UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Wilderness recreation users - their characteristics, motivations, and opinions : a study of three British… Thorsell, James Westvick 1971

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971 A1 T368.pdf [ 12.93MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106732.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106732-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106732-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106732-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106732-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106732-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106732-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106732-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106732.ris

Full Text

WILDERNESS R E C R E A T I O N USERS - T H E I R C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S , M O T I V A T I O N S , AND O P I N I O N S : B R I T I S H COLUMBIA  A S T U D Y OF  PROVINCIAL  THREE  PARKS  by JAMES W E S T V I C K T H O R S E L L B.Sc, M.A.,  University  University  A THESIS  of Alberta,  1962  o f Western Ontario,  1967  S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF  THE REQUIREMENTS  FOR THE DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR OF P H I L O S O P H Y  in Interdisciplinary in  Studies  (Resource  Science)  the School of  Community and R e g i o n a l  We a c c e p t required  this  thesis  Planning  as c o n f o r m i n g  to the  standard  THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H August,  1971  COLUMBIA  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s  in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  an  University  the  advanced degree at the Library  permission  f o r . s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may his  representatives.  be  g r a n t e d by  the  written  permission.  Date  of  ^7-  Head o f my  It i s understood that  t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada  Columbia  ~W/7/  r e f e r e n c e and  for extensive copying of  of t h i s  Department  requirements fi  B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree  s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r  I f u r t h e r agree tha  by  of  the  be  study.  this  thesis  Department  copying or  tha  or  publication  allowed without  my  ABSTRACT An  e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t i n p a r k and  knowledge of studies  of  research,  Names a n d  clientele. are  of  995  from backcountry  mailback  wilderness trail  80  by  data  on  percent  user  and  of  and  The  analysis  phase of of  wilderness this  the  the  As  the  regional context,  contrasted  can  be  with other  explores  Park.  A  sample.  an  and  user  user  and  items,  questionnaire  characteristics,  attempts  reaction  other  such survey  contrasting undertaken in.  a b a s i c census i s provided  detected. user  Findings  studies.  The  response, users  i  are  visitors.  empirical descriptive  camper i n t h r e e only  were  nine-page  The  from  r e i n f o r c e and  which are  second phase of  v a r i a b l e s that i n f l u e n c e ,use.  of questionnaire  and  vacationers  motivations,  study  backcountry  parks.  future trends  study  quality  e v a l u a t i o n o f management p o l i c i e s  first  need i n r e c r e a t i o n  f o r r e s p o n s e t o 92  the  trip  a s s e s s m e n t o f b e n e f i t s and  behavioral  r e g i s t e r s i n Bowron Lake,  Mount Robson P r o v i n c i a l  returned  and  is  planning.  questionnaire, calling  gathered  to  a priority  to improved park  and  Opinion  aid i n defining resource  addresses  Garibaldi  was  user  park v i s i t o r s they  contribute  gathered  the  recreation planning  On  classified  the by  the  basis  ten  different  dimensions,  explaining  in  o f w h i c h were i m p o r t a n t i n  v a r i a t i o n i n response.  t h e 'study s e e k s planning  eight  applications  a n d management.  The f i n a l  of the findings  I t i s concluded  demand f o r t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s  continue; estimation, wilderness  (2)  present park use l e v e l s ,  are approaching  saturation;  experience i s taking  become more " d e m o c r a t i z e d " a n d  i i  concern o f to wilderness  that  (1)  growth  of wilderness  will  i n the visitors and (3)  the  o n a new m e a n i n g a s t h e p a r k s "humanized".  WILDERNESS R E C R E A T I O N U S E R S - T H E I R M O T I V A T I O N S , AND O P I N I O N S : B R I T I S H COLOMBIA  1.  STUDY OF THREE  P R O V I N C I A L PARKS  T A B L E OF  PART  A  CHARACTERISTICS,  CONTENTS  ORIENTATION  CHA PTER I  Page CONCEPTUAL  PROLOGUE  Conservation  as a Guiding  Environmental Planning Conservation Open  Space  Wilderness  as a B a s i s  as a Landscape i n the Regional  1  Philosophy  METHODOLOGICAL The  Element  5 9  Landscape  12  PROLOGUE  - RECREATION RESEARCH  Exploratory Nature  Problem-oriented Summary  3  for  Definition  II  1  - CONSERVATION/PARKS/WILDERNESS  of Recreation  Research  or "Mission" Research  Considerations  i i i  i n Topic  Selection  17 7  1  19 21  CHAPTER III  Page THE PROBLEM OF THE WILDERNESS Wilderness as a Common Property Resource  2k  'Wilderness Research - The American C o n t r i b u t i o n  29  Wilderness Research - The Canadian C o n t r i b u t i o n  32  The Research Gap i n General  35  The Research Gap i n the B r i t i s h Columbia Context  38  PART 2 . IV  2k  RESEARCH PROCEDURES  OBJECTIVES, DESIGN AND ANALYSIS  k8  Objectives  ^8  Scope and L i m i t a t i o n s  5'  Design  52  Study Plan  55  The Study Areas  %  Sampling  62  Fleldwork  6k  The Questionnaire  65  Analysis  67  iv  PART 3 .  FINDINGS  CHAPTER V  Page DEMOGRAPHIC C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S  OF W I L D E R N E S S U S E R S  71 71  Origin Group C o m p o s i t i o n  - Age and Sex 76  Education Income  78  VI  Occupation  79  Environment o f Upbringing  80  Wilderness  81  Experience  and I n t r o d u c t i o n  C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF THE W I L D E R N E S S T R I P Planning Length  8? 87  of the Trip  89  o f Stay  Size  and Make-up o f P a r t i e s  90  Cost  of the Wilderness  92  Trip  Investment i n Backcountry Annual Pattern  Equipment  of Wilderness  v  Visits  9^ 95  CHAPTER VII  Page MOTIVATIONS AND B E N E F I T S OF THE  WILDERNESS  98  EXPERIENCE Difficulties  VIII  of Motivation Research  98  Reasons f o r the Wilderness V a c a t i o n  100  B e n e f i t s of the Wilderness Vacation  103  Elements  105  of the Wilderness  O P I N I O N S AND E V A L U A T I O N S OF THE  Experience  WILDERNESS 111  VISIT  111  Facilities Management C o n t r o l M e a s u r e s Entrance Zoning  116 117  Fees  119  the Parks  Perception of Wilderness  120  Crowding  12*  and C a p a c i t y  S a t i s f a c t i o n and  1  Return  132  Perception o f Hazards A Note on U n s o l i c i t e d  vi  1 30  Comments  135  Page  CHAPTER IX  SUMMARY P R O F I L E S General  OF W I L D E R N E S S U S E R S  Questionnaire  Variations  i n  User  Conclusions  the B l a c k Park  Visitors  Bowron  VARIABLES  AFFECTING  Tusk  Lake  V i s i t o r s to the Berg Mt. Robson Park  X  137  Profiles  V i s i t o r s to Garibaldi to  137  1*+1 Meadows  -  Park  Lake  Area  1^3  1*+6 -  USE  1^8  153  Introduction  153  Response  by  Length  Response  by  Age  164  Response  by  Origin  169  Response  by  Commitment  177  Response  by  Proficiency  182  Response  by  Level  187  Response  by  Wilderness  Response  by  Size  Response  by  Environment  Response  by  Sex  Summary  of  the  of  of  of  Stay  155  Education Travel  Experience  Party of  192 19^  Upbringing  196 1 97  Analysis  v i i  of  Variables  198  CHAPTER XI  Page CONCLUSIONS AND I M P L I C A T I O N S  OF USER STUDY  Future Forecast  203  Determination  205  o f Use C a p a c i t y  The W i l d e r n e s s E x p e r i e n c e i n t h e P r o v i n c i a l Parks - A Second Look  LITERATURE  203  208  222  CITED  232  APPENDIX  viii  LIST  OF TABLES  TABLE  I II III  Page  Characteristics  V VI  VII VIII IX X  XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI  XVII XVIII XIX  Study  Origin of-Wilderness Age  IV  of  D i s t r i b u t i o n of  Comparison of Park Users Income  Environment Wilderness Years  Wilderness  Educational  of  Wilderness  Wilderness  Total  of  Total  of  Cost  77  Park  Users  78  Park  79  80 82  Ratings Travel  Introduced  82  Experience  You to W i l d e r n e s s  The  Trip?"  88  Size  91  Groups  92  of  Wilderness  Trip  (Per  i n Backcountry  Wilderness  Per  Trips  Length  Motivations  8>+  90  T o t a l Investment (Per Person)  Average  Wilderness  Stay  Group  Make-up  75  Wilderness  "How F a r A h e a d W e r e Y o u P l a n n i n g Length  of  Users  Upbringing  Traveller  "Who o r What Travel?"  Park  Levels  Distribution of  of  72  Park Users  Distribution of  Occupational Users  57  Areas  of  Person)  Equipment  For Backcountry  ix  9h  96  Year  Wilderness  93  Trips Travel  (Days)  96 102  TABLE XX XXI  Page Benefits  of the Wilderness  103  Trip  Main Reason F o r the Wilderness  108  Trip  E x p e r i e n c e Most V i v i d l y R e c a l l e d  109  XXIII  Opinions  o f Backcountry  113  XXIV  Campsite  Preference  XXII  XXV XXVI XXVII XXVIII XXIX .XXX XXXI XXXII XXXIII XXXIV XXXV XXXVI XXXVII XXXVIII XXXIX  Facilities  11'-+  User Assessment o f B a c k c o u n t r y Development  115  Facility  116  Management C o n t r o l M e a s u r e s Suggested  Entrance  Fee  118  Percent o f Park Considered Point  of Wilderness  Land i n t h e P r o v i n c e  " D i d You Have T r o u b l e F i n d i n g Campsites?"  "How Many P e o p l e Hold?"  122  Entry  Adequacy o f W i l d e r n e s s  "Were Y o u B o t h e r e d or Campsites?"  121  "Wilderness"  125  Unoccupied  By Crowding on Any T r a i l s  Do Y o u T h i n k  The P a r k  124  Could  126 126  "What i s t h e A v e r a g e N u m b e r o f G r o u p s Y o u C o u l d M e e t a Day B e f o r e Y o u B e g i n t o F e e l C r o w d e d ? "  128  "What Do Y o u T h i n k t h e O p t i m a l G r o u p S i z e For Wilderness Travel?"  128  User Level  129  Complaints o f User  Intention  i s  130  Satisfaction  to Return  "  131 134  Danger R a t i n g s x  TABLE XL XLI XLII XLIII XLIV XLV  Page O v e r a l l Danger R a t i n g o f W i l d e r n e s s Wilderness  Proficiency  M o t i v a t i o n - By Length B e n e f i t s - By Length Facility  Opinions  - By L e n g t h  1  I  o f Stay  1  57  1  58  1  58  1  59  o f Stay  o f Stay  - By Length  Management O p i n i o n s  Visit  o f Stay  - By Length  " D i d You Have Any T r o u b l e F i n d i n g Unoccupied C a m p s i t e s ? " - By L e n g t h o f Stay  XLVII  "Were Y o u B o t h e r e d B y C r o w d i n g o n A n y T r a i l s or C a m p s i t e s ? " - By L e n g t h o f Stay  XLIX L  O v e r a l l Danger R a t i n g - By Length Annual  Participation  T r i p Cost Group  1°0  o f Stay  XLVI  XLVIII  3+  o f Stay  6  1  1  6  16  2  3' 165  - By Age Group  and Equipment Investment  1  - By Age  166  M o t i v a t i o n - By Age Group  167  LII  User  E d u c a t i o n L e v e l s - By O r i g i n  172  LIII  User  Income L e v e l s - By O r i g i n  172  LIV  User  Occupation  173  LV  User  S a t i s f a c t i o n L e v e l s - By  LI  LVI LVII LVIII LIX LX  - By O r i g i n Origin  75  M o t i v a t i o n - By O r i g i n  1  E v a l u a t i o n o f B e n e f i t s - By O r i g i n  176  Proficiency  178  R a t i n g - By Commitment  M o t i v a t i o n - By Commitment Facility  Opinions  .  - By Commitment  xi  179 18°  TABLE LXI LXI I LXIII LXIV LXV  LXVI LXVII LXVIII LXIX LXX LXXI LXXII LXXIII  Page Management M e a s u r e s Overall  - B y Commitment  Danger R a t i n g  - By Commitment  Income and E d u c a t i o n L e v e l s  180 181 182  - By P r o f i c i e n c y  C o s t and I n v e s t m e n t - By P r o f i c i e n c y  184  Annual Pattern Proficiency  184  Motivation Benefits  o f W i l d e r n e s s Use - By  - By P r o f i c i e n c y  1  - By P r o f i c i e n c y  Proficiency Rating  1  1  Motivation  and L e n g t h o f S t a y - By S i z e  and B e n e f i t s  - By  Size  of Party  Summary o f S i g n i f i c a n t I n t e r a c t i o n s  xii  89 190  - By Education  Pre-Planning of Party  86 188  - By E d u c a t i o n  C o s t and I n v e s t m e n t - B y E d u c a t i o n Benefits  85  194 195 200  LIST  OF  FIGURES  FIGURE 1 .  Page L o c a t i o n o f Study  Areas  58  2.  Panoramic View of G a r i b a l d i Lake ( E l e v . if,816 F e e t ) a n d B l a c k T u s k Meadow A r e a  3.  Berg Lake  k.  McLeary  Lake, Bowron Lake  5.  Age  Sex  and  and Mt.  Robson  (12,972 F e e t ) Provincial  P y r a m i d o f T o t a l Sample  xiii  59  Park  60 61 76  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  This  research, like  many p e r s o n s  any o t h e r , i s a s o c i a l  i n one way o r a n o t h e r  product  have c o n t r i b u t e d .  to thank  t h e members o f my p r o g r a m c o m m i t t e e f o r  guidance  and c o u n c i l ;  I. The  V.S. Pendakur,  H.P.  I wish  their  Oberlander,  MoT. C o w a n , P. B r a d l e y a n d C . S . R o l l i n g . s t u d y c o u l d n o t have been done w i t h o u t t h e e x c e l l e n t  c o - o p e r a t i o n a n d r e s o u r c e s o f t h e B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Branch,  n o t a b l y G e o r g e Wood i n V i c t o r i a ,  Jim Delicatni Lakes.  i nGaribaldi  My t h a n k s  Bowron Lakes  Finally,  I wish t o thank  i n Bowron  to various outfitters at names a n d a d d r e s s e s  V i c k i Wagner f o r a s s i s t a n c e i n  coding, Robin R u s s e l l  f o r much n e e d e d  w i t h computer p r o c e s s i n g , M a r i a C a s s i l s Ann Sangster  Parks  V i c t o r Bopp and  Davidson  a n d M t . R o b s o n who s u p p l i e d  guests.  questionnaire  and Davie  too a r e extended  of t h e i r  and  t o which  f o rtyping  f o rediting  the manuscript.  xiv  guidance suggestions,  PART 1 .  ORIENTATION  CHAPTER CONCEPTUAL PROLOGUE -  I  CONSERVATION/PARKS/WILDERNESS  The q u e s t i o n o f q u e s t i o n s f o r m a n k i n d ... i s t h e a s c e r t a i n m e n t o f t h e p l a c e w h i c h Man o c c u p i e s i n Nature. T.H. H u x l e y ,  C o n s e r v a t i o n as a G u i d i n g In  this  that  Philosophy  t e c h n o l o g i c a l age, Huxley's  assumed a v e r y u r g e n t  1862  relevance.  q u e s t i o n o f q u e s t i o n s has  Man i s b e l a t e d l y r e c o g n i s i n g  t h e a r t i f i c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t he has c r e a t e d i s f a r f r o m  stable  and w e l l  a collision direction  i n t e g r a t e d , and t h a t i t i s b e i n g d i r e c t e d  course  of this  vis-a-vis course,  nature.  so as t o h a r m o n i z e  systems w i t h n a t u r a l - f u n c t i o n i n g presented In  The need  t o us as a c o h e r e n t  t o change t h e  man-controlled  ones, has o n l y j u s t  been  problem.  the search f o r s o l u t i o n t o the problems o f the  r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n man a n d h i s e n v i r o n m e n t , usually  on  cited  falls  under t h e r u b r i c  the philosophy  of conservation.  The  1  noted  e c o l o g i s t , Max N i c h o l s o n  conservation w i l l have sensed  , has indeed  suggested  b e t h e b a s i s o f a "New R e n a i s s a n c e " .  t h a t c o n s e r v a t i o n , no l o n g e r a s e l e c t  that Others  philosophy  2  o f a n a e s t h e t i c m i n o r i t y , now h a s t h e e l e m e n t s 2 s o c i a l movement wide* c o n c e r n these  .  I f one g i v e s w e i g h t  regarding  a s s e r t i o n s may But  thoughtless  prove  movement.  ecological  sense,  a philosophy,  a  that deal with the c u l t u r a l ,  aspects  o f man's u s e o f r e s o u r c e s .  sentiment of  study  economic In this  c o n s e r v a t i o n i s a b o r d e r l i n e s c i e n c e w h i c h depends f o r  sciences.  I t deserves  because i t attempts social The is  pollution,  correct.  most o f i t s m a t e r i a l s and c o n c e p t s  and  and  I t i s a l s o an academic f i e l d  based on t h e s c i e n c e s and  full-scale  t o t h e impetus o f world-  exploitation  c o n s e r v a t i o n i s more t h a n  or a s o c i a l  of a  u p o n more  i t s distinction  specialized  as a f i e l d  of  study  t o s y n t h e s i z e and i n t e g r a t e t h e n a t u r a l  sciences. b a s i c p r e m i s e o f c o n s e r v a t i o n , as a f i e l d  t h a t man,  a t any p o i n t i n t i m e , has a three-way  of  study,  relationship  3 w i t h h i s environment  .  First,  construction of h i s a r t i f i c i a l alters  the natural habitat.  values  c e r t a i n other  scientific  and o t h e r  as a u s e r  of resources i n  e n v i r o n m e n t , he  materially  Second, as a s e n t i e n t b e i n g ,  he  portions o f the environment f o r r e c r e a t i o n , activities  not related  to material  concerns. F i n a l l y , as an e t h i c a l b e i n g , he r e c o g n i s e s h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as a c u s t o d i a n o f a f i t -environment f o r f u t u r e  h  generations  5  .  Leopold  man/nature e q u a t i o n  envisioned a similar  concept  i n h i s development o f a "land  o f the  ethic".  