer.

Protecting wilderness qualities may assure biodiversity andwater conservation values for future generations. KnysnaForest, Western Cape, South Africa. Photo by Maretha Shroyer.


Nearly Half the Earth isStill WildernessWilderness areas still cover close to halfthe Earth’s land, but contain only a tinypercentage of the world’s population, ac-cording to the result of a studyconducted by Conservation Interna-tional and Agrupación Sierra Madre,with support from the Global Conser-vation Fund. More than 200international scientists contributed to theanalysis that is published in the bookWilderness: Earth’s Last Wild Places (Uni-versity of Chicago Press 2003).

The 37 wilderness areas identifiedin the book represent 46% of theEarth’s land surface, but are occupiedby just 2.4% of the world’s population,excluding urban centers. Nine of thewilderness areas fall, at least in part,within the United States. Although thewilderness areas are still largely intact,they are increasingly threatened bypopulation growth, encroaching agri-culture, and resource extractionactivities. Barely 7% of the areas cur-rently enjoy some form of protection.

Nineteen of the wilderness areas haveremarkably low population densities—an average of less than one person persquare kilometer. Excluding urban cen-ters, these 19 areas represent 38% of theEarth’s land surface, but hold only 0.7%of the planet’s population.

preliminary injunction, effectively re-instating the ban on road constructionin 58.5 million acres (23.7 million hect-ares) of United States forestland. Theplan under former President Clinton’sadministration aimed to prevent roadconstruction and the removal of oil andlumber on these forestlands, unlessneeded for environmental reasons or toreduce the risk of wildfires.

Environmental groups, includingthe Sierra Club, went to the appealscourt seeking to lift a May 2001 in-junction issued by a federal judge inIdaho. That judge ordered a postpone-ment of the Clinton plan, saying thatthe previous administration hurriedthe rule and did not allow sufficienttime for the public to comment.

Following are key points in theopinion: First, the Ninth Circuit ruledthat the Roadless Rule complied withthe National Environmental PolicyAct’s (NEPA) notice and comment pro-cedures. The court was persuaded bythe fact “that the Forest Service heldover 400 public meetings about theRoadless Rule and that it received over1,150,000 written comments.”

Second, the Ninth Circuit concludedthat the Forest Service had considered areasonable range of alternatives in theEnvironmental Impact Statement on theRoadless Rule. In reaching this conclusion,

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Submit announcements and short news articles to STEVE HOLLENHORST, IJW Wilderness Digest editor. E-mail: [email protected].

Announcementsand Wilderness Calendar

COMPILED BY STEVE HOLLENHORST

To qualify as wilderness, an area hasto have 70% or more of its original veg-etation intact and cover at least 10,000square kilometers (3,861 square miles),and most have fewer than five people persquare kilometer. Only five wildernessareas are considered “high-biodiversitywilderness areas,” because they containat least 1,500 endemic vascular plant spe-cies, found nowhere else in the world.The five areas are Amazonia, the CongoForests of Central Africa, New Guinea,the North American Deserts, and theMiombo-Mopane Woodlands and Grass-lands of Southern Africa.

“As striking as these wilderness num-bers are, they only serve to underscoremore than ever the critical importance ofprotecting the biodiversity hotspots, areaswhich represent only 1.4% of the Earth’slandmass but contain more than 60% ofits terrestrial species,” said co-authorRussell Mittermeier, president of Conser-vation International. “If we are to succeedas conservationists, we have to take a two-pronged approach of protecting thebiodiversity hotspots and high-biodiversitywilderness areas simultaneously.” Source:www.conservation.org.

Court ReinstatesRoadless BanThe federal Ninth Circuit Court of Ap-peals in San Francisco overturned a


the Court of Appeals gave considerableweight to the conservation and environ-mental values embodied in the RoadlessRule. The court ruled that “it would turnNEPA on its head to interpret the statuteto require that the Forest Service conductin-depth analyses of environmentallydamaging alternatives that are inconsis-tent with the Forest Service’s conservationpolicy objectives.”