3  Although defined, the  i t s goals  the current  traditional  t h i n k i n g on c o n s e r v a t i o n  setting  quantity of resources  and terms a r e s t i l l  aside  of parks 6 available:  only  vaguely  goes f a r beyond  or concern with the  C o n s e r v a t i o n must be n o t j u s t t h e c l a s s i c c o n s e r v a t i o n o f p r o t e c t i o n and development, b u t a c r e a t i v e c o n s e r v a t i o n o f r e s t o r a t i o n and innovation. I t s concern i s not with nature alone, but w i t h the t o t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between man a n d t h e w o r l d a r o u n d h i m . It  i s this  definition of conservation  environment that provides this  study.  The p o i n t  the fundamental reference  search  a c t i o n to achieve  f o r environmental  Environmental  Planning  of the  point f o r  that n a t u r a l l y follows i s the necessity  of organising c o l l e c t i v e the  as q u a l i t y  these  objectives i n  optima.  as t h e B a s i s  of  Conservation  7 According  to Lyle Craine  conservation  i s "the e f f e c t i v e  environmental means p l a n n i n g step  with  , today's r e a l  complexes".  challenge i n  management  I n the jargon  regionally f o r Integrated  t h e "new"  conservation  planning  c o n c e r n w i t h l a n d u s e p e r se t o a b r o a d e r total  landscape f a b r i c . i s S y l v i a Crowe  , who  explains:  scale  of the f i e l d resource  this  use.  In  extends beyond interest  A n a d v o c a t e of- t h i s 8  interest  of large  i n the  extension  of  a  The s u b s t i t u t i o n o f t h e t e r m l a n d s c a p e p l a n n i n g f o r l a n d p l a n n i n g marks a d e l i b e r a t e widening o f the conception o f p l a n n i n g t o i n c l u d e a p p e a r a n c e as w e l l as u s e , p l e a s u r e as w e l l as f e r t i l i t y , and t h e w h o l e complex o r g a n i c f a b r i c o f l i f e as w e l l a s man's i m m e d i a t e n e e d s . In planned  t h i s way t h e t o t a l  matrix  extrinsic  r e g i o n a l landscape  becomes a  o f uses w i t h an o p t i m a l mix o f both t h e  and m a t e r i a l a c t i v i t i e s  o f modern c i v i l i z a t i o n  on  9 one  end o f t h e s c a l e ( t o u s e Wagner's  environment) and t h e i n t r i n s i c 10 environment on the other To  achieve  schema - t h e  features of the natural  such a planned  matrix,  must be a c c e p t e d :  The d e s i r e d p a t t e r n s  r e g i o n a l landscape  will  by  the "Invisible  actively viewpoint for  This  environmental We  grandoise procedural is  .  n o t occur  and p u r s u e d  one f u n d a m e n t a l of resource  spontaneously  hand" o f t h e market.  considered 11  "artificial"  from a  axiom i s probably  Rather,  axiom  use i nthe  o r be  guided  t h e y must be  comprehensive  the core  justification  planning.  recognise,  o f course,  t h a t i n p r a c t i c e such a  schema o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l  planning  and o p e r a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s .  an optimal mixture?  c a n n o t be measured?  F o r whom?  Where s h o u l d  d i f f e r e n t uses be  costs involved?  we owe t h e f u t u r e ?  And s p e c i f i c a l l y , landscape?  Who  strong  For instance:  How i s i t m e a s u r e d ?  What a r e t h e s o c i a l  open space i n t h e r e g i o n a l  meets w i t h  benefits?  What What  located? What do  what i s t h e p l a c e o f  5  Open Space One e l e m e n t  as a Landscape  i n t h e l a n d s c a p e f o r w h i c h t h e need f o r  comprehensive  and c o l l e c t i v e  P a r t l y because defined in  Element  action  of i t s intangible  meaning,  open space  the landscape.  i s critical  i s open  space.  n a t u r e and i n a d e q u a t e l y  i s t h e most v u l n e r a b l e r e s o u r c e  I n t h e q u e s t f o r space t o accommodate  growth, open space areas a r e u s u a l l y  the f i r s t  t o be  directed 12  into  alternative  summarizes,  uses.  "The c e n t r a l  issue",  as K r u t i l l a  "seems t o b e t h e p r o b l e m o f p r o v i d i n g  p r e s e n t and f u t u r e  amenities associated  environments, f o r which t h e market  f o r the  with unspoiled  fails  t o make  natural  adequate  provision". Open s p a c e e x i s t s that give structure  f o r a number o f d i f f e r e n t  and s e r v i c e  common o f t h e s e f u n c t i o n s in  the form of parks.  classification  that recognize  o f purposes  we h a v e h y p o t h e t i c a l  developed  a hierarchy  o f parks  a n d r e c r e a t i o n demands  parks systems  13  .  Thus,  t h a t range from c e n t r a l  " v e s t - p o c k e t " p a r k s and p l a y g r o u n d s t o l a r g e , 1H based r e s e r v e s B u t we a r e s t i l l  The most  i s p r o v i s i o n o f space f o r r e c r e a t i o n  Park p l a n n e r s have  systems  meeting a v a r i e t y  to the region.  functions  distant,  i n s e a r c h o f an adequate  city  resource-  testable  6  theory  which w i l l  such h y p o t h e t i c a l provide  planners  e x p l a i n b e t t e r what p r o c e s s e s open space systems.  Such t h e o r y  and p o l i c y makers w i t h  c o h e r e n t , and l o g i c a l  rationale  characterize  a  would  generalised,  f o r making  and  justifying  decisions. Justifications  f o r open space p o l i c i e s  stated  i n romantic, religious  little  regard  f o r their  a r e commonly  a n d common s e n s i c a l  logical  derivation.  terms  with  Even t h e N a t i o n a l  15 Parks A c t , according obscure reference The  t o Shepard  o f an a c t o f f a i t h without apparent  most i n s u b s t a n t i a t e d  open space i s t h e c o n t e n t i o n need  , "had t h e i n s u b s t a n t i a t e d  f o rrecreational-type  and tenuous  that  justification for  man h a s a n i n n a t e  services  theology"  of undisturbed  organic natural  16 landscapes.  Crowe's  both the world  comment i s p e r t i n e n t :  of the i n t e l l e c t  must, t h e r e f o r e ,  find  "Man b e l o n g s t o  and t o t h e o r g a n i c  an environment which w i l l  f u n c t i o n on b o t h s c a l e s " .  I n the evolutionary  we e m e r g e d a s human b e i n g s  there  is  f i r m l y rooted  are claims  i n the animal world  world  and  allow him to aspects  that  o f how  "our  ancestry  and t o i t s s u b t l e  antique  17 ways o u r h e a r t s a r e y e t p l e d g e d " . There i s mounting e v i d e n c e , however, t h a t c r o w d i n g and d e p r i v a t i o n o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l e x p e r i e n c e may b e d e l e t e r i o u s t o m e n t a l 18 19 health . I t i s a l s o l i k e l y , as Gannon notes, that a diversity  o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l e x p e r i e n c e s enhances  adaptive  7 20 capacity. suggest  L i k e w i s e , Shepard  there are delayed  expo'sure  to natural  Nonetheless, open space direct  has presented  and i n d i r e c t  the  a n d n a t u r e may h e f o r e v e r e s o t e r i c  concern here.  and i s n o t o f  i s t h e q u e s t i o n o f man's  and p s y c h o l o g i c a l needs f o r open space  The b r o a d  this  question i s :  point,  i ti s helpful  v a l u e s o f open  and e v a l u a t e d ? to recapitulate the  study:  Conservation f o r quality fundamental  by  What a r e t h e s o c i a l a n d  f o r and r e c r e a t i o n a l  deductive development o f t h i s 1.  as e v i d e n c e d  o u t o f t h e p r o v i s i o n and use o f these  a n d how c a n t h e y b e e x p r e s s e d At  level  What i s e q u a l l y a s i m p o r t a n t a n d w h a t  p s y c h o l o g i c a l reasons space,  of zero  t h e q u e s t i o n o f man's o r g a n i c n e e d f o r  satisfaction arising  areas.  effects  that  settings.  does p r e s e n t a r e s e a r c h a b l e t o p i c social  arguments  o f the environment  p h i l o s o p h y and s c i e n t i f i c  i sthe  basis f o r  i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f resource use i s s u e s . 2.  Landscape or environmental  planning i sthe  o p e r a t i o n a l means t h r o u g h w h i c h optimum environment rests  i s directed.  the search f o r the I t s rationale  on t h e need f o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n  as w e l l  as f o r each  o f the whole  element o f the landscape  fabric.  8  3.  Man i s a s e n t i e n t b e i n g who  socially  benefits  from the existence  o f open space.  may a l s o  possess an o r g a n i c or e v o l u t i o n a r y  for to k.  these areas - a t l e a s t  He need  t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e  s u g g e s t he does n o t .  Open s p a c e  i s no l o n g e r s o m e t h i n g  s i m p l y go o u t a n d f i n d . of opportunities as a r e s u l t  total  f o r open space w i l l  of conscious planning.  environment.  hierarchy  o f forms  recreation  element  There  Open  only  space  i te x i s t s  i n a  perform a  open space parks.  system  i n society  - wilderness. that  seek o u t  experiences i n large, areas, o f t e n i n the form o f  What i s t h e n a t u r e and r e l e v a n c e e x p e r i e n c e s g a i n e d t h e r e t o modern  What i s t h e e v o l v i n g  the r e g i o n a l landscape?  a r e suggested?  niche of these areas i n  What v a l u e s o f w i l d e r n e s s  recreation i n the totality culture  persist  i s w i t h man's r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e o f  recreation  o f the r e c r e a t i o n man?  which p r i m a r i l y  o f t h e open space  high-quality  wilderness  range  component o f t h e  Hypothetically  i s a c e r t a i n group  undisturbed  people  function.  The c o n c e r n h e r e one  that  Instead, a broad  thus becomes a p l a n n e d and v a l i d  5.  d e s i r e s and  o f o u r l a n d s c a p e and o u r  9  Wilderness The  i n the Regional  idea of preserving wilderness  disappearance  of  the  sentiment  U.S.  The  the  movement w h i c h has in  Landscape  f o r m and  frontier took  i n the the  subsequently  definition,  originated with 19th  early  the  century  form of the n a t u r a l spread,  with varying  internationally  to over  70  in  park emphasis  countries.  21 Wilderness  has  b e e n , as  c o n t r i b u t i o n of 100  Shepard  t h e new  world  observes,  predominantly  c u l t u r e developed  over  a  the  past  years. The  historians  that wilderness changing  22  and  Brown  i s a dynamic concept,  with time.  o f l a n d use  Nash  I t i s now  that i s largely  23  have  demonstrated  culturally  recognised  as  defined  a special  and  type  confined to l a r g e countries w i t h  2k low  demographic  come t o b e an  considered  increasingly  ascribed they  pressure  .  I n our  society, wilderness  a public resource  i n i t s own  right  s c a r c e c o m m o d i t y w i t h c e r t a i n human 25  (as i n Zimmerman's  dictum:  has and  values  "Resources are not  -  become"). The  c u r r e n t ambivalence  regarding wilderness  is  e v i d e n t i n r e m a r k s made b y B . C . ' s M i n i s t e r o f R e c r e a t i o n Conservation  i n t h a t Department's recent  publication  and  Our  26 Natural Heritage  :  "The  w i l d e r n e s s d w e l l e r and nature  o f our  reality  t h a t man  i s no  longer  must o f n e c e s s i t y change i n p a r t  land i s both  recognised  and  accepted".  a the  However,  10  the  Minister  then acknowledges  that:  T h e r e i s a n e e d i n man, s t r o n g f e l t i n s o m e , i n o t h e r s b l u r r e d and f a d e d , t o , on o c c a s i o n , reach back toward t h e f o u n t a i n o f c r e a t i o n . P e r h a p s i t i s h e r e , among t h e t h i n g s o f n a t u r e , that those h a l f - f o r g o t t e n channels o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n c a n be r e - o p e n e d . This  i s heady  stuff,  27  sentiment that Thoreau buffered  implying  t h e same  mystical  s p o k e o f , t h a t u r b a n man,  from i t by h i s a r t i f a c t s ,  still  although  needs t h e " t o n i c o f  wildness". Such p o e t i c little but  help  and a l m o s t t h e o l o g i c a l s e n t i m e n t s a r e o f  to the resource  p l a n n e r who may a g r e e w i t h  needs an e m p i r i c a l base and t h e o r e t i c a l d e r i v a t i o n t o g i v e  them r a t i o n a l and d e f e n d a b l e for  instance,  understanding  resource, special  He d e s i r e s  seeks  i n the open space s y s t e m , and t h e to the landscape  t h e o r e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e based on sound  wilderness  He  as a r e c r e a t i o n a l  study r e s t s on t h e assumption t h a t  develop t h i s  vague and e m o t i o n a l i d e o l o g y  how a n d  i n contemporary s o c i e t y .  contribution of wilderness  needed on which t o b e t t e r  t o know,  exists,  o f the concept of wilderness  the r o l e i tplays  This derived  substance.  w h e r e a n d how m u c h w i l d e r n e s s  who u s e s i t , a n d i t s v a l u e s an  them  limits  as a n i n t e g r a l p a r t  a  plan.  logically  empirical data i s  rationale.  The  t h e assessment o f  of the landscape.  current  11  F u r t h e r , w h a t h a s "been t r a d i t i o n a l l y  thought o f as t h e  wilderness  e x p e r i e n c e may n o t h e w h a t i s n o w p r o v i d e d i n t h e 28 As L o w e n t h a l s u g g e s t s , modern a t a v i s t i c D a n i e l  parks.  Boones a r e few. urban-affected How r e a l  The c o n t e m p o r a r y w i l d e r n e s s  user  may b e t o o  to insist  on t o t a l s o l i t u d e o r t o t a l p u r i t y . 29 i s t h e f o l l o w i n g agency description of wilderness?:  The w i l d e r n e s s e n v i r o n m e n t i s s u c h t h a t u s e r s can experience a wide range o f i n t a n g i b l e values; f e e l i n g o f s o l i t u d e , sense o f freedom, beauty, s p i r i t o f adventure, excitement, refreshment, s p i r i t u a l awareness, s e r e n i t y , self reliance. My c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t a s t u d y wilderness  r e c r e a t i o n can provide  indicators  o f man's c h a n g i n g a t t i t u d e  o f t h e human e l e m e n t i n  v a l u a b l e and s e n s i t i v e towards nature.  Paul  30 Shepard  has suggested  wilderness Thus,  that:  runs deeper than  " ... b y s t a n d i n g  "The s p i r i t u a l  any o t h e r  effect of  encounter  i n nature."  toward a z e n i t h i n a s c a l e o f r e s o u r c e s , 31  wilderness  gives d e f i n i t i o n  the h i s t o r i c a l fountainhead  t o many o t h e r  sense, wilderness  resources."  has a l s o been a t t h e  o f t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n movement.  In explaining  man's a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , w i l d e r n e s s , provides equation.  an important  In  benchmark f o r study  therefore,  o f t h e man/nature  12  Definition The i d e a o f w i l d e r n e s s i s a d i f f i c u l t one, but i t i s p r e c i s e l y because i t i s d i f f i c u l t that c l a r i f y i n g i t i s valuable. 32 Garrett Hardin The  understanding  of wilderness  p e r s i s t e n t l a c k o f agreement on thus  necessary  of this  Frontier  of wilderness wilderness  ecumene t h a t as  commercially be  considered  has  The  a  It is  i n the  - the  frontier  i s an u n d i s t u r b e d yet i s not  utilized  by  wilderness  man. of  preserved  processes  the  area  permanently  context  this  type.  inhabited or  Frontier  and  p r o t e c t i o n , wherein  second  examples of p r e s e r v e d  n a t i o n a l and  provincial  parks.  travel  i t is  u r b a n i z a t i o n are  i s an u n d i s t u r b e d  mechanized  wilderness  population.  category area  recreation, research, nature no  could  areas, but  been set a s i d e f o r non-consumptive  including  most o b v i o u s  preserved.  of w i l d l a n d beyond  uninhabited  f o r a p p r e c i a t i o n of the This  distinguish  Most o f n o r t h e r n Canada  of c i v i l i z a t i o n  wilderness.  t h a t has  functions  and  i n extent w i t h the growth of world  prerequisites  our  term  i t i s p o s s i b l e to  a l w a y s e x i s t e d i n r e m o t e and  decreasing  land  d e f i n i n g the  a p h y s i c a l concept  types  the  a sound d e f i n i t i o n .  by  study. As  two  t o b e g i n by  i s complicated  -  of p u b l i c  resource and  watershed  i s permitted.  wilderness  are found  The in  13  The  essential  wilderness  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s e two c o n c e p t s o f  i s that the former  of wildland, w h i l e the l a t t e r  i s a de f a c t o u n d e s i g n a t e d i s a ipso facto  w i t h a d e f i n e d and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d F u r t h e r , w h e r e man's a t t i t u d e to  tame, conquer  wilderness  and s e t t l e ,  i s to protect,  land  area  wilderness area  use f u n c t i o n .  to frontier  w i l d e r n e s s has been  h i s current attitude  to preserved  p r e s e r v e and as a v i s i t o r ,  e n j o y as  it i s . To  avoid semantic  here- t o r e f e r visitor  t o a l l areas  of the provincial  samples were c o l l e c t e d .  "wildland" areas  argument, the term w i l d e r n e s s i s used  The l e s s  and " b a c k c o u n t r y " , a r e used  of either  parks  from  descriptive  to refer  which  terms  to extensive  type of w i l d e r n e s s .  W i l d e r n e s s , h o w e v e r , i s n o t s o much a t y p e o f l a n d s c a p e as  i ti s a congeries o f f e e l i n g s  varying This  import  thesis  to different  i s less  about  epochs,  concerned  this  e x p e r i e n c e as i n f e r r e d  central  concern  of this  cultures  and  individuals.  w i t h w i l d e r n e s s as a l a n d  t h a n w i t h w i l d e r n e s s as a c o g n i t i v e e x p e r i e n c e o f and r e a c t i o n  man a n d n a t u r e o f  "feeling",  to wilderness. from  inquiry.  visitor  What  concept  i . e . the constitutes  response  i sthe  Ik  REFERENCES CHAPTER  I  (1)  N i c h o l s o n , E. Max, " C o n s e r v a t i o n a n d t h e N e x t Renaissance", A l b r i g h t Conservation LectureshipI V , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , M a r c h , 196*+.  (2)  S e e f o r e x a m p l e , G o d d a r d , M.K., "A New C o n s e r v a t i o n For an Urban America", i n the "Proceedings o f t h e T h i r t i e t h North American W i l d l i f e Conference" 1968, p . k?7-k83, a n d M e a n s , R . L . , "The New C o n s e r v a t i o n " , N a t u r a l H i s t o r y . A p r i l , 1969} p . 16.  (3) -  S e e K e s t e v a n , G.L., "A P o l i c y F o r C o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s " , S c i e n c e . V o l . 160, May 2h, 1968, p . 857-860.  (k)  F o r t h e consequences o f t h e e x t e n s i o n o f t h i s Idea f o r l a n d ownership see: K a n e , J . , "Our L a n d , N o t Y o u r s " , I n t r o s p e c t . S p e c i a l R e p o r t o f t h e Socle t y f o r P o l l u t i o n a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n t r o l , B u r n a b y , B . C . , 1970.  (5)  L e o p o l d , A., A Sand C o u n t y  (6)  "Message From t h e P r e s i d e n t o n N a t u r a l B e a u t y " , D o c . 78, U.S. S u p t . o f D o c . 1965.  (7)  C r a i n e , L.E., " S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and P l a n n i n g E d u c a t i o n " , i n H u f s c h m i d t , M.M., R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g - C h a l l e n g e a n d P r o s p e c t s . P r a i g e r , N.Y., 1969, p . 56.  (8)  C r o w e , S y l v i a , "The N e e d f o r L a n d s c a p e P l a n n i n g " , i n T o w a r d s a New R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Man a n d N a t u r e i n T e m p e r a t e L a n d s . I.U.C.N. New S e r i e s P u b l i c a t i o n No. M o r g e s , 1967, p. Ik.  (9) (10)  Almanac. O x f o r d , London,  W a g n e r , P h i l i p , T h e Human U s e o f t h e E a r t h . F r e e of Glencoe, London, 196k.  19^9.  H.R.  8,  Press  Such a h o l i s t i c framework i s p r e s e n t e d by R o b e r t K a t e s , "Comprehensive Environmental P l a n n i n g " , i n Hufschmidt e d . , o p . c i t . . p. 69.  15  (11)  T h i s p o i n t i s made s t r o n g l y b y T w i s s , R.H. a n d L i t t o n , B. i n " R e s o u r c e U s e i n t h e R e g i o n a l L a n d s c a p e " , N a t . R e s . J . V o l . 6, J a n u a r y , 1966, p . 7 8 - 8 1 .  (12) '  K r u t i l l a , J . V . , " C o n s e r v a t i o n R e c o n s i d e r e d " , Am. E c o n . R e v . . S e p t e m b e r , 1967, p . 778.  (13)  F o r e x a m p l e s o n t h e r e g i o n a l l e v e l s e e t h e many w r i t i n g s o f M a r i o n Clawson i n c l u d i n g h i s Land and W a t e r F o r R e c r e a t i o n , R a n d M c N a l l y , C h i c a g o , 1963• O n a n a t i o n a l s c a l e s e e W.J. H a r t ' s "A S y s t e m s A p p r o a c h t o P a r k P l a n n i n g " , I.U.C.N., New S e r i e s , P u b l i c a t i o n N o . 4 , M o r g e s , 1966.  (14)  I h a v e r e v i e w e d t h e s e s y s t e m s i n "Open S p a c e f o r t h e U r b a n R e g i o n " , O n t a r i o G e o g r a p h y . V o l . 1 , N o . 1 , 1967.  (15)  S h e p a r d , P., M a n i n t h e L a n d s c a p e . K n o p f , N.Y., 1967, p . 229.  (16)  Crowe, op. c i t . .  (17)  This remark c a n be found i n Robert A r d r e y ' s A f r i c a n G e n e s i s . D e l t a , N.Y., 1 963•  (18)  D u b o s , R., M a n A d a p t i n g . Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y H a v e n , 1965.  (19)  G a n n o n , C o l i n A., " T o w a r d s a S t r a t e g y f o r C o n s e r v a t i o n i n a World o f T e c h n o l o g i c a l Change", S o c i o - E c o n . P l a n S c i . . V o l . 3 , 1969, p . 1 5 9 - 1 7 8 .  (20)  Notes from a Luncheon Address b y P a u l Shepard, 8th B i e n n i a l Northwest Wilderness Conference, S e a t t l e , A p r i l 4 , 1970.  (21)  Shepard, op.  (22)  The most c o m p r e h e n s i v e h i s t o r i c a l r e v i e w o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e w i l d e r n e s s c o n c e p t i n t h e U.S. i s R o d e r i c k Nash's W i l d e r n e s s a n d t h e A m e r i c a n M i n d Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , New H a v e n , 1967.  p. 16.  P r e s s , New  c i t .  t  (23)  A C a n a d i a n s o u r c e i s R.C. B r o w n ' s "The D o c t r i n e o f Usefulness: N a t u r a l Resource andN a t i o n a l Park P o l i c y i n C a n a d a , 1887 - 1914", i n N e l s o n J . G . a n d S c a c e , R., eds., The C a n a d i a n N a t i o n a l P a r k s : Today and Tomorrow. U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l g a r y , 1968, p . 9 4 - 1 1 0 .  16  (24)  S e e a l s o J e f f r e y , W.W., "The E v o l u t i o n o f W i l d e r n e s s P r e s e r v a t i o n P o l i c y i n t h e U.S.", t e r m p a p e r f o r F S 200, C o l o r a d o S t a t e , 1964, 58 p .  (25)  Z i m m e r m a n , E.W., I n t r o d u c t i o n t o W o r l d R e s o u r c e s H u n k e r , H . L . , H a r p e r a n d Row, N.Y., 1964.  (26)  K i e r n a n , K., D e p a r t m e n t o f R e c r e a t i o n a n d C o n s e r v a t i o n , Our N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e . B . C . G o v e r n m e n t P u b l i c a t i o n , Victoria, 1970.  (27)  Thoreau, Henry D a v i d , Walden and Other W r i t i n g s . L i b r a r y , N.Y., 1950.  (28)  L o w e n t h a l , D., August, 1968.  (29)  T h i s s t a t e m e n t f r o m a U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e r e p o r t i s q u o t e d i n : L a P a g e , W.F., "Some S o c i o l o g i c a l A s p e c t s o f F o r e s t R e c r e a t i o n " , J . Of F o r . . 6 1 : 1 , J a n u a r y , 1963, P. 35.  (30)  Shepard,  (3-1)  ORRRC, W i l d e r n e s s a n d R e c r e a t i o n - A R e p o r t o n R e s o u r c e s . V a l u e s a n d P r o b l e m s . S t u d y R e p o r t 3, W a s h i n g t o n , 1962, p . 28.  (32)  H a r d i n , G a r r e t t , "We M u s t E a r n A g a i n F o r O u r s e l v e s W h a t We H a v e I n h e r i t e d " , i n M c C l o s k e y , M., e d . , W i l d e r n e s s The Edge o f K n o w l e d g e . S i e r r a C l u b , San F r a n c i s c o , 1970, p. 266.  " D a n i e l Boone i s Dead", N a t u r a l  t  ed.  Modern  History.  P., o p . c i t .  17  CHAPTER I I METHODOLOGICAL PROLOGUE - R E C R E A T I O N R E S E A R C H  The  Exploratory  Nature o f Recreation  Research  Outdoor r e c r e a t i o n i s a t p r e s e n t a n amorphous f i e l d and must, t h e r e f o r e , be e x p l o r a t i v e i n i t s a p p r o a c h t o r e s e a r c h , e v e n when t h e r e l e v a n c e o f proposed work i s n o t i m m e d i a t e l y evident. N a t i o n a l Academy o f Explanation the  heart  as one o f t h e t h r e e  of a l l scientific  research.  goals  different the  particular  Generally and  little  required. for  stages  o f development, d i f f e r e n t  preference  i na field previous  of science  The r o u t e  e x p l a n a t i o n , however, v a r i e s w i t h d i f f e r e n t  1  Sciences i sat  to follow to  disciplines at t o p i c s and w i t h  of the individual investigator.  c o n s i s t i n g o f many p o t e n t i a l v a r i a b l e s theory,  an exploratory approach i s  Such a n a p p r o a c h i s n e c e s s a r y  subsequent development o f theory.  t o l a y t h e groundwork 2 As T a y l o r observes:  R e s e a r c h i n t o r e c r e a t i o n b y w o r k e r s f r o m many academic backgrounds has been l a r g e l y i n d u c t i v e . The s t u d i e s h a v e b e e n i n w h a t h a s b e e n d e s c r i b e d as t h e n a t u r a l h i s t o r y s t a g e o f s c i e n c e . In this phase o f s c i e n c e people a r e concerned w i t h d i r e c t l y o b s e r v a b l e f a c t o r s and i n s y s t e m a t i c o b s e r v a t i o n s , d e s c r i p t i o n s and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . T h e r e h a v e b e e n f e w , i f a n y , a t t e m p t s t o move o n to t h e d e d u c t i v e stage o f t h e f i e l d .  18  The r e a s o n s  f o rthis  are evident.  from the m u l t i - d i s c i p l i n a r y nature emergence o f t h e t o p i c inquiry,  usually  they  o f academic  lack of a priori  t o be t r i v i a l .  stem  the recent  premises  Hypotheses have and c a n be f o r m u l a t e d  o f such l o w order  cautioned  of the f i e l d ,  as a l e g i t i m a t e f i e l d  and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g  c a n b e made.  Primarily  that  but are  Some w r i t e r s h a v e  a g a i n s t premature f o r m u l a t i o n . o f hypotheses  which 3  may p r o v e s t u l t i f y i n g It stage  f o l l o w s t h a t r e s e a r c h a t an e a r l y  cannot r e l y  small l i s t  t o t h e development o f the d i s c i p l i n e  on s p e c i f i c  of variables.  or exploratory  hypotheses o r on a  Rather,  .  relatively  "the investigator  must  i m m e r s e h i m s e l f i n t h e d a t a , l e a r n a l l h e c a n f r o m a s many perspectives  as p o s s i b l e , and o b t a i n v e r y  general  information  h rather  than data  limited  t o a r a t h e r narrow focus" .  The e p i s t o m o l o g i s t w i l l in  this  approach o f i d e n t i f y i n g  i n d e p e n d e n t o f some t h e o r y . expressed or  i n formal  i ftechnical  example economic  and c o l l e c t i n g  the facts  theory  cannot be  terms i f t h e terms a r e i n e x a c t and d i f f u s e d  difficulties  exist  theory  i n the deductive  process.  be e s t a b l i s h e d .  f o r some a s p e c t s  of recreation (for  evaluation) i s available,  t h e o r y o f " r e c r e a t i o n a l man" e x i s t s coherent  point out the d i f f i c u l t y  Conversely,  The t e x t f o r t h e o r y must f i r s t Relevant  rightly  and t e s t a b l e h y p o t h e s e s .  b u t no  overall  from which t o d e r i v e Even coherent  standard  19  definitions  o f b a s i c concepts  i n the field  have y e t t o be  accepted. The  first  collection, for  i n a newly emerging  o r d e r i n g and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  general principles.  unified can  concern  into  structure,  be p r o g r e s s i v e l y i n t e r - r e l a t e d .  exploratory aspects  and e x p l i c i t  research.  o f outdoor  achieving  o f data  i s the  and t h e s e a r c h  When these g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s a r e  a theoretical  substantive fact  field  theory  In this  then  fact  and theory  When t h e r e i s d e a r t h o f t h e r e i s an abundance o f  sense r e s e a r c h on t h e s o c i a l  r e c r e a t i o n h a s a l o n g way t o go b e f o r e  t h e p r e c i s i o n and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y  o f t h e "hard"  sciences.  Problem-oriented  or "Mission"  There i s a pragmatic  Research  bias i n professional schools  selection of research topics that are policy focused.  According  f o r the  or problem  t o a recent report from the President's  5 Environmental issues  Quality Council  of practical  concern  , such r e s e a r c h on c u r r e n t  can contribute both  tothe  U n i v e r s i t y and t h e community as l o n g as o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d s o f i n q u i r y a r e met. There i s d e b a t e on t h i s as J . K e n n e t h 6 Hare  cautions:  "We  (the U n i v e r s i t i e s ) * are not a c t i o n -  o r i e n t e d , and on every opinion that regards the  academic  campus t h e r e i s a d e a d - w e i g h t o f  a c t i o n - o r i e n t e d programs as h o s t i l e t o  life...."  20  This  "hostility",  professional work's o n  disciplines  world  or  conforming  as  choice  long  or  that  is a  study  as  the  joint  should close to  i n their  be  of  study  scientific  by  should  is  one  laws.  clause:  a r e met"  such  The has  " ...  i n contrast to by  the  t h e U n i v e r s i t y and at  as  i s adhered  of outdoor  policy  a  fact a  t h e N a t i o n a l Academy  " ...  to.  interinstitutional of  recreation research  research  efforts  under arrangements t h a t encourage 8  prove  solution.  disciplinary  is reflected  Such a t t e m p t s  They recommended t h a t  study  along  topic  project of  c o u p l i n g o f r e s e a r c h and  this  planner  applied research 7  inquiry  recent review  conducted  i s headed  Council's  r e s e a r c h were s t r o n g l y supported  t h e U.S.  the  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s and  theoretical  Government Department.  Sciences  in  entailing  organised  of a problem-focused  methodological the  world  student  not  to gross  o b j e c t i v e standards My  in  planning, for  d e b a t e b e t w e e n p u r e and  proven c i r c u l a r as  planning  w i t h p r o b l e m s and  traditional  long  as  apparent  systematic methodology r e l e v a n t to t h e i r  to which the  concerned lines  such  complex problems i n a r e a l  k n o w l e d g e and The  however, i s l e s s  makers"  arrangements  .  The  the approach  advantageous.  21  Summary C o n s i d e r a t i o n s  i n Topic  Selection  T r a d i t i o n a l s c i e n t i f i c studies o f the environment must be s u p p l e m e n t e d b y b e h a v i o r a l s t u d i e s o f more s u b j e c t i v e i n t e n t i o n a l f a c t o r s s u c h as a t t i t u d e s ... a n d o f f u t u r e p o s s i b i l i t i e s w h i c h are l e s s c l e a r l y s c i e n t i f i c i n foundation. In a d d i t i o n , p l a n n i n g must c o n d u c t a major e n q u i r y into values. I n t h i s t h e p l a n n e r s c a n be g r e a t l y a s s i s t e d by s o c i a l s c i e n c e t e c h n i q u e s , b u t t h e r e w i l l remain an area o f value e x p l o r a t i o n which i s more i n d i r e c t , and w h i c h w i l l depend u p o n i n f e r e n c e s f r o m b e h a v i o r t h a t a r e somewhat subjective. 9 J o h n W. D y c k m a n The s p e c i f i c very l i m i t e d  problem area  f o r m a l l y developed  I have s e l e c t e d has i n i t s e l f theory  or e m p i r i c a l base.  Under these  c o n d i t i o n s , r e s e a r c h must i n good p a r t  be  descriptive  and s u g g e s t i v e  goal at  this  neophyte stage  from e m p i r i c a l f a c t .  i n nature.  The p r i m a r y  i s to distinguish unsubstantiated  ideology  As t h e development o f theory i s a t the  h e a r t o f a l l e x p l a n a t i o n , t h e second o b j e c t i v e i s t o seek empirical  generalizations that w i l l  i n t u r n suggest  testable  hypotheses. 10 Weber  has argued  that a l l investigation o f  social  phenomena i s d e p e n d e n t o n t h e v a l u e  o r i e n t a t i o n of the  investigator  T h i s means  and t h e i n v e s t i g a t e d .  that unlike  t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s , s o c i a l r e s e a r c h c a n n o t be o b j e c t i v e and i n d e p e n d e n t o f some v a l u e scientist  system.  must expend a c r e a t i v e ,  In this  sense,  sympathetic,  the s o c i a l  a n d i n some  22  measure i n t u i t i v e control and  effort while  the s c i e n t i f i c  consistency  criteria  method  of statements  on which s o c i a l  simultaneously can give over h e makes a b o u t  sciences  a r e t o be  utilizing  the  reasonableness  "reality".  The  judged w i l l  demonstrate i f t h e argument i s sound, the techniques u s e d and t h e e x p l a n a t i o n  what  then  properly  reasonable.  As an e x p l o r a t o r y , p r o b l e m and p l a n n i n g - o r i e n t e d 11 certain criteria considered.  on t h e s e l e c t i o n o f a r e l e v a n t t o p i c were  The  topic  should:  1.  relate  to a practical  2.  relate  t o an i n f l u e n t i a l  3.  f i l l  h.  permit social  5.  sharpen the d e f i n i t i o n s relationships,  6.  be amenable t o methods a n a l y s i s , and  7.  be t i m e l y .  a research  problem, or c r i t i c a l  to  the c r i t e r i a  population,  gap,  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n to broader theory,  principles  of important of data  The a b o v e d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e l i m i t s and  study,  of  concepts  c o l l e c t i o n and  of social  or data  research  f o l l o w e d i n t o p i c s e l e c t i o n has been  given  e x p l a i n the basic premises o f the f o l l o w i n g research.  23  REFERENCES CHAPTER I I  (1)  N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s , A P r o g r a m o f O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h . P u b l i c a t i o n 1727, National A c a d e m y o f S c i e n c e s , W a s h i n g t o n , 1969, p. 9.  (2)  T a y l o r , G.D. " R e c r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h a n d G e o g r a p h y " , P a p e r g i v e n t o The C a n a d i a n A s s o c . o f G e o g r a p h e r s , O t t a w a , M a y , 1967, p . 10.  (3)  H a r v e y , D., E x p l a n a t i o n i n G e o g r a p h y , A w a l d , 1970, C h a p t e r 7.  (4) "  B l a l o c k , H.M.,  J r . , An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o S o c i a l  Prentice Hall,  N.Y.,  (5)  1970,  London, Research,  p . 41 .  . S t e i n h a r t , J . S . a n d C h e r n i a c k , S., "The U n i v e r s i t i e s and E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y - Commitment t o P r o b l e m Focused Education", A Report t o the President's E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y C o u n c i l , Supt. o f Documents, Washington, September, 1969.  (6)  Ibid..  p.  6.  (7)  Ibid.,  p.  4.  (8)  N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s ,  (9)  D y c k m a n , J.W., " C i t y P l a n n i n g a n d t h e T r e a s u r y o f S c i e n c e " , i n E w a l d , W.R., E n v i r o n m e n t F o r Man. I n d i a n a P r e s s , 1968, p . 40.  (10)  W e b e r , M., Max W e b e r o n t h e M e t h o d o l o g y o f t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s e d . S h i l s , E.A., F r e e P r e s s , G l e n c o e , 1949.  op. c i t . .  p.  7.  t  (11)  M i l l e r , D.C., H a n d b o o k o f R e s e a r c h D e s i g n a n d M e a s u r e m e n t . M c K a y , N.Y., 1964.  Social  2h  CHAPTER I I I THE PROBLEM OF THE  Wilderness The  a s a Common P r o p e r t y  problem of the wilderness  occurrence  WILDERNESS  Resource  arises  out of the nature  a s a common p r o p e r t y r e s o u r c e .  common p r o p e r t y r e s o u r c e s , d e v e l o p e d biologists  i s thus  a useful tool  of i t s  The t h e o r y o f  by economists  i n diagnosing  and  the problem  1  and  i n prescribing solutions . Common p r o p e r t y r e s o u r c e s  fisheries and  and r e c r e a t i o n r e s o u r c e s  w h i c h c a n be u s e d  or economic u n i t . prevent the  a r e those  others  In fact,  as t h e r e s o u r c e  the  commons  attracts  or a e s t h e t i c a l l y  effect  externality  This  to suffer  At low levels  account  effect  o f use no  t h e r e i s no  o f t h e c o s t he  t o u s e t h e common r e s o u r c e .  than a r e s o c i a l l y , p o i n t occurs  "disutilities"  of h i s presence.  or s p i l l o v e r  rights or  a saturation point exists  more u s e r s  desired.  causes others  negative  i s finite,  individual  may i m p o s e v i r t u a l l y  t o take  i m p o s e s o n o t h e r s w h e n he c h o o s e s But  one  as i t i s i n s i g n i f i c a n t , user  owned,  can appropriate single  of the resource  need f o r each p a r t i c u l a r  user  that are publicly  from sharing the resource.  c o s t on o t h e r s .  as a i r , o c e a n  s i m u l t a n e o u s l y b y more t h a n  No o n e u s e r  a d d i t i o n a l user  such  When t h i s occurs.  where  economically  when t h e a d d i t i o n a l because o f the  stage  i s reached  an  What e v e n t u a l l y r e s u l t s  25  when a r e s o u r c e  i s f r e e and open t o a l l i s u n c o n t r o l l e d 2  consumption which leads  t o d e p l e t i o n o r what H a r d i n  " t h e T r a g e d y o f t h e Commons". not in  only  social  costs  of inefficient  When t h e u s e r s convinced  that their  relinquished,  quality but also  operation.  t h e u s u a l mechanism i s t o c a l l use o f the resource.  o f d e p l e t i o n have been s u f f e r e d stocks)  fisheries, result  resource  become  f r e e d o m t o e n t r y must be  o f a g r e e m e n t comes a f t e r  sea otter  i s manifested,  o f t h e common p r o p e r t y total  management t o l i m i t  of  tragedy  i n the d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f resource  added  point  This  calls  for unified  Unfortunately  the i r r e v e r s i b l e  this  consequences  (example - t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n  o r , as i n t h e c a s e o f t h e P a c i f i c  i n t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f t h e wrong  Salmon  restrictions  3 for  t h e wrong r e a s o n s  o f common p r o p e r t y broadside not  been  facing is  .  What i s r e q u i r e d i n t h e management  resources  and consequently  hits  o u r management r e c o r d s  These a r e p r e c i s e l y  t h e c l a s s o f problems  wilderness  and managers.  planners  g r o w i n g demand, r i s i n g  control  traditions here  have  good.  t h a t o f a n y common p r o p e r t y  entry,  our l a i s s e i f a i r e  congestion,  resource  t h a t a r e now  The c e n t r a l  issue  - the spectre of  population, finite  stocks, unlimited  decline i n quality,*and lack of effective  mechanisms t o e n s u r e an u n i m p a i r e d  yield  of benefits.  26  In  terms o f resource  from the American boundless  Its  experience that  cornucopia  substitutes,  i s a myth.  Since  recognising  recreational  equivalent,  common p r o p e r t y  of  frontier  more c o m p l e x .  charterizes  to a basic  problem of  to decline  Such problems as  i n wilderness  resources.  congestion,  are similar to  But the public desire  when  to  other  maintain  f r e e d o m s o f t h e commons a s w e l l a s t h e i n t a n g i b l e  nature of the wilderness,  render  For instance,  the solutions  there  t o i t s problems  we c h o o s e n o t t o m a r k e t  no t o k e n l i c e n s e f e e i s r e q u i r e d . are nor the optimal  knowledge o f t h e b e n e f i t s  and v a l u e s  wilderness  We d o n o t k n o w e v e n how l e v e l s of use. of wilderness  And, our  i s even  limited. In  the  o f use that  q u a l i t y , i s subject  d e p l e t i o n and i n e f f i c i e n c y  more  close  Consequently, e f f i c i e n c y , or i t s  c e r t a i n use l e v e l s are reached.  many u s e r s  has no  purposes, i r r e p r o d u c i b l e .  i ti s e s p e c i a l l y susceptible  commons - c o n g e s t i o n .  and  wilderness  as a  i s critical.  wilderness,  the  evidence  o f wilderness  the i r r e v e r s i b i l i t y  Because o f the low d e n s i t y  the  we h a v e much  the idea  i ti s , f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l  future planning,  decisions  availability,  s p i t e o f these  f a c t remains  that  t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l  the i r r e v e r s i b l e e f f e c t s o f  difficulties, wilderness  k misuse are i n e v i t a b l e i f entry  i n some way i s n o t c o n t r o l l e d .  27  In  the l i g h t  of this  forecast, recreation planners  will  5 h a v e t o a g r e e w i t h Wagar  that:  I n c r e a s i n g n u m b e r s o f v i s i t o r s make i t l i k e l y t h a t u s e i n many w i l d e r n e s s a r e a s may h a v e t o be l i m i t e d b y r a t i o n i n g i f t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s and e x p e r i e n c e s a v a i l a b l e t h e r e a r e n o t t o be strongly modified. Such r e d t a p e as r e s e r v a t i o n s , f i r e p e r m i t s , and p r e - p l a n n e d i t i n e r a r i e s seem i n e v i t a b l e , e v e n t h o u g h t h e y v i o l a t e our t r a d i t i o n a l concepts o f wilderness. H o w e v e r , f o r many a r e a s s u c h p r o c e d u r e s may b e preferable to the a l t e r n a t i v e s o f crowding, h e a v y damage, o r i n c r e a s e d a r t i f i c i a l i t y . Such " b e a u r a c r a t i z a t i o n " o f t h e w i l d e r n e s s , as  i t may a p p e a r , i s a l r e a d y 6  Wilderness o f C a l i f o r n i a apply a  .  occurring  repulsive  i n the Desolation  T h e r e , i t i s now c o m p u l s o r y t o  i n advance, f u r n i s h i n g complete t r i p  information  before  Wilderness Permit i s issued. The  p o l i c y i m p l i c a t i o n s here are i n t e r e s t i n g .  p l a n n e r s do n o t a g r e e w i t h the  true  will  s i g n i f i c a n c e of wilderness  sense, wilderness,  conservation  may b e l o s t  finite  as t h e h i s t o r i c a l  m o v e m e n t , may a l s o l e a d  d i r e c t i o n by demonstrating  the  sentiment i t i s l i k e l y  d i s s o l v e i n t o p l a y g r o u n d s f o r mass u s e .  policy  is  this  of wilderness  a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r action before  points.  that  a n d many  areas  I n the broader  impetus o f t h e  t h e way t o i t s f u t u r e  that uncontrolled  system cannot and i n d e e d w i l l  the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  I f park  growth i n a  n o t be accommodated. planners  to present  I t  t o us  we r e a c h u s e s a t u r a t i o n  28  I f we a c c e p t  this prescription  f o r preventing the  " T r a g e d y o f t h e Commons" i n t h e w i l d e r n e s s , we now ours'elves  with  resources: use  careful  And,  t o produce h i g h  most i m p o r t a n t ,  fruitful  should  quality yields  areas f o rresearch, ecological  these  How c a n  i t be r e s t r i c t e d ?  How d o we a c h i e v e  Within  property  u s e he r e s t r i c t e d ?  what i s t h e e f f e c t  users?  o f common  and management i n c r e a s e  impairment?  wilderness  questions  T o whom s h o u l d  planning  the resource  significant  on  A t what p o i n t  be r e s t r i c t e d ?  could of  five essential  concern  How  the capacity without  full  co-operation?  o f such r e s t r i c t i o n s  broad  questions  l i e many  including:  s t u d i e s o n t h e i m p a c t o f man i n  wilderness, economic costs  s t u d i e s on t h e d o l l a r  p s y c h o l o g i c a l and b e h a v i o r a l  values  studies of  a n d t h e human e l e m e n t s o f w i l d e r n e s s u s e ,  geographical recreation  s t u d i e s on t h e s p a t i a l o p e r a t i o n o f systems, and  and problem o r i e n t e d s t u d i e s o f the m u l t i -  disciplinary or  opportunity  and e v a l u a t i o n o f w i l d e r n e s s ,  social,  policy  impact,  aspects  populations.  of particular  topics,  regions  29  R e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e need f o r and p o t e n t i a l 7 wilderness research, according undeveloped.  t o Lucas  contributionof  , i s r e c e n t and  Nevertheless:  The p o t e n t i a l r e t u r n s o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d t o wilderness policyseem l a r g e . Debate and d i s p u t e w i l l n e v e r be e l i m i n a t e d by r e s e a r c h b u t t h e y c o u l d be f o c u s e d on t h e r e a l l y i n t a n g i b l e value choices.  Wilderness The  User Research  - The A m e r i c a n C o n t r i b u t i o n  U.S. h a s made s i g n i f i c a n t  progress  i n developing  e m p i r i c a l data base on wilderness resources country  a comprehensive n a t i o n a l outdoor  (ORRRC) h a s l a i d policies  and u s e .  through"  r e c r e a t i o n survey  recreation activities.  o f the position of wilderness  society  l e d to the Wilderness  defines  Wilderness  American experience  Areas  A turbulent i n American  A c t o f 1964 t h a t C o n g r e s s i o n a l l y 9  i n a l l parts o f the Union  i n s p i t e o f many l e g a l ,  .  The  c u l t u r a l and  economic d i f f e r e n c e s , should prove v a l u a b l e t o o t h e r moving i n t h i s  I n that  t h e groundwork f o r n a t i o n a l and s t a t e  f o r a l l outdoor  "thinking  an  countries  direction. 10  I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e m a j o r ORRRC s t u d y there are at l e a s t nine dissertations universities  concerning  multi-disciplinary  some a s p e c t  interest  on wilderness  completed  a t U.S.  of wilderness use.  The  i n wilderness recreation research  30  is  i n d i c a t e d by  completed Centres  the f a c t  t h a t two  of  these  i n D e p a r t m e n t s o f F o r e s t r y , two  and  Political  one  d i s s e r t a t i o n s were i n Natural  each i n Departments of Geography,  Science  and  Resource  Economics,  Ecology. 11  I n 1953» J a m e s P. academic  study  of P o l i c y  and  Wilderness history  Gilligan  of wilderness  undertook the  recreation.  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Forest  Areas  i n the Western U n i t e d  of r e c r e a t i o n a l use  of Forest  His  first  "The  major  Development  Service Primitive  and  States" describes  the  Service wildlands.  After  a thorough d i s c u s s i o n of r e c r e a t i o n p o l i c y w i t h i n the  National  F o r e s t s , G i l l i g a n uses h i s p e r s o n a l  wild  country  to set f o r t h  wilderness  acquaintance  the problems i n v o l v e d i n  conditions i n preserved  with  maintaining  areas.  12 I n 1962, S e r v i c e and  R.C.  the  study  was  environmental  R e c r e a t i o n a l Use an  important  p e r c e p t i o n and  between the r e s o u r c e 13 R. U.S.  Cates'  Forest  , working  with  U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota,  Superior Area: This  Lucas  the  divergence the  pressures  can  "The  Quetico-  on  i n aspirations  user. study  " R e c r e a t i o n and  Study of O r g a n i s a t i o n a l Response  C h a n g i n g Demands" i s v a l u a b l e h i s t o r i c a l l y user  Forest  Capacity".  contribution focusing  manager and  A  produced  i n Relation to  extensive policy  Service:  t h e U.S.  affect wilderness  and  l a n d use  p o i n t s out policy.  the to how  31  Robert "willingness wildland  K.  Davis  to pay"  i n his  14  and  "Value  obtained to  interview data  judge the  to  measure  economic v a l u e  of Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n :  An  of  Economic  S t u d y o f t h e M a i n e Woods". 15 J. "Carrying  A l a n Wagar  made c o n c e p t u a l  Capacity of Wildlands  headway i n h i s  for Recreation".  Wagar•s  a p p r o a c h , based on m o t i v a t i o n t h e o r y , i d e n t i f i e d categories and  of needs  that apparently motivate  t h e n g r a p h e d t h e manner i n w h i c h  could  affect  these  the  outdoor  recreation  management d e c i s i o n s  needs.  16 Cultural h i s t o r i a n , Roderick intellectual "Wilderness  development o f the and  Nash  wilderness  the American Mind".  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of wilderness  and  the  experimental  calibrated plots.  Tundra Ecosystems the few  s t u d i e s on  Her  i s J o h n C.  Attributes  i n his  subsequent  on  the  v e g e t a t i v e change on  "Effects  of V i s i t o r  Use  Hendee's  special  resource, a series on  i n Rocky Mountain N a t i o n a l Park" that c r i t i c a l  American  C a n a d i a n mind i s o f  of  Alpine i s one  of  topic.  A more r e c e n t d i s s e r t a t i o n , and 18 cited,  concept  Nash's  i n t e r e s t i n Chapter X o f t h i s study. In a study of the e f f e c t s of users 17 Betty Willard  , t r a c e d the  one  that w i l l  "Recreation Clientele  of R e c r e a t i o n i s t s ' Preferences  of  be -  often  the  Different  32  Management A g e n c i e s , Car Pacific  Northwest".  questionnaire wilderness  Campgrounds, or W i l d e r n e s s  Hendee's s t u d y  survey of v i s i t o r s  parks  i n Washington  is a  in  the  management-oriented  to developed  campground  and  State.  Other r e l e v a n t American c o n t r i b u t i o n s  to  wilderness  19, o u t s i d e o f d i s s e r t a t i o n s i n c l u d e work by C a t t o n 20 21 Ammons , and Sommarstrom . Along w i t h the above  user research M e r r i a m and studies,  they w i l l  be  referred  to  as  the  d i s c u s s i o n of r e s u l t s  proceeds.  Wilderness  U s e r R e s e a r c h - The  In- C a n a d a we stand lag  are  still  at  an  much a s  50  Contribution  e a r l y s t a g e i n d e f i n i n g where 22  vis-a-vis wilderness.  as  Canadian  Nash  y e a r s b e h i n d U.S.  has  suggested  we  t h a t we  may  thinking:  The C a n a d i a n p u b l i c ' s s e n s i t i v i t y t o a n d enthusiasm f o r wilderness values lags at l e a s t two g e n e r a t i o n s b e h i n d o p i n i o n i n t h e United States. Canada, t h a t i s t o say, i s currently at a posture regarding wilderness t h a t the United States occupied i n the l a t e 19th and e a r l y 20th c e n t u r i e s .  Regardless roles the  the  of  the  appreciation  d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of  provision of  gap,  government  the  fact i s that  i n Canada assume  outdoor r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s  in  general  23 are  not  yet  abundance o f  clear  .  frontier  Also,  i n a country  wilderness,  the  with  need  for  a  in  supposed preserved  the  33  2h wilderness  i s n o t as s t r o n g l y f e l t .  t h a t , because o f these  and o t h e r  Pimlott  cultural  b e t w e e n the two c o u n t r i e s o n w i l d e r n e s s made  demonstrates  factors,  comparisons  p r e s e r v a t i o n cannot be  indiscriminately. T h e r e a r e two r e c e n t  interest  and r e l e v a n t i n d i c e s o f F e d e r a l  i n national recreation planning. 25  O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n Demand S t u d y  One i s t h e C a n a d i a n  which w i l l  indicate,  how r e l e v a n t t h e ORRRC f i n d i n g s m i g h t b e t o C a n a d a . is  the current P u b l i c Hearing  Program on N a t i o n a l  i n part,  The second  Park  P r o v i s i o n a l M a s t e r P l a n s i n w h i c h t h e S e r v i c e hopes t o gauge public opinion regarding the place of wilderness i n the Federal 26 park system . The background f o r t h e s e p l a n s h a s , i n p a r t , been based on t h e author's use  s t u d i e s on p a t t e r n s 27 i n the mountain n a t i o n a l parks At  Alberta giving has  and B r i t i s h wilderness  a very  present  the Provincial  limited  level,  three  of wilderness  provinces  - Ontario,  C o l u m b i a - h a v e made p o s i t i v e m o v e s t o w a r d s  institutional Wilderness  i n an emotional  and l e g a l  substance.  