Finally, the Ninth Circuit ruled thatthe Idaho district court did not prop-erly assess the balance of harms indeciding to issue the injunction. In aslap at the current administration’s fail-ure to defend the Roadless Rule in theIdaho court case, the Court of Appealsalso observed that the district courthad relied partly on admissions madeby the attorneys representing “a newpresidential administration which isperhaps less sympathetic to theRoadless Rule.” Source: The Wilder-ness Society at www.wilderness.org/.

Volunteer in Western CapeWilderness AreasThe Western Cape Nature ConservationBoard (WCNCB) invites wildernessrangers from the United States to be-come involved in its wilderness andprotected areas. The board currently

manages four wilderness areas:Cederberg, Grootwinterhoek, Boos-mansbos, and Doringrivier. Severalactivities are identified that require theassistance of volunteers or students, suchas path maintenance, rehabilitation ofold roads and jeep tracks, eradication ofnonnative and invasive plant species,and education of wilderness users. Thiscould initiate a two-way exchange op-portunity, partly because of the directrelevance between wilderness and pro-tected area management, and similarchallenges in both countries.

The WCNCB will provide free accom-modation (excluding meals) andtransport to its wilderness and protectedareas. Volunteer contributions includesponsorship from their employee, fund-ing traveling expenses, and campingequipment. All work done is at the vol-unteers’ risk, and WCNCB is not liablefor any work-related injuries. Althoughinterested U.S. wilderness rangers mightnot be permanent staff of a federal agency,they will represent their country and thequality of work required by U.S. federalagencies. The quality of work and enthu-siasm will determine the future potentialand viability of this exchange program.A résumé and contact information forreferences is required from interestedvolunteers. Contact: Kas Hamman, direc-

tor of professional services, Western CapeNature Conservation Board, E-mail:khamman @pawc.wcape.gov.za; phone:(021) 483 4232; fax: (021) 423 0939.

National LandscapeConservation SystemThe Bureau of Land Management has es-tablished the National LandscapeConservation System (NLCS) to help pro-tect some of the United States’ mostremarkable and rugged landscapes. Thedecision establishes a system that includesthe agency’s national conservation areas,national monuments, wilderness areas,wilderness study areas, wild and scenicrivers, and national scenic and historictrails. With 817 areas totaling over 40 mil-lion acres (16.2 million hectares), 2,000miles (3,226 kilometers) of wild and sce-nic rivers, and 3,623 miles (5,844kilometers) of national historic and scenictrails, the system ensures that future gen-erations will enjoy some of the UnitedStates’ last great open spaces. Equal in sizeto the state of Florida, and representingabout 16% of the BLM land base, NLCSlands will enable the public to experiencethe solitude and splendor of these unde-veloped landscapes by providingnumerous opportunities for explorationand discovery. Source: www.blm.gov/nlcs.

provided by the original western parks,and park officials were forced to re-envi-sion the typical development patternsprovided in the western parks. He notesthat park officials saw themselves as rep-resenting what he calls “high culture,” butwere forced to also include and respondto mass tourism in the Atlantic parks.

Finally, another major difference ineastern regions brings us to the fourthmajor contribution: MacEachern dis-cusses the rationales and impacts ofexpropriating private lands and entire

communities from Cape Breton High-lands (Nova Scotia), Prince EdwardIsland (PEI), Fundy (New Brunswick),and Terra Nova (Newfoundland) NationalParks, a topic not often addressed indeveloped nations.

Natural Selections is a beautifully writ-ten and meticulously researched analysisof the conflicting relationship betweennature and culture in park creation andmanagement, and the associated strugglebetween the conflicting goals of preser-vation (i.e., nature) versus use (i.e.,

culture) among bureaucrats and fieldmanagers in Parks Canada. MacEachernreminds us how long the ongoing battlebetween preservation versus use in ourpark systems has been raging, and dem-onstrates how the blending of nature andculture—through ever-changing scien-tific findings and topics, aesthetic ideals,recreation and tourism patterns, andpark management philosophies—intersect in societies’ creation andmanagement of protected areas.