Ontario  Areas A c t and i s engaged a t  public hearing  campaign on t h e  c o e x i s t e n c e o f w i l d e r n e s s and m u l t i p l e u s e i n i t s p r o v i n c i a l 28 parks . The O n t a r i o Lands and F o r e s t s Department has a l s o sponsored  the only p r o v i n c i a l park  survey  of wilderness  A l b e r t a has e s t a b l i s h e d by Order i n C o u n c i l s e v e r a l Areas and has i n t r o d u c e d  a d r a f t o f a Wilderness  29  users  Wilderness  Act tothe  3>h  Legislature  30  .  British  C o l u m b i a has  m i l l i o n acres within four p r o v i n c i a l conservancy" time  by  Cabinet  protected parks in  are  this  these  i n the province. the beginning  this  c a n be  are  Along  one-half  altered  t h e most  at  any  highly  w i t h the C l a s s  o f a system  this  growing  interest  to give weight  of preserved  'A' wilderness  and  i n preserving wilderness s t u d i e s done t h a t  t o d e c i s i o n s on  wildlands f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes.  to  "nature  areas  c o u n t r y , t h e r e have been few  empirical data  theses  parks  as  and  province. Despite  in  Although  one  Order i n C o u n c i l , they  lands  they  this  areas.  delimited  three Bachelors' theses  Only  the use  three  provide of  Masters'  have b e e n done t h a t  relate  topic. 31 Priddle  f o l l o w e d t h e work o f Lucas i n h i s  Perception i n Algonquin carried  out  further  Provincial  statistical  s t u d y on w i l d e r n e s s u s e r s  Lakes N a t i o n a l Park" user  and  a n a l y s i s on  data from 33  i n the N a t i o n a l Parks  study w i t h the N a t i o n a l Park Western O n t a r i o r e s u l t e d  Park",  "Wilderness 32 Juurand has  S e r v i c e and  i n my  which  the  A  chapter  of on  earlier  joint  University  " R e c r e a t i o n a l Use  c o n t a i n s one  .  my  of  Waterton wilderness  research.  35 of relevance are B i r t l e ' s study of a 36 r e c r e a t i o n concept f o r G a r i b a l d i Park, Kot's summary o f 37 a c r e a g e c h a n g e s i n t h e B.C. p a r k s y s t e m a n d N o b l e ' s earlier Bachelor  theses  35  d e s c r i p t i v e work o n " F o r e s t R e c r e a t i o n Management Columbia".  Outside  o f t h e s e s , v e r y l i t t l e e l s e has been 38 Taylor's cursory study o f users t o the  accomplished.  B l a c k T u s k Meadows i n 1960  will  b e o f some c o m p a r a t i v e  t h e a n a l y s i s , as w i l l to  Wells  h i s short questionnaire 39 G r a y i n 1959 .  The a u t h o r National Park data.  i n British  This  has completed  Service  research  40  study  one f u r t h e r s t u d y  that w i l l  provide  i s an e x t e n s i v e  some  survey  of  use i n  of v i s i t o r s  with the  comparative backcountry  trail  u s e i n B a n f f and Yoho N a t i o n a l P a r k s . Other wilderness 41 42 planning papers and r e p o r t s , some o f w h i c h a r e r e s t r i c t e d government documents, w i l l analysis  be d i s c u s s e d  i n more d e t a i l  proceeds.  T h e R e s e a r c h Gan i n G e n e r a l The l a r g e s t s i n g l e n e c e s s i t y i n A m e r i c a n F o r e s t B i o l o g y I s t h e s t u d y o f man's relationship to forest land. 43 Hugh Raup A t t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f any c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f r e g i o n a l and e n v i r o n m e n t a l p l a n n i n g , i t i s imperative that the planners should f i n d out what p e o p l e r e a l l y want f r o m them and f r o m planning processes, i n order to f i n d out what i s i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t t h a t t h e y c a n plan f o r . Joseph F i s h e r  44  as t h e  36  The  a h o v e two  definition this  of  thesis.  need a v a s t l y concerning  the  Specifically, and,  quotations  l e a d i n t o a more  the p a r t i c u l a r  problem that i s the  G e n e r a l l y , the  principle  i n c r e a s e d body o f social study  of wilderness  a basis for public policy  in  our  be  measured  Despite  systematically  be  unique,  i s needed  place of  wilderness  i n t a n g i b l e s i n v o l v e d , what  measured  to provide  us  with  can  more  derived planning guidelines. m u s t be  g r o u n d e d on  o f human n e e d s , l a n d c a p a b i l i t i e s ,  philosophies. reveals  the  we  use.  immeasurable values  concerning  the  of  knowledge  recreation with i t s  R e c r e a t i o n management p o l i c i e s examination  science  systems of n a t u r a l resource  as  should  concern  i s affirmed that  social  to a l a r g e extent, l a r g e l y  landscape.  specific  Indeed, a survey  a consensus  .  management  of r e c r e a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e  that research  element of r e c r e a t i o n  and  an  i s needed most on  the  paper p r e s e n t i n g  the  In a key  human  h6 priorities explains  f o r r e s e a r c h on  the reasons f o r the  These i n c l u d e the faster  than  i s underway on  A major review  N a t i o n a l Academy o f  scientific  priorities. operate  most e c o l o g i c a l changes are a grace  period.  problems  than  o f r e c r e a t i o n r e s e a r c h by supports  this  at  Moreover,  human q u e s t i o n s , a n d  the user  Sciences  Lucas  t h a t human p r o c e s s e s  enough to p r o v i d e  i s l e s s known about the  research ones.  observation  social  n a t u r a l s y s t e m s and  least gradual there  recreation resources,  on  less the  relevant biological  a panel  assessment.  of  the  37  Moreover, w i t h planning a  i n c r e a s i n g l y being  "behavioral system", t h e corresponding  field  i s t o understand  t r e a t e d as  g r e a t e s t need i n t h i s  t h e a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r  o f people.  B e h a v i o r a l a n d human c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , t h o u g h c e r t a i n l y prescription  not a  f o r p l a n n i n g , h a v e become a k e y i n p u t i n t h e  49 planning are  process.  convinced  resource  t h a t t h e human r e s e a r c h  field  Marsh  As R e s o u r c e s F o r The F u t u r e  50  i s central and R o s t o n  focus  put i t :  "We  within the natural  and i n d i s p e n s a b l e " .  51  discuss  need f o r r e s e a r c h on t h e s o c i a l  the reasons behind the  aspects  of resource  use.  In  summary: 1.  In the search need  f o r environmental  t o understand  people,  s u c h as economics and 2.  3.  Studies  quality  not only  there  disciplines  ecology.  o f man/environment r e l a t i o n s ,  especially  the  i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f man's m e n t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p  the  environment, has been n e g l e c t e d  I n e x p l a i n i n g these k n o w why man a c t s  i s a  interactions,  with  i n the past.  i ti s necessary  i n a c e r t a i n way t o w a r d t h e  e n v i r o n m e n t , n o t j u s t w h e r e a n d how.  to  38  k.  We a r e b e t t e r a b l e t o p r e d i c t  t h e success  o r e x p l a i n f a i l u r e s w h e n human f a c t o r s into  the planning process.  f  and 5.  system  may e n h a n c e u s e r  lessen managerial  are built  In particular,  consideration of the recreationist s the resource  of plans  definition of satisfaction  problems.  S t u d i e s o f man's m e n t a l  outlook  suggest  how  e d u c a t i o n and m e d i a c o u l d be e m p l o y e d t o i m p r o v e man/environment  The R e s e a r c h To r e l a t e  relations.  Gap i n t h e B r i t i s h  the problem  on t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l  to British  Columbia  Context  Columbia,  research  use o f wilderness areas  activities  have been  limited  52 t o a c u r s o r y s t u d y made i n 1959  hy T a y l o r and Edwards  ofcar  53 campers  to Wells  unpublished  Park  and t o T a y l o r ' s  survey o f B l a c k Tusk area u s e r s .  the P r o v i n c i a l research.  Gray P r o v i n c i a l  Parks Branch  Except  has n o t c o n t i n u e d  Since that further  time  park use  f o r s e v e r a l economic s t u d i e s by Pearse  ,  detailed  s t u d i e s have n o t been pursued  o u t s i d e t h e government  sphere.  Recognising  research, the Parks  t h e need f o r such  55 Branch  has r e c e n t l y  stated  that:  W i t h e v e r h e i g h t e n i n g demand o n r e s o u r c e s f o r a multitude o f purposes, i t i s expected t h a t the B r a n c h w i l l have t o resume b a s i c r e s e a r c h t o ensure v a l i d i t y o f i t s p l a n n i n g and substantiate i t srequests f o ruse o f resources.  39  In this  b a s i c s e n s e we n e e d  wilderness  u s e i n B.C.  characteristics  - i t s e x t e n t , growth,  and emerging  There i s l i t t l e support  sphere  of  user  trends.  evidence  f o r wilderness parks  the p o l i t i c a l is  t o know t h e s i m p l e f a c t s  o f the p o l i t i c a l  i n the province.  of the residual position  or  social  An i n d e x  that wilderness  given i n the resource h i e r a r c h y i s the d e c l i n e o f  m i l l i o n acres o f park t o demands f r o m h y d r o power  l a n d i n t h e p a s t 20 y e a r s .  resource  extraction  land  from  existing  acreages  4.3  In  response  (e.g. Strathcona Park)  ( e . g . Tweedsmuir and Hamber) c o n c e r n s ,  P r o v i n c i a l Government has found  from  i t convenient  and  the  to withdraw  and to encourage m u l t i p l e use on  56 much o f t h e r e s t  .  Public  d i s s e n t on these d e l e t i o n s ,  until  r e c e n t l y , has been s c a t t e r e d , tenuous and based l a r g e l y emotion.  Controversy,  however, i s mounting and p u b l i c  on support  57 is  b e c o m i n g more o r g a n i s e d  .  In this  understand  b e t t e r what a r e t h e d i s t i n c t  wilderness  experience  people use  provided  are participating,  s e n s e we n e e d t o values  o f the  i n t h e p a r k s , who a n d how many  and what a r e t h e a t t i t u d e s  on i t s  and p r e s e r v a t i o n . At  attendance  t h e same t i m e i s rising  intense use pressures the experience  t h a t acreage  i s being  withdrawn,  s h a r p l y and c e r t a i n k e y areas that threaten to lower  or n u l l i f y  i taltogether.  a r e under  the q u a l i t y of  Paradoxically,  these  pressures  are being  generated  a p p r e c i a t i o n i s of growing intensified  search  a t a t i m e when  environmental  i m p o r t a n c e and t h e r e  f o r wilderness  values.  i s an  Speaking of a 58  recent  climb  wrote: but  i n G a r i b a l d i Park,  "Getting  Club  member  to the top i s not merely going  involves standing  hurrying  an A l p i n e  i n line  as y o u  please,  a n d w h e n y o u r t u r n comes u p  so as n o t t o h o l d up o t h e r s l "  Likewise,  a news  59  account  of a trip  through Bowron Park  I f e l t crowded o u t T h i r t y - f o u r people c a m p s i t e g i v i n g us because t h e r e were a n d n o o n e was w i l l  reads:  i n t h e Bowron i n 1969. s t o o d i n t h e r a i n a t one a g h o u l - l i k e welcome no more t e n t i n g s p a c e s i n g t o make r o o m .  W i t h t o o many p e o p l e u s i n g  i t , the wilderness  H e r e we n e e d t o k n o w j u s t w h a t d i f f e r e n t wilderness, to  what e x t e n t  their of  what e f f e c t users  sensitivity  they  are having  are willing  will  disappear.  p e o p l e want on t h e  to discipline  from  resource, their  behavior,  and r e a c t i o n t o c r o w d i n g , and a b e t t e r  the p s y c h o l o g i c a l thresholds  of user  idea  capacity.  60 I n accordance w i t h Ackerman's important  ingredient of science  statement that  i s a highly defined  "an  sense o f  p r o b l e m " , t h e p r o b l e m s t a t e m e n t has b e e n r a t h e r l e n g t h y . summary, t h e s e  are the general  f o r m u l a t i o n of the problem:  considerations  In  that l e d to the  1+1  1 . Wilderness  as a term and as a land use i s i n an  e a r l y stage of d e f i n i t i o n i n Canada. 2.  P u b l i c p o l i c y has been based almost on a e s t h e t i c s and sentiment.  exclusively  A more e x p l i c i t  r a t i o n a l e w i l l be required i f wilderness i s to become a more i n t e g r a l part of the r e g i o n a l landscape. 3.  L i t t l e or no research has been done on Canadian wilderness areas  (though s e v e r a l studies are  a v a i l a b l e i n the U.S.)  and subsequent development  of a theory of wilderness r e c r e a t i o n i s i n an e a r l y stage. k.  Research on wilderness, i n the context of i t s r e c r e a t i o n a l values to modern s o c i e t y , serves as a benchmark i n understanding  5.  the man/nature equation.  Because of the common property q u a l i t i e s of the wilderness resource there i s a c r i t i c a l need f o r c a r e f u l planning and management of wilderness to prevent consumptive use.  6.  Concomitantly  there i s a great need f o r research,  e s p e c i a l l y on the s o c i a l f a c t o r s which w i l l  assist  i n providing e m p i r i c a l and conceptual r e f e r e n t s f o r planning and f o r development of r e c r e a t i o n theory i n general.  h2  REFERENCES CHAPTER I I I  (1)  Three examples a r e : H a r d i n , G., "The T r a g e d y o f t h e Commons", S c i e n c e , V o l . 162, D e c e m b e r 13? 1968, p . 1 2 f-312^8; C h r i s t y , F.T. J r . , " E f f i c i e n c y i n t h e Use o f M a r i n e R e s o u r c e s " , R e s o u r c e s F o r The F u t u r e R e p r i n t No. h9 S e p t e m b e r , 196^; a n d K n e e s e , A.V., " P r o t e c t i n g Our E n v i r o n m e n t a n d N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s i n t h e 1970's", R e s o u r c e s F o r T h e F u t u r e R e p r i n t N o . 88, A u g u s t , 1970. L  t  (2)  H a r d i n , op. c i t .  (3)  C r u t c h f i e l d , J . A . a n d P o n t e c o r v o , G., T h e P a c i f i c S a l m o n Fisheries: A Study o f I r r a t i o n a l C o n s e r v a t i o n . Resources F o r The F u t u r e , Johns H o p k i n s , B a l t i m o r e , 1969.  (k)  T h i s p o i n t i s made w e l l b y Homer A s c h m a n n i n " P e o p l e , R e c r e a t i o n , W i l d Lands, and W i l d e r n e s s " , Landscape. W i n t e r , 1968-69, p. hO-hk.  (5)  W a g a r , J . A . , "Management o f M u l t i p l e - U s e R e s o u r c e s F o r Recreation", i n Western Resources Papers. Colorado U n i v e r s i t y , 196*+, p . 18.  (6)  Wood, R . S . , " D e s o l a t i o n W i l d e r n e s s " , M a r c h , 1971, p . h-7.  (7)  L u c a s , R o b e r t C , "The C o n t r i b u t i o n o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Research t o Wilderness P o l i c y Decisions", J . o f Social I s s u e s . V o l . 22, No. k, 1966, p . 166-126.  (8)  Hendee, J . C . , " R e c r e a t i o n C l i e n t e l e - The A t t r i b u t e s o f R e c r e a t i o n i s t s P r e f e r r i n g D i f f e r e n t Management A g e n c i e s , Car Campgrounds o r W i l d e r n e s s A r e a s i n t h e P a c i f i c N o r t h w e s t " , u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f W a s h i n g t o n , 1967, p . 23.  (9)  B r a n d b o r g , S.M., "The J o b A h e a d U n d e r t h e W i l d e r n e s s A c t " , The L i v i n g W i l d e r n e s s . R e v i s e d r e p r i n t , M a r c h ,  1967.  S i e r r a Club  Bull..  43  (10)  Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Resources Review Commission, W i l d e r n e s s a n d R e c r e a t i o n . S t u d y R e p o r t 3, S u p ' t . o f D o c u m e n t s , W a s h . , 1962.  (11)  G i l l i g a n , J a m e s P., "The D e v e l o p m e n t o f P o l i c y a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f F o r e s t S e r v i c e P r i m i t i v e and Wilderness Areas i n t h e Western United S t a t e s " , u n p u b l i s h e d P h . D . t h e s i s , U. o f M i c h i g a n , 1953.  (12)  L u c a s , R o b e r t C , "The Q u e t i c o S u p e r i o r A r e a : R e c r e a t i o n a l Use i n R e l a t i o n To C a p a c i t y " , u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , U. o f M i n n e s o t a , 1962.  (13)  C a t e s , R., " R e c r e a t i o n a n d t h e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e : A S t u d y o f O r g a n i s a t i o n a l R e s p o n s e t o C h a n g i n g Demands", u n p u b l i s h e d P h . D . t h e s i s , S t a n f o r d U., 1963.  04)  D a v i s , R.K., " V a l u e o f O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n : A n E c o n o m i c S t u d y o f t h e M a i n e Woods", u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , H a r v a r d U., 1963.  (15)  Wagar, J . A l a n , " C a r r y i n g C a p a c i t y o f W i l d l a n d s F o r R e c r e a t i o n " , u n p u b l i s h e d P h . D . t h e s i s , U. o f M i c h i g a n , 1964.  (16)  N a s h , R., " W i l d e r n e s s a n d t h e A m e r i c a n M i n d " , P h . D . t h e s i s , U. o f W i s c o n s i n , 1965, p u b l i s h e d u n d e r t h e same t i t l e b y Y a l e U. P r e s s , New H a v e n , 1967.  (17)  W i l l a r d , B., " E f f e c t s o f V i s i t o r U s e o n A l p i n e T u n d r a Ecosystems i n Rocky Mountain N a t i o n a l Park", unpublished Ph.D. t h e s i s , U. o f C o l o r a d o , 1967.  (18)  Hendee, J.C., op.  (19)  C a t t o n , W.R., " P e o p l e Who H a t e C r o w d s D o n ' t H a t e P e o p l e " , P a p e r g i v e n t o t h e F o u r t h C o l o r a d o Open S p a c e C o n f e r e n c e , Estes Park, Oct., 1967.  (20)  M e r r i a m , L . C . a n d Ammons, R.B., "The W i l d e r n e s s U s e r i n T h r e e M o n t a n a A r e a s " , R e s e a r c h R e p o r t , U. o f M o n t a n a , n.d.  (21)  S o m m a r s t r o m , A.R., "The I m p a c t o f Human U s e o n R e c r e a t i o n a l Q u a l i t y " , u n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s , U. o f W a s h i n g t o n , 1966.  c i t .  kk  (22)  N a s h , R., " W i l d e r n e s s a n d Man i n N o r t h A m e r i c a " , i n N e l s o n , J . G . , a n d S c a c e , R. e d s . , T h e C a n a d i a n N a t i o n a l Parks: T o d a y a n d T o m o r r o w . V. 1 , P r o c e e d i n g s o f a C o n f e r e n c e h e l d a t t h e TJ. o f C a l g a r y , 1 9 6 8 , p . 75-  (23)  T h i s p o i n t i s e m p h a s i z e d i n T u r n e r , R.D., "A C o m p a r i s o n of N a t i o n a l P a r k P o l i c y i n Canada and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s " , u n p u b l i s h e d M . S c . t h e s i s , U.B.C., 1 9 7 1 .  (2k)  P i m l o t t , D.H., " W i l d e r n e s s i n C a n a d a " , T h e L i v i n g W i l d e r n e s s . V o l . 3 2 , No. 1 0 3 , A u t u m n , 1 9 6 8 , p . 5 - 2 1 .  (25)  Knetsch, J . , Design f o r t h e Canadian Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Demand S t u d y , u n p u b l i s h e d r e p o r t , N a t i o n a l a n d H i s t o r i c Parks Branch, Ottawa, 1967.  (26)  To d a t e p r o v i s i o n a l m a s t e r p l a n s o n e i g h t n a t i o n a l p a r k s have been r e l e a s e d by t h e N a t i o n a l and H i s t o r i c Parks B r a n c h and t h e h e a r i n g s a r e underway.  (27)  The t h r e e s t u d i e s used were: "A T r a i l U s e S u r v e y , B a n f f and Yoho N a t i o n a l P a r k s " , R e c r . R e s . R e p o r t 33, N a t i o n a l and H i s t o r i c P a r k s B r a n c h , F e b r u a r y , 1968; "Mountain N a t i o n a l P a r k s - Some A s p e c t s o f W i n t e r U s e " , R e c r . R e s . R e p o r t 3 8 , May, 1968, and " M o u n t a i n P a r k T r a i l S t u d y Planning C o n s i d e r a t i o n s " , C o n t r a c t Report t o Department o f IAND, O t t a w a , S e p t e m b e r , 1969.  (28)  D e v e l o p m e n t s c a n be f o l l o w e d i n i s s u e s o f t h e W i l d l a n d News, n e w s l e t t e r o f t h e A l g o n q u i n W i l d l a n d s L e a g u e , Toronto.  (29)  G o r d o n L u s t y S u r v e y R e s e a r c h L t d . , "A S t u d y o f V i s i t o r A t t i t u d e s Towards Q u e t i c o P r o v . P a r k " , conducted f o r t h e P a r k s B r a n c h , O n t a r i o D e p t . o f Lands and F o r e s t s , T o r o n t o , M a r c h , 1968.  (30)  A l b e r t a D e p t . o f L a n d s and F o r e s t s , B i l l 1 0 6 , "An A c t Respecting Wilderness Areas", draft proposal tothe A l b e r t a L e g i s l a t u r e , 1970. D e v e l o p m e n t s h e r e c a n be followed i n the newsletter o f the Alberta Wilderness As s o c .  (31)  P r i d d l e , G., W i l d e r n e s s P e r c e p t i o n i n A l g o n q u i n P r o v i n c i a l P a r k , u n p u b l i s h e d M . A . t h e s i s , C l a r k U., 1 9 6 6 .  (32)  Juurand,  (33)  Thorsell,  P., U n p u b . M.A. J.W.,  op.  thesis,  c i t .  U. W e s t e r n O n t a r i o ,  1971.  45  (34)  T h o r s e l l , J.W., " R e c r e a t i o n a l U s e i n W a t e r t o n Lakes N a t i o n a l P a r k " , u n p u b l i s h e d M.A. t h e s i s , U. o f W e s t e r n O n t a r i o , 196?. A l s o p u b l i s h e d as R e c r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h R e p o r t 24 b y t h e N a t i o n a l a n d H i s t o r i c P a r k s B r a n c h , Ottawa, 1968.  (35)  B i r t l e s , "The L a k e G a r i b a l d i - B l a c k T u s k R e g i o n : A R e c r e a t i o n Resource Development Concept", unpublished S e n i o r H o n o r s E s s a y , U. o f W a t e r l o o , 1967.  (36)  K o t , R . J . , "An A n a l y s i s o f A c r e a g e a n d C l a s s C h a n g e s i n P r o v i n c i a l P a r k s o f B.C. D u r i n g t h e P e r i o d 1952 t o 1967", u n p u b l i s h e d B . S c . t h e s i s , U.B.C., 1969.  (37)  N o b l e , S.H., " F o r e s t R e c r e a t i o n M a n a g e m e n t i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a " , u n p u b l i s h e d B . S . F . t h e s i s , U.B.C., 1965.  (38)  T a y l o r , G.D., " V i s i t o r s t o t h e B l a c k T u s k A r e a o f G a r i b a l d i P r o v i n c i a l Park", unpublished report, P r o v i n c i a l P a r k s B r a n c h , V i c t o r i a , F e b . , 1961.  (39)  T a y l o r , G.D. a n d E d w a r d s , R.Y., "A S u r v e y o f Summer V i s i t o r s t o W e l l s G r a y P a r k , B.C.", F o r e s t r y C h r o n i c l e . V o l . 36, No. 4, D e c e m b e r , 1960.  (40)  T h o r s e l l , J.W., "A T r a i l U s e S u r v e y N a t i o n a l P a r k s " , op. c i t .  (41)  T h o r s e l l , J.W., "The M o u n t a i n N a t i o n a l P a r k s : Some N o t e s o n W i l d e r n e s s U s e " , P a r k News. J u n e , 1969. Also, " N a t i o n a l Park Wilderness P l a n n i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n W e s t e r n C a n a d a " , P a p e r p r e s e n t e d t o t h e 8th B i e n n i a l Wilderness Conference, S e a t t l e , A p r i l , 1970.  (42)  T h o r s e l l , J.W., " M o u n t a i n P a r k C o n s i d e r a t i o n s " , op. c i t .  (43)  R a u p , H.M., 65, No. 11,  (44)  F i s h e r , J o s e p h L., " R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g : Determining The P u b l i c I n t e r e s t " , i n H u f s c h m i d t , M.M., o p . c i t . , P. 3.  (45)  Taylor, Lee, "Sociology of Natural Resources", paper prepared f o r t h e Science C o u n c i l o f Canada, Conference o n F o r e s t R e s o u r c e s P r o b l e m s , O t t a w a , J u n e 23, 1969.  Trail  - B a n f f and Yoho  Study  - Planning  "American F o r e s t B i o l o g y " , J . o f F o r . . V o l . N o v e m b e r , 1967, p . 803.  k6  (k6)  L u c a s , R o b e r t C , " R e s e a r c h Needs f o r N a t i o n a l P a r k s " , i n N e l s o n , J . C . a n d S c a c e , R., o p . c i t . . p . 9 0 ^ - 9 3 0 .  (k7)  N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s , A P r o g r a m o f Outdoor Recreation Research, P u b l i c a t i o n , 1727, N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s , W a s h i n g t o n , 1 9 6 9 .  (hQ)  T h i s p o i n t was made b y P e r l o f f , H.S. a n d W i n g o , L . , i n t h e i r "Urban Growth and t h e P l a n n i n g o f Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n " , ORRRC S t u d y R e p o r t 2 2 , W a s h i n g t o n , 1 9 6 2 .  (^•9)  R e s o u r c e s F o r t h e F u t u r e , "The Human E l e m e n t i n N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e U s e " , A n n u a l R e p o r t . 1 9 6 6 , p. 2 .  (50)  Marsh, J o h n , " P e r c e p t i o n and A t t i t u d e S t u d i e s , Term P a p e r f o r G e o g r a p h y 5 8 0 , U. o f C a l g a r y , N o v . , 1 9 6 9 .  (51)  R o s t o n , J . , "The C o n t r i b u t i o n o f A t t i t u d e S t u d i e s t o O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n P l a n n i n g " , i n F o s t e r , H.D. a n d S e w e l l , W.R.D., R e s o u r c e s . R e c r e a t i o n a n d R e s e a r c h . W e s t e r n G e o g rL a p h i c a l S e r i e s , V o l . 3 , U. o f V i c t o r i a , 1970, p . 31- +0.  (52)  T a y l o r , G.D.  (53)  T a y l o r , G.D.,  (5^)  S t u d i e s o f t h e economic e v a l u a t i o n o f r e l a t e d w i l d l a n d a c t i v i t i e s c o - a u t h o r e d b y P e t e r H. P e a r s e a r e "Non R e s i d e n t B i g Game H u n t i n g a n d t h e G u i d i n g I n d u s t r y i n B.C." a n d "The V a l u e o f t h e K o o t e n a y L a k e S p o r t Fishery". B o t h a r e s p o n s o r e d and p u b l i s h e d by t h e F i s h and W i l d l i f e B r a n c h o f t h e Department o f R e c r e a t i o n and C o n s e r v a t i o n , V i c t o r i a , B.C. n . d .  (55)  Department o f R e c r e a t i o n and C o n s e r v a t i o n , "General Statement on O r g a n i z a t i o n o f P r o v i n c i a l Parks Branch and F u n c t i o n s By P o s i t i o n s " , C i r c u l a r l e t t e r , V i c t o r i a , J a n u a r y 7 , 1 9 6 9 , p.  (56)  T h i s i s n o t a b l a n k e t c r i t i c i s m - exchanges and a d d i t i o n s h a v e b e e n made t h a t h a v e i n c r e a s e d t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f wilderness park d i s t r i b u t i o n .  a n d E d w a r d s , R.Y., o p . op.  c i t .  c i t .  47  (57)  See f o r i n s t a n c e t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e p u b l i c a t i o n s : G r e e n w o o d , N.H., "An O u t s i d e V i e w o f W i l d e r n e s s P r e s e r v a t i o n i n B.C.", L i v i n g W i l d e r n e s s , V o l . 3 2 , No. 103, A u t u m n , 1968; S i m m o n s , T., " P o v e r t y o f Plenty - Conservation i n B r i t i s h Columbia", The C o n i f e r . S p r i n g , 1970, a n d Y o e m a n s , W.C., "British C o l u m b i a W i l d e r n e s s " , The L i v i n g W i l d e r n e s s . V o l . 3*+, No. 112, W i n t e r , 1970-71 , p. 40-4-3.  (58)  A l p i n e C l u b o f Canada, Avalanche Echos. t h e V a n c o u v e r S e c t i o n , V o l . 43, No. 10, p . 3.  (59)  S t e w a r t , D.K., "Ah, W i l d e r n e s s J a n u a r y 8, 1970, p. 6.  (60)  A c k e r m a n , E.A., "Where i s a R e s e a r c h F r o n t i e r ? " , Annals of the American Assoc. of Geographers. V o l . No. 4, D e c e m b e r , 1963, p. 433.  Newsletter of October, 1970,  ( ? ) " , Vancouver  Sun.  53?  PART 2.  R E S E A R C H PROCEDURES  CHAPTER I V O B J E C T I V E S , D E S I G N AND  The f i r s t t h i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d w i l d e r n e s s b u t t h e human.  ANALYSIS  i s not the  B e n t o n MacKaye,  Objectives Focusing  o f t h e Study  on a sample o f v i s i t o r s t o t h r e e w i l d e r n e s s p a r k s i n  B r i t i s h Columbia, following  1939  t h i s study  questions.  First,  p r o v i d e s p a r t i a l answers on a d e s c r i p t i v e  Who u s e s w i l d e r n e s s p a r k s  i n B.C.?  How i s t h e u s e s p a t i a l l y  distributed?  to the  level:  What a r e t h e d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of the  clientele? What a r e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Why a r e t h e y  of the wilderness  trip?  there?  What a r e t h e e v a l u a t i o n s o f t h e " e x p e r i e n c e " a n d o f wilderness  as a  resource?  How do t h e y r e a c t t o o t h e r u s e s "and u s e r s ? What i s t h e u s e r  investment  i n time  and  dollars?  49  On a c o m p a r a t i v e  and a n a l y t i c a l  level:  What e m p i r i c a l r e g u l a r i t i e s d i f f e r e n t user different  c a n be o b s e r v e d  groups i n d i f f e r e n t  among t h e  parks f o r  periods of time?  What v a r i a b l e s  appear important  i n explaining  wilderness  use? What e v i d e n c e inferred  o n t h e v a l u e s o f w i l d e r n e s s c a n be  from  analysis  What a r e t h e d i r e c t environmental What d i r e c t i o n s  First,  of user  implications  t o park and  planning? f o r further  r e s e a r c h c a n be  Reasons f o r t h i s  study are both p r a c t i c a l  the study o f f e r s  a better  element o f w i l d e r n e s s r e c r e a t i o n exploratory patterns provide  data?  sense  and u s e r  an i n s i g h t  into  characteristics  some f u n d a m e n t a l  understanding i n this  and  academic.  o f t h e human  province.  the total  system  In this behavior  o f the three parks  should  d a t a f o r managing, p l a n n i n g and  p i n p o i n t i n g k e y problems and t r e n d s .  As i n any type o f  planning, t h e planning o f wilderness areas w i t h an a b s t r a c t and a r b i t r a r y but w i t h a sound and t h o r o u g h conditions  suggested?  does n o t s e t o u t  scheme t h a t i t s e e k s  t o impose  knowledge o f t h e e x i s t i n g  and o p p o r t u n i t i e s .  In a l a r g e r  sense  the study i s part o f a continuing  i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e p l a c e o f man i n n a t u r e  and o f t h e r o l e o f  50 wildland r e c r e a t i o n i n the ecology of man.  Future study on  r e c r e a t i o n i n n a t u r a l areas i n intermediate and urban w i l l provide comparative  settings  data on t h i s theme.  S p e c i f i c a l l y , the aims of t h i s study are, on the basis of questionnaire response, t o : 1.  Develop an e m p i r i c a l p r o f i l e of the contemporary wilderness user i n B r i t i s h Columbia  - his  demography, opinions, motivations and e v a l u a t i o n s . 2.  I n v e s t i g a t e a broad number of independent  variables  and i d e n t i f y which ones are important i n explaining the why 3.  of wilderness r e c r e a t i o n a l use.  Relate f i n d i n g s to p o l i c y and planning and  suggest  areas that warrant f u r t h e r study. This t h e s i s , then, i s an exploratory i n q u i r y to detect r e g u l a r i t i e s and empirical g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s on the topic of study.  No formal approach to hypotheses  attempted.  construction i s  Rather, i t i s p r i m a r i l y an e m p i r i c a l study with  the aim of providing some basic data from which f u r t h e r studies can elaborate and from which f u t u r e trends can be detected.  51  Scope and L i m i t a t i o n s The,thesis  examines o n l y  recreation. research,  one u s e o f w i l d e r n e s s  I t i s not concerned with  not  Further,  use wilderness  i t will  data  users  on non-park  wildlands.  to inferences  supplemented by f i e l d  Limits of the questionnaire  of possible bias.  Nor w i l l  who a n d why p e o p l e d o  d i m e n s i o n s o f any v a r i a b l e must be u n d e r s t o o d sources  museum,  o r b y " o p t i o n " be  l a r g e l y be c o n f i n e d  from q u e s t i o n n a i r e discussions.  not study  parks o r those  Results w i l l  and  the l i v i n g  -  and r e s e r v o i r f u n c t i o n s o f n a t u r a l a r e a s .  p e o p l e who u s e t h e a r e a s v i c a r i o u s l y included.  areas  drawn  observations i n exposing  a l l  as must t h e  Other methods o f d a t a  collection  which would p r o v i d e  more " t r i a n g u l a t i o n p o i n t s i n c o n c e p t u a l 1 2 s p a c e " a s s u g g e s t e d b y Webb , a n d b y D e n z i n , a r e n o t e m p l o y e d .  As  an area  specific  and judgment sample o f r e c r e a t i o n i s t s ,  generalization of results be  made.  standards, in  time.  Finally,  to the population  at large  i n an e r a o f r a p i d l y changing  the study  provides  information f o r only  cannot  environmental one p o i n t  52  Design  of  the  Study  3 Webb  points  based  on i n t e r v i e w s  of  out  wilderness  that  use  some  and  or  of  social  questionnaires.  limits  by n o r m a l i n t e r v i e w  90%  the  feasibility  observational  science  research  But  very  of  the data  is  nature  collection  techniques.  As  the  h ORRRC W i l d e r n e s s outdoor  recreation  wilderness  users,  particularly that  Study is is  and n o t basic  very  crude."  areas  and t e m p o r a l l y  that  the  have been  but  is  not  are  highly  used  gather  unmanned r e g i s t r a t i o n  a  are  There  of  concerning  presented  field. to  study  Moreover,  situation  i n backcountry  in  "Systematic  innovation and,  sampling  contacted  techniques  interviews,  still  spatially  easily  noted:  a recent  difficult  recreationists  distributed  Report  only  are  and  used  direct  widely  mobile  three  data  stations  in  -  spot  mailback  questionnaires. The site  in  seven  completed Problems  pioneering  exit  wilderness  and f o l l o w e d involved  inconvenience the  ORRRC s t u d y  up b y  including  and f i e l d  sampling  recreationists  are  areas.  or  Almost  mail-back sampling,  control.  the  500  as  interview  interviews  on  were  questionnaires. interviewing,  A post-visit  "roadblock"  interviewed  the  method,  they-leave  visitor  variation  is  where the  a r e a by  car.  5 This  method has  been used  by  Lucas  in  the  Boundary Water  6  Canoe  area,  Cushwa a n d M c G i n n i s  i n George  Washington  National  F o r e s t and others. from  James and  Harper  D i f f i c u l t y arises  the g e n e r a l park The  is  by  second  the placement  i n Ocala N a t i o n a l Forest  i n sampling  and  selecting  and  users  traffic.  method o f c o l l e c t i n g  d a t a on w i l d e r n e s s  o f unmanned s e l f - r e g i s t r a t i o n  strategic  points throughout  used  technique  this  7  the backcountry.  successfully  use  stations at 8 Wenger first  i n the North Cascades,  as  9 did  the author  The  t e c h n i q u e i s v a l u a b l e f o r a s s e s s i n g p a t t e r n s of use  wide areas  b u t has  v a n d a l i s m and The  i n Waterton  limits  Lakes,  and  of depth  and  i n B a n f f and  problems of  Yoho. over  manpower,  non-response.  third  employed i n t h i s questionnaire.  technique  of data  collection,  and  study, i s the s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d This  t e c h n i q u e has  convenient, r e l a t i v e l y least  disruptive  and  after  t h e u s e r has  uniform.  consuming and,  visited  the  site,  one  mailback  the advantage of  i n e x p e n s i v e , and  time  the  being  I t i s also  when a d m i n i s t e r e d  a l l o w s him  time  to  evaluate his experience. 10 Burton the advantages technique. is  11 , Miller and  disadvantages  They agree  the low response  o f t e n to s i g n i f i c a n t d r a w b a c k c a n be  12 , Kovacs  i n those  Ferriss  of the mailback  t h a t t h e one  rate  13 and  overwhelming  have survey  disadvantage  type of surveys which  bias i n the f i n d i n g s .  