Review by JOHN SHULTIS

From BOOK REVIEWS on page 48


Book ReviewsThe Wilderness fromChamberlain Farm: A Story ofHope for the American WildBy Dean Bennett. 2001. Island Press,Covelo, Calif. 359 pp., $30.00(hardcover).

Chamberlain Farm is the name of a smallpoint of land that shelters a narrow coveon Chamberlain Lake on the AllagashWilderness Waterway in northwesternMaine. In this study of the various eco-nomic, political, and cultural forces thathave profoundly affected this land, histo-rian Dean Bennett tells the story of howthese forces “reflected society’s evolving be-liefs and attitudes regarding nature andwilderness.” Archaeological evidence in-dicates that the area was for many yearsan indigenous settlement. By the mid-1800s the site had attracted lumber baronswho, valuing wealth and dominance overnature, established a lumber depot on thesite. Even then, however, urbanites valu-ing the remote wilderness character of thearea began to visit. Desire to preserve theseamenity values increased with the emer-gence of an affluent middle class and thedwindling number of pristine places. Overtime, this minority interest displaced ex-tractive, exploitive interests.

Formal protection efforts began in the1960s, when growing interest in boththe physical and psychological values ofwilderness prompted people like Will-iam O. Douglas, Edmund Muskie,Edmund Ware Smith, and others to fightto preserve the area as part of theAllagash Wilderness Waterway underthe nationwide Wild and Scenic RiversAct. Despite these protections, however,Bennett argues that only constant vigi-

lance against private interests can pro-tect unique places like ChamberlainFarm. While the logger barons are gone,modern-day threats come from thosewho view the area as a playground fortheir motorized boats and bikes.

The story offers lessons that illustratethe vital interconnections between na-ture and human activity withChamberlain Farm as a case study. Thephotos and maps included in the bookenhance this narrative. The lessons iden-tified by Bennett at Chamberlain Farmare applicable to places throughout theUnited States—and indeed the Westernworld—still in need of protection. Writ-ten with meticulous attention tohistorical detail and a sincere affectionfor the forests and rivers of northernMaine, Bennett highlights the many con-servationists, recreationists, andgovernment officials involved in the ef-fort to sustain the genius loci of this area.This book also exemplifies the value ofstudying one small area in detail to bet-ter understand a much larger landscape,and our society itself.

Review by STEVE HOLLENHORST,IJW Digest Editor

for a number of reasons. First, it is in-herently valuable as an addition to thegrowing collection of books allowingus to assess the similarities and differ-ences between the development ofnational park systems across the globe.For example, the historian’s concept ofworthless lands, the importance of po-litical figures and ideologies in parkcreation, and park agency fixation onthe “use” functions of national parks areall noted in this book. Yet MacEachernalso provides numerous new insightson these now familiar themes.

Second, as MacEachern notes, he ad-dresses a time period that has typicallybeen ignored or glossed over by mostother researchers, both in Canada and theUnited States. By covering the time pe-riod ranging from the interwar period,the Great Depression, and the post–WWII boom period to the beginnings ofthe environmental movement, he is ableto provide an uninterrupted study of howpublic and bureaucratic attitudes towardpark creation and management changed.Moreover, MacEachern describes howecological science and Parks Canada’sattitudes toward and use of such re-search underwent significant changesduring this time.

Third, such historical analyses havetended to concentrate on westernparks—again, both in Canada and theUnited States—while the eastern parts ofNorth America provided significantly dif-ferent challenges for park managers andusers. Perhaps most importantly, theAtlantic parks did not include the sublimemountainous wilderness landscapes


Natural Selections: NationalParks in Atlantic Canada,1935–1970By Alan MacEachern. 2001. McGill-Queens’s University Press, Montreal andKingston, Canada. 342 pp., $49.95Canadian (cloth).

Alan MacEachern’s regional and histori-cal analysis of the creation andmanagement of national parks in theAtlantic region of Canada is valuable

WILDERNESS DIGEST

international journal of wilderness, vol 09 no 1, april 2003

Documents

wilderness managementby

indiana university

university of montana

national parks

northern territory

watarrka national park

n t e r n

alan maceachernreview