overcome, the mailback  If this  s u r v e y has  reviewed  one  leads major  much t o  commend i t ,  e s p e c i a l l y f o r data  distributed  over wide geographic  c o l l e c t i o n on  large  areas.  A high response rate i s therefore c r i t i c a l validity  of mail  i n which the  surveys  a report reviewing Kovacs  m u c h t h o u g h t was  response rate could  shown t h a t e v e n t h e  1^  and  type the  o f f e r e d the  of  be  as  can  used  be  to  given  increased.  stamp used  technique  samples  the to  ways  Studies important.  i n the  CORD  following guidelines:  T h e r e a r e a number o f f a c t o r s w h i c h i n f l u e n c e the r a t e of response i n s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d surveys. I f s u f f i c i e n t degree of i n t e r e s t i n t h e s u r v e y c a n be a r o u s e d on i n i t i a l c o n t a c t w i t h t h e r e s p o n d e n t , and i f t h e s p o n s o r has a h i g h d e g r e e o f s t a n d i n g a n d p r e s t i g e among the p o p u l a t i o n surveyed, the response r a t e can a l s o be e x p e c t e d t o be c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y h i g h e r . As m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y , t h i s m e t h o d o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n favours the b e t t e r educated segments o f the p o p u l a t i o n . P a r k u s e r s , on t h e w h o l e , t e n d t o be o f h i g h e r t h a n a v e r a g e e c o n o m i c and e d u c a t i o n s t a t u s , t h e r e f o r e , a p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y higher r a t e would r e s u l t from surveying t h i s type of p o p u l a t i o n . The l e n g t h o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i t s a t t r a c t i v e n e s s and the e a s e w i t h w h i c h t h e q u e s t i o n s c a n be c o m p l e t e d a l s o e f f e c t the p r o p o r t i o n of p o t e n t i a l respondents r e p l y i n g to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The o n l y m a j o r d r a w b a c k o f s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i s the r e l a t i v e l y low r e t u r n rate. T h e r e f o r e , a l l e f f o r t s m u s t be e x t e n d e d to arouse the i n t e r e s t of the respondent, to f a c i l i t a t e t h e c o m p l e t i o n and r e t r i e v a l o f t h e survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  have In  study,  55  Study The  Plan  approximate  study  s e q u e n t i a l steps  i n the  development of  the  were: 1 .  Preliminary conceptualization of design  and  preparations  of  the  study  research  proposal.  2.  Review of  3.  D i s c u s s i o n w i t h and  k.  Field  5.  Development of d r a f t  6.  Pretest of  7.  Determination  8.  Development of method o f  9.  Selection of  sample.  10.  Finalization  and  11.  Reception  response.  12.  R e f i n e m e n t and  r e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of  13.  Formulation  coding  14.  C o d i n g and  15.  Data  processing.  16.  Data  analysis.  17.  Formulation  18.  P r e p a r a t i o n of f i r s t  19.  Preparation of  literature.  observation  approval  i n the  o f B.C.  three  Parks  sample  Branch.  areas.  questionnaire.  questionnaire.  of  of  of  sampling  procedure. questionnaire  administration of  system.  keypunching.  of  conclusions.  final  draft. draft.  *  distribution.  questionnaire.  study.  56 Study  Areas  The, a r e a s wilderness  chosen f o r study parks  Each o f the areas by  users. vary and  in  are of significant "A" p a r k s ,  u s e , and a p p e a l  facilities.  types  d i f f e r e n c e s i n mind  are administered  represent  emerging  to a variety  of wilderness  The p a r k s  and Mt. Robson.  size,  T h e i r l o c a t i o n and a c c e s s i b i l i t y  a s do t h e i r  these  o f B.C. 's p r o v i n c i a l  - G a r i b a l d i , Bowron Lakes  one a g e n c y as C l a s s  o f heavy and over  are three  attractions,  areas  activities  were s e l e c t e d p u r p o s e f u l l y w i t h so as t o e l i c i t  a s much  variation  existed.  common m e t h o d o f s a m p l e s e l e c t i o n was p o s s i b l e .  area.  of wilderness  and market  r e s p o n s e as p o s s i b l e - i f s u c h v a r i a t i o n  2, 3, a n d k a n d T a b l e  problems  Yet a  Figures  1,  I g i v e a summary d e s c r i p t i o n o f e a c h  57  TABLE I C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF STUDY AREAS  Characteristic  Bowron  Garibaldi  Robson  Year  Established  1 961  1927  1913  Size  (Acres)  297,301  486,389  515,747  A  A  A  Caribou Mts.  Coast Mts.  Rocky Mts.  30,000  1  10,000  O v e r n i g h t B a c k c o u n t r y Use 1971 (No. o f p e o p l e )  4,500  1 ,700  2,000 +  Backcountry (Miles)  73  28  65  $20,800  $8,000  $41,300  Park Class Physiographic  Region  P o p . W i t h i n 100 Radius  Capital  Mile  Routes  Expenditure  (1969-70)  million  Fig.  I  LOCATION OF STUDY  Mt Robson Provincial Park  AREAS  Jasper  V \  Revelstoke  Banff  \ N  Kamioops  • Kelowna  British  C oju m bio  U. S. A .  Fig.  2 - PANORAMIC  VIEW OF G A R I B A L D I L A K E ( E L E V . I+,816 F E E T ) AND B L A C K TUSK MEADOW AREA  The L a k e G a r i b a l d i - B l a c k T u s k a r e a i s a s u b - r e g i o n o f G a r i b a l d i P a r k , c o m p r i s i n g a b o u t t e n percent of the t o t a l park area. W i t h i n t h i s area, which i s a p r o v i n c i a l "nature conservancy are encompassed t h e o u t s t a n d i n g a t t r a c t i o n s f o r w h i c h t h e p a r k i s famous. The s i x s q u a r e m i l e s o f t h e f l o w e r - s t u d d e d B l a c k T u s k Meadows a r e s e t a m i d s t a n a r e a o f a c t i v e g l a c i a t i o n , e m e r a l d l a k e s a n d s n o w - c a p p e d m o u n t a i n p e a k s r i s i n g t o a l m o s t 9,000 f e e t f r o m s e a l e v e l . In a d d i t i o n , the area o f f e r s the a t t r a c t i o n o f the unique c o n t r a s t i n g remnants o f p o s t - t e r t i a r y volcanic activity. T h e a r e a may b e r e a c h e d w i t h i n t w o h o u r s d r i v i n g t i m e a n d t h r e e h o u r s h i k i n g time from Vancouver.  F i g . 3 - BERG LAKE AND MT. RGBSON (12,972 FEET) The north face of Mt. Robson, with i t s hanging glaciers cascading into Berg Lake, i s one of the most b e a u t i f u l and impressive sights i n B.C. This i s the f o c a l point for almost a l l backcountry use i n the park. The park consists of Columbia and sub-alpine forests t y p i c a l of those on the western slopes of the Canadian Rockies, rugged glacier-capped peaks, precipitous canyons, glacier-fed lakes and streams, and a variety of w i l d l i f e including g r i z z l y , caribou, bighorn sheep and mountain goat. The point from which t h i s photo Is taken i s a 16-mile hike from the northern Trans Canada Highway.  61  Fig.  k  - McLEARY L A K E , BOWRON L A K E P R O V I N C I A L  PARK  A r e c t a n g u l a r c h a i n o f t e n l a k e s connected by s h o r t streams and p o r t a g e s i s t h e m a i n f e a t u r e a n d a t t r a c t i o n o f B o w r o n P a r k . L y i n g a t a n e l e v a t i o n o f 3,000 f e e t , t h i s c h a i n o f l a k e s o f f e r s a u n i q u e o p p o r t u n i t y i n w e s t e r n Canada f o r a c i r c u i t canoe t r i p through spectacular mountain scenery. The v e g e t a t i o n o f t h e p a r k , m o s t l y s p r u c e , hemlock and c e d a r , r e f l e c t s t h e c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e " I n t e r i o r Wet B e l t " . A b u n d a n t w i l d l i f e and e x c e l l e n t f i s h i n g complement t h e n a t u r a l p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i o n s .  62  Sampling S e l e c t i o n o f a sample o f w i l d e r n e s s users because o f the h i g h l y  i s usually  d i s p e r s e d and m o b i l e  nature  difficult  of the users,  15 Hendee's  technique  of obtaining a large  by r e c o r d i n g and t r a c i n g was f i r s t and  considered.  license  probability  p l a t e number s a t p a r k i n g  But because o f a l a c k  t h e d i s t a n c e s i n v o l v e d (1500  sample  of field  lots  assistance  m i l e s between the t h r e e  parks)  t h i s was n o t f e a s i b l e . S e l e c t i o n o f the sample c o n s i s t e d o f c o l l e c t i n g and  addresses  Parks Branch these l i s t s  from  trail  i n each  registers  o f the study areas.  t o s e l e c t u s e r s who v e n t u r e d  the backcountry, t h e r e f o r e i n s u r i n g u s e r s who at  least  p e n e t r a t e d beyond  the l i s t s  were c o l l e c t e d  from  I t was p o s s i b l e  from  s i x m i l e s o r more  a selection of only  into  those spent  p a r k were sought.  In total,  p r o v i n c e s and t w e n t y - f o u r weaknesses o f t h i s  were c o m p i l e d .  states  of  were r e p r e s e n t e d .  type o f quota  sampling  t h a t t h e r e i s n o way o f d e t e r m i n i n g  the r e g i s t e r s  When  addresses  six  The  each  sample, a t a r g e t o f  a total  legible  and c o m p l e t e  reliable  a t t h e end o f t h e s e a s o n ,  995  signed  by t h e  one n i g h t c a m p i n g o u t .  300-400 names a n d a d d r e s s e s  (1)  operated  t h e d a y u s e t h r e s h o l d a n d who  To a c h i e v e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  are:  stations  names  from  i f those  are r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a l l those  lists  that  who  63  entered (In  t h e w i l d e r n e s s and (2) t h a t as i t i s a judgment  e f f e c t a sample o f a sample),  possible  errors  c e r t a i n assumptions  m u s t b e made a n d s t a t i s t i c a l  testing  sample  on procedure  16  are l i m i t e d .  A s w i t h t h e ORRRC  sampling  method:  ... p r e c i s e p r o b a b i l i t y s a m p l i n g was n o t possible. The p e r c e n t a g e s p r e s e n t e d f o r each a r e a cannot be r e g a r d e d as s t a t i s t i c a l l y unbiased estimates w i t h c a l c u l a b l e sampling errors. These f i g u r e s , t h e r e f o r e , must be r e a d w i t h more c a u t i o n t h a n i s g e n e r a l l y t h e case i n s u r v e y s o f b e t t e r known and c o n t r o l l e d situations.  Despite  this  less  design,  the errors  rigid  departure from  do n o t a p p e a r  the idealized  t o be s e r i o u s .  research  The sample  is  assumed t o be c l o s e l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e w i l d e r n e s s u s e r  in  each  park.  sampling  I n summary, t h e r a t i o n a l e  f o rthe choice of  m e t h o d was a s f o l l o w s :  1 .  I t was r e l a t i v e l y  easy  2.  It  inexpensive.  3.  I t was f e a s i b l e  was r e l a t i v e l y  i n each  It  covered  5.  It  produced  6.  I t was l e a s t d i s r u p t i v e  to administer.  study  area.  a l l time p e r i o d s . a satisfactory  sample  size.  to the user.  64  Fleldwork I n any with  social  survey  i t i s important  the people being  studied.  f i v e weeks w e r e s p e n t i n t h e backcountry users  routes  were e n c o u n t e r e d and  Over t h e  study  travelled.  of  wilderness  province  miles The  travelled,  i n the 200  people  f u n c t i o n s of f l e l d w o r k 1.  Reconaissance of backcountry  use  observations use 2.  3.  300  s e e n and  60  trips  the  total  people  the  to  other 450  to  "interviewed".  sample a r e a - r e v i e w  of  patterns, inventory of  preparation of  staff  and  study  ensuring  o f l o c a t i o n and  registration  of r e g i s t e r  sheets.  Discussions  w i t h and  special  questionnaire  explaining  and  facilities,  impact, n o t a t i o n of  - c o l l e c t i o n o f what use  users.  interviews  were:  outfitters  Determination  of  wilderness  unstructured  brought  of  miles  t i m e 150  Additional  Discussions w i t h park f i e l d  backcountry  k.  these.  of v i s i t o r  p r o b l e m s and  this  i n f o r m a l and  contact  summer a t o t a l  a r e a s and  During  c o n d u c t e d w i t h a b o u t 50 parks  to have a c t u a l  items,  local  data  existed,  co-operation. maintenance  stations,  observations  and  of  of  collection  wilderness  65  5.  Pretest of questionnaire P a r k i n t e r c e p t i n g and  In regard  t o p o i n t f o u r , i t was  checklist  of wilderness  constructed,  hut  user  c a s e s was  observation  The  e x a m p l e , met  at mile  an  electric  of  the w i l d e r n e s s  The  Questionnaire  The  basic research  As  12  of  the  this  proved  "misfits" the Mt.  he  and  difficult.  deviant  h i k e r from P i t t s b u r g , Robson t r a i l  carrying  and  of  (included i n Appendix) tool  of  the  greatest  distributed  weaknesses o f  conception  experience.  the  t h e s i s i s the  user  questionnaire.  i m p o r t a n c e t h a t i t be  carefully  t o o b t a i n t h e maximum a m o u n t  information within i t s defined and  of  could  p l u g - i n t o a s t e r says something about h i s  s u c h , i t was  designed  obvious  parties.  systematic  characteristics  of the  i n Bowron  i n t e r v i e w i n g canoe  f o r a number o f r e a s o n s  kept.  days  hoped t h a t a  However, a c a t a l o g u e  for  - five  mailback  limitations.  The  questionnaire  of  strengths  technique  are  17 discussed Although  i n m o s t m e t h o d s t e x t s and I p e r s o n a l l y do  when o t h e r  means o f d a t a  not  favour  will the  c o l l e c t i o n are  immature s t a t e of r e c r e a t i o n r e s e a r c h questionnaires a by  skeletal other  particularly  not use  be of  reviewed the  a p p l i c a b l e i n the  the  use  present of  development  framework of r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t l a t e r  more s o p h i s t i c a t e d m e a n s .  technique  a v a i l a b l e , the  renders  here  can  be  of  pursued  .  66 18 As for  Hendee  collecting  has  data  also noted,  on  r e c r e a t i o n users  above average e d u c a t i o n in  their  response.  when i n t e r v i e w e d given  the  for  r e s p o n s e on  on  reminder. high  site,  the 91  e x c e p t i o n a l 79>5% The  study,  the  receiving  of  covering  o f two  on  sprinkled with unsolicited various  typed  aspects  letters  and  often  bothered  a lengthy  without  further assistance.  interest  i n the  letter  any  an  follow-up  Higher  by  returns  which, i n a d d i t i o n  o f f e r e d the  inducement  the r e s u l t s .  Fully  the  of  93%  of  findings.  r e s p o n s e r a t e , most comments o n  their  Quite  questionnaires  experience  a number  were  or  appended  received  I t i s apparent that  response.  when  calling  gave reasons f o r  i s more i m p o r t a n t  f a c t o r i n determining  one,  explained  sample.  a number o f p h o n e c a l l s  offering  other  the  of park planning.  subject  literate  leisure.  i s i n part  a r e p o r t o f the  In a d d i t i o n to the h i g h are  was  sponsors,  a summary o f  respondents requested  at their  recorded,  a n o n y m i t y , and  a copy of  and  o f w h i c h were open-ended,  interest  support  assured  20  response r a t e  the  ideal  g e n e r a l l y have  more c o n c e r n e d  to respond  r e t u r n was  by  are  u s u a l l y e x h i b i t high response  items,  i n v o l v e m e n t and  to having  are  questionnaire  high  were a l s o s p u r r e d  and  who  Further, recreationists,  opportunity  Although  questionnaires  audience  than l e n g t h or  any  67  Final  r e t u r n s w e r e as  Park  Total Sent  Total Returned "Not Delivered"  Total Useable Returns  Percent Return  Bowron  k69  21  370  82.8  Garibaldi  328  23  223  73.1  Robson  198  16  1 50  82.5  Total  995  60  7h3  79.5  The and  follows:  questionnaire  to f a c i l i t a t e  data  of responses  constructed  processing.  since respondents f i l l e d Transfer  was  out  the  to F o r t r a n  q u e s t i o n n a i r e went d i r e c t l y  to allow  This  proved  appropriate sheets  to the  was  precoding  very  successful  b o x e s as not  requested.  required  as  the  keypuncher.  Analysis Accurate  i n f o r m a t i o n i n the  realm  of user  satisfaction,  motivations  and  attitudes is difficult  the  and  p h y s i c a l l y e x e r t i v e nature  sensory  recreation, level  of  f e e l i n g s t h a t cannot be  expressed experience conscious and  c e r t a i n aspects  not  the  consciously or  w h i c h may  s a t i s f a c t i o n of which the  capable  of  of  experience  i n w o r d s , much l e s s a n a l y z e d . i s a s u b t l e one  to obtain.  articulating.  The  of  wilderness consist of  gut-  adequately wilderness  also provide individual  Because  a  sub-  i s barely  aware  68  Complicating that  culture  perceives  is  exerts  his  separated  the  in full  This  awareness  complexity  of  of  the  variables)  of  the  the  IBM  of  (dependent  of  noted are  at  could  be  amenable  verbal  response  obtrusive  measuring was  gut-level  thus  undertaken and  the  responses A  a U.B.C.  used  was  cross -  groupings  variables).  was  is  to  of  the  95%  level  of  all  program  the statistical  using the  s i g n i f i c a n c e between which f o l l o w s ,  the  multivariate  to analyze  tested  (independent  library  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s  the d i s c u s s i o n of r e s u l t s differences  their  u s i n g MVTAB,  tests  the  employed here  independence between v a r i a b l e s 'T'  images  variables.  36O/67 c o m p u t e r ,  and  these  questionnaires  d i f f e r e n t user  questionnaire responses.  statistic  worthwhile.  "recreation  The a n a l y s i s  analysis  tabulation procedure,  been  are  on the  is  l i m i t a t i o n of  eleven  items  fact  individual  might not  questionnaire for  the measured  of  how v a l i d  a g a i n s t measures  questionnaire  for  defined, they  feelings?  The m e t h o d o f classification  constitute  must a l w a y s r e l y  Really,  and t r u e  activities  " s a t i s f a c t i o n " and t h e  individual.  responses  that  19  measuring device  - he has  the  one?  c o u l d be c l e a r l y .  is  on what the  experience certain  elements  and i f  to measurement the  influence  that  image a t r u e  experience"  of  a great  to b e l i e v e  Even i f be  vague s u b l i m i n a l a s p e c t  t o be an e n j o y a b l e  conditioned But  this  chi-square 20  means  .  significant  significance.  In  69  REFERENCES CHAPTER I V  (1)  'Webb, E . J . e t . a l . , U n o b t r u s i v e M e a s u r e s : Nonreactive R e s e a r c h i n t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s . Rand M c N a l l y , Chicago,  1966.  (2)  D e n z i n , N.K., T h e R e s e a r c h A c t - A T h e o r e t i c a l I n t r o d u c t i o n t o S o c i o l o g i c a l M e t h o d s . A l d i n e , N.Y.,  1970.  (3)  Webb, E . J . , o p . c i t .  (k)  Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Resources Review Commission, W i l d e r n e s s and R e c r e a t i o n . Study R e p o r t 3 , Supt. o f D o c u m e n t s , Wash., 1962, p . 126.  (5)  L u c a s , R.C., " W i l d e r n e s s P e r c e p t i o n a n d U s e : T h e E x a m p l e o f t h e B o u 1n d a r y W a t e r s C a n o e A r e a " , N a t u r a l  R e s . J . , J a n . , 196 +. (6)  C u s h w a , C.T. a n d M c G i n n e s , R.H., " F o r e s t R e c r e a t i o n . E s t i m a t e s and P r e d i c t i o n s . George W a s h i n g t o n N a t i o n a l Forest." B u l l , 558, V i r g i n i a P o l y t e c h n i c a l I n s t i t . ,  1965.  (7)  J a m e s , G.A. a n d H a r p e r , R.A., " R e c r e a t i o n U s e i n t h e Ocala N a t i o n a l F o r e s t " , Forest Service Res. Paper, SE-18, 1965.  (8)  W e n g e r , W.D., "A T e s t o f Unmanned R e g i s t r a t i o n S t a t i o n s o n W i l d e r n e s s T r a i l s " , F o r e s t S e r v i c e R e s . P a p e r PNW-16,  196!+.  (9)  (10)  T h o r s e l l , J.W., " T r a i l U s e S u r v e y - B a n f f a n d Y o h o N a t i o n a l Parks", N a t i o n a l Park Service Recr. Res. R e p o r t 3 3 , O t t a w a , 1968. B u r t o n , T . L . a n d N o a d , P.A., R e c r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h Methods - A Review o f Recent S t u d i e s . Center f o r Urban and R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s , B i r m i n g h a m , O c c a s i o n a l P a p e r N o . 3 ,  1968.  70  (11)  M i l l e r , D . C . , Handbook o f Measurement. McKay, N . Y . ,  (12)  Kovacs, T . J . , "Self Administered Park V i s i t o r Survey T e c h n i q u e " , CORD S t u d y , N a t i o n a l P a r k s - P l a n n i n g , Ottawa, 1970.  (13)  F e r r i s s , A . L . , "Types of R e c r e a t i o n R e c r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h . Am. A s s o c . f o r and R e c r e a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , 1966. T . J . , op.  Research 1964.  Design  and  Social  Surveys", i n Health, Phys.  Ed.  (14)  Kovacs,  (15)  Hendee, J . C . , " R e c r e a t i o n C l i e n t e l e - The A t t r i b u t e s of R e c r e a t i o n i s t s P r e f e r r i n g D i f f e r e n t Management A g e n c i e s , Car Campgrounds or W i l d e r n e s s Areas i n the P a c i f i c N o r t h w e s t " , u n p u b l i s h e d P h . D . t h e s i s , U. o f Washington, 1967.  (16) .  ORRRC,  (17)  For a c i t . .  (18)  Hendee,  (19)  These d i f f i c u l t i e s a r e more f u l l y d i s c u s s e d i n Neuman, E . S . , " E v a l u a t i n g Subjective Response to the R e c r e a t i o n Environment - A Quenaitative Analysis of D i s s i m i l a r Preferences for the V i s u a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Beaches", unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Northwestern U . , 1969-  (20)  The a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f c h i - s q u a r e and o t h e r n o n - p a r a m e t r i c s t a t i s t i c s to r e c r e a t i o n research i s discussed i n Burch, Wm. R . J r . , " N a t u r e a s S y m b o l a n d E x p r e s s i o n i n A m e r i c a n Social Life: A Sociological Exploration", unpublished P h . D . t h e s i s , U . o f M i n n e s o t a , 1964, Chapt. IV.  op.  c i t . .  c i t .  p.  127.  good comprehensive Chapt. V. J . C . ,  op.  review  see  Hendee,  J . C . ,  op.  cit.  PART 3.  FINDINGS  CHAPTER V DEMOGRAPHIC  CHARACTERISTICS  OF WILDERNESS  PARK  USERS  What s u b - g r o u p s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n a v a i l t h e m s e l v e s o f t h e wilderness  experience  them f r o m t h e g e n e r a l  i n B.C. p a r k s ? population?  What  distinguishes  Is wilderness  use c u l t u r a l l y  selective?  Data were c o l l e c t e d of wilderness occupation, experience indicates and user  users:  o n a number  o f demographic  o r i g i n , age, sex, education,  environment o f upbringing, previous and w i l d e r n e s s  introduction.  w h i c h segments o f s o c i e t y  c a n be u s e d  to a s s i s t planners  expectations  This  attributes  income,  wilderness  basic  Information  u s e B.C. w i l d e r n e s s and managers  parks  i n inferring  and use t r e n d s .  Origin What i s t h e d r a w i n g do p e o p l e  p o w e r o f B.C. w i l d e r n e s s  travel to v i s i t  them?  park has a d i f f e r e n t market  area.  As T a b l e  parks?  How f a r  I I indicates,  each  72  TABLE I I OF WILDERNESS PARK U S E R S  ORIGIN  Origin  Banff/ Yoho*  Bowron  Garibaldi  Robson  Total  <$)  (%)  (%)  (%)  Metro Van., Victoria  43.9  86.6  10.1  50.0)  Other  20.3  3.6  2.7  11.7)  5.4  0.5  44.0  11.5  31.6  Man.  0.8  0.0  2.0  0.8  3.4  Canada  1 .1  4.0  5.4  2.8  8.4  Wash., O r e . , Calif..  24.7  4.0  16.1  2.2  0.5  4.7  2.2)  1.6  0.9  15.4  4.2  21 .8  660  230  1 ,000  -  -  B.C.  Alberta Sask., Other  Other East  West USA USA  A v e r a g e - One Way Travel ( M i l e s) *  See T h o r s e l l  t h o s e who r e g i s t e r e d  close record gives  with  caution  f o r wilderness  16.7)  9.0  - 20.0  to the actual of license  the following  i s no  possible  t h e sample d i s t r i b u t i o n i s  i n the parking  comparisons:  only  o f t h e sample f o r  c a r c o u n t made b y p a r k  plates  Since there  there i s a  A check on t h e v a l i d i t y  shows, however, t h a t  as they r e p r e s e n t  travel.  o n who d o e s n o t r e g i s t e r ,  source o f b i a s . Bowron Park  )-  (1968)  T h e s e f i g u r e s m u s t be r e a d  information  (%)  staff.  A  daily  l o t a t B o w r o n i n 1970  73  Car R e g i s t r a t i o n B.C. Other  User  Sample  66.0  6h.2  9.1  7.3  2^.9  28.5  Canada  U.S.A.  (%)  (%)  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , c o u n t s a r e n o t k e p t i n t h e o t h e r two p a r k s , so representativeness  o f t h e sample cannot  be s i m i l a r l y  checked  there.  Bowron park r e c e i v e s g r e a t e r Vancouver  almost half  and V i c t o r i a  o f i t s use from the  area, although  numbers a r e a l s o p r e s e n t f r o m o t h e r p a r t s western  coastal  international  The r e l a t i v e  the mountain  Alberta  national  and A m e r i c a n  By  contrast  o f B.C. a n d t h e  Mt. R o b s o n P a r k h a s a more  and d i s t a n t d r a w i n g  e a s t e r n U.S.A. with  United States.  significant  power t h a t  locational  park  extends  factors  complex l e a d  and a s s o c i a t i o n  to the predominant  use o f Robson.  t o Bowron and Robson, G a r i b a l d i  almost an e x c l u s i v e V a n c o u v e r / V i c t o r i a c l i e n t e l e . changed in  1966,  since  to the  Park has T h i s has n o t  t h e new H i g h w a y made t h e p a r k a c c e s s i b l e b y a u t o  a s T a y l o r ' s 1960  almost i d e n t i c a l  B l a c k Tusk user  s u r v e y showed a n  market.  In comparison  to the author's study of t r a i l  users i n  1 B a n f f and Yoho N a t i o n a l P a r k s  i n 1967  where f u l l y  b a c k c o u n t r y u s e was b y f o r e i g n v i s i t o r s ,  a l l three  k7% o f provincial  7h parks  s t u d i e d h a v e more l i m i t e d  approaches  the n a t i o n a l  user's f r o m o u t s i d e  park d i s t r i b u t i o n ,  that relative  to u t i l i z e  distances  wilderness areas.  or differences  the lack  opportunities  of the park's a t t r a c t i o n s  Sex  asked  their  wilderness party.  total  of 3,108  and  and  to  travel  do  Other  Vancouver,  a r e a i s much l o w e r . to  factors,  obviously play a role  Group C o m p o s i t i o n - Age Respondents were  from  Garibaldi s u c h as  and t h e r e p u t a t i o n and  site.  Canada.  For instance, although  of foreign v i s i t o r s  s e l e c t i o n of the r e c r e a t i o n  ofi t s  I t i s evident  p a r k s a r e t h e same d i s t a n c e  P a r k c a n n o t e a s i l y be e x p l a i n e d . intervening  87%  Robson  i n accessibility  t h e number o f u s e r s t o R o b s o n f r o m t h a t Similarly,  drawing  that people are w i l l i n g  not determine a park's c l i e n t e l e . Robson and Bowron  O n l y Mt.  t h e p r o v i n c e and 36% f r o m o u t s i d e  The d a t a d e m o n s t r a t e great distances  market areas.  distinctiveness i n visitor  t o g i v e an age and s e x breakdown o f Questionnaire returns represent a  people, 1,666  5 6 5 f r o m Mt. R o b s o n .  f r o m B o w r o n , 881  Of t h i s  total,  70%  from were  Garibaldi male.  75  TABLE I I I AGE D I S T R I B U T I O N OF W I L D E R N E S S PARK USERS  Age  Groups  % o f Users  0 - 1 0  Can.  P o p . <$)*  4.85  21 .0  11-20  31.52  21 .1  21  - 30  33.55  14.6  31  - 40  13.60  12.3  11.83  11.8  41 - 50 51 t *  4.59  Source:  As users  Dominion Bureau o f 1968, p. 44-5  other wilderness user  are mainly  years  a n d i n R o b s o n 27.7  activity.  studies  A v e r a g e age v a r i e d  years. parks  Statistics,  have found,  aged a d u l t s ,  i n B o w r o n i t was 27-3  shows, u s e o f w i l d e r n e s s male  Statistics, Vital  young and m i d d l e  groups a r e r e p r e s e n t e d . between parks,  20.2  wilderness  though a l l age  only  slightly  years, i n Garibaldi  As t h e p o p u l a t i o n i s predominantly  24.1  pyramid  a young  adult  76  Fig.  5  AGE AND S E X PYRAMID OF TOTAL  SAMPLE  5 0 + i+1 •50 31- •1+0 21- -30 10- •20  0- -10 20  15  o  5  10  5  10  Female The  15  20  25  Male  data suggest  little  prospect of a reduction i n the  number o f p o t e n t i a l w i l d e r n e s s u s e r s  as t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e  p o p u l a t i o n i n t h e age b r a c k e t s most i n c l i n e d  towards  this  type  of recreation i s increasing. Education Studies  o f w i l d e r n e s s users have c o n s i s t e n t l y  are a highly  educated  recreationists  g r o u p - much m o r e s o t h a n  and t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n .  t h a t w i l d e r n e s s u s e r s a r e more t h a n l i k e l y education, i n fact  almost  h0%  h a v e 17  Data  number o f y e a r s  comparison, force  other here  confirm college  o r more y e a r s o f degree.  o f e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d i s 15-3-  the median years  i n Canada  that users  t o have a  education - the equivalent o f a post-graduate average  found  The By  o f e d u c a t i o n f o r t h e male l a b o r  ( 1 9 6 6 ) was 9.6 y e a r s  .  77  TABLE IV COMPARISON QF EDUCATIONAL LEVELS OF WILDERNESS PARK USERS  College Grad.(%)  PostGrad.(%)  N  32.1  23.5  43.7  743  27.5  41.6  31.1  7421  11.0  33.0  29.0  215  35.0  36.0  29.0  440  94.0  2.9  High School o r l e f f (%)  Axea B. C. P a r k s 1 9 7 0 1967 *  Banff//oho Quetico  1967**  G l a c i e r Peak, Wash. *** C a n a d i a n Pop. (1961)****  *  Students  **  Lusty  ***  (Hendee e t . a l . ,1 9 6 8 )  ****  Source: It  omitted from  -  calculations  (1968)  D.B.S., Census o f Canada, 1 9 6 l , B u l l e t i n 1 . 3 - 6 .  i s a c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g t h a t education, l e v e l s t r o n g l y  influences t a s t e preferences  i n wilderness recreation. In  e x p l a i n i n g t h i s , Catton-^ has h y p o t h e s i z e d i s motivated  that wilderness use  t o a s u b s t a n t i a l d e g r e e by t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l  nature presents t o the v i s i t o r .  I n e f f e c t , t h e more e d u c a t i o n  t h e v i s i t o r h a s , t h e more r e s p o n s i v e he i s t o n a t u r e ' s tual challenges.  I f this  puzzles  intellec-  i s t r u e , and as t h e e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l  o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n i s r i s i n g a t a r a p i d r a t e , more p e o p l e w i l l be moving i n t o c a t e g o r i e s o f s o c i e t y w h i c h tend t o have recreation  tastes.  backcountry  78  Income As t h e f o l l o w i n g users  income d i s t r i b u t i o n t a b l e  are disproportionately  groups.  With a t o t a l  shows, w i l d e r n e s s  drawn from t h e h i g h e r income  average  family  income o f $12,410 p e r  y e a r , w i l d e r n e s s u s e r s a r e w e l l above t h e n a t i o n a l  average.  I h e s a m p l e a v e r a g e r i s e s t o $13,000 w h e n s t u d e n t s a r e e x c l u d e d from c a l c u l a t i o n s . TABLE V INCOME D I S T R I B U T I O N OF WILDERNESS PARK USERS  Income L e v e l  ($) 0 -  Bowron  Garibaldi  (%)  3,000  (%)  Robson  (%)  Total  Can. Pop*  (%)  00(1961)  2.7  7.6  11 .4  5.9  31 .1  3,000-6,000  6.0  11 . 7  10.7  8.6  48.7  6,000-9,000  21 .1  26.9  8.7  2 0 . it  11.7  9,000-12,000  20.9  20.6  24.2  12,000-15,000  18A  11 . 7  10.1  15,000-20,000  12.2  9.4  10.1  20,000 +  15.7  7.2  18.8  3.0  4.9  6.0  N/A Average  •Source:  $13,430 $10,500  21.5) )14.7)  4.5  10.9) )13.8)  1 .8  4.2  $12,830 $12,410  P o d o l u k , J . R . , I n c o m e s o f C a n a d i a n s . D.B.S. C e n s u s M o n o g r a p h , 1968, p . 127.  79  Occupation Consistent with their occupational the higher category in  e d u c a t i o n and income l e v e l s , t h e  status of wilderness users  status occupations  position  (28%).  between parks w i t h G a r i b a l d i student  i n society.  i s "Managerial, Professional"  t h e second  i s skewed  (38%)  towards  The l a r g e s t with  single  "Students"  There a r e minor d i f f e r e n c e s having  the highest proportion of  users.  TABLE V I OCCUPATIONAL D I S T R I B U T I O N OF WILDERNESS PARK  USERS  Occupation  Bowron  Garibaldi  Robson  Total  Manager/Prof.  ho.h  30.5  43.6  38.1  Students  20.1  38.6  32.2  28.1  10.3  7-2  h.2  8.2  6.5  5.8  2.0  5A  Housewife  2.2  2.2  1 .3  2.0  Fishing, Forestry Mining, Farming  1.9  1  1 .3  1 .6  Retired  0.5  0.9  2.0  0.9  18.2  13.5  12.8  15.6  Const.,  Manuf.  Sales,  Clerical  Other  (%)  .k  -  80  It  i s significant  lumbering,  mining  that the rural  and f a r m i n g ,  occupations  -  w h i c h a c c o u n t f o r 9.1%  of  employment i n Canada, a r e s t r o n g l y u n d e r - r e p r e s e n t e d wilderness  users.  Occupation  o b v i o u s l y h a s some  fishing,  among  filtering  4  e f f e c t on r e c r e a t i o n choice. rural  occupations  Hendee  has suggested  that  since  a r e t y p i c a l l y based on e x p l o i t a t i o n o f  resources,  they  may p r o d u c e a t t i t u d e s a n t i t h e t i c a l t o  wilderness  and serve  as a r e t a r d i n g I n f l u e n c e o n w i l d e r n e s s  participation.  Environment o f In  Upbringing  a n a t t e m p t t o u n c o v e r some e a r l y b a c k g r o u n d  wilderness  i n f l u e n c e s on  u s e r s , r e s p o n d e n t s were asked where t h e y were  b r o u g h t up - i n a c i t y ,  town o r r u r a l  area.  g i v e n as t o what c o n s t i t u t e d each c a t e g o r y  No c l u e s  mostly  were  which leaves the  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n open t o d e f i n i t i o n .  TABLE V I I ENVIRONMENT OF U P B R I N G I N G  Area  Rural  (%)  Small  Town  (%)  City  B.C. P a r k s ,  1970  23.2  23.2  53.3  Banff/Yoho,  1967  19-9  24.6  55.4  30.6  38.5  30.9  G l a c i e r Peak, • Wash., 1 9 6 5 * *Hendee  (1968)  (%)  81  Similar visitors  t o f i n d i n g s f r o m t h e ORRRC w i l d e r n e s s  t o B.C. w i l d e r n e s s p a r k s  i n background  6  Hendee's  than  study  tend  t o h e more  the general population.  of Pacific  partially  ,  In contrast,  Northwest wilderness  difference i n upbringing  5  metropolitan  users  t h a t w i l d e r n e s s u s e i s e q u a l l y common w i t h a l l t h r e e The  study  found groups.  as shown i n t h e above T a b l e c a n  be e x p l a i n e d by t h e g r e a t e r e x t e n t o f u r b a n i z a t i o n  i n C a n a d a - k7%  o f t h e C a n a d i a n p o p u l a t i o n a n d 29%  American population r e s i d e i n c i t i e s Because o f the growing indications  of the  o f 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 o r more.  number o f p e o p l e  living  a r e f o r a n i n c r e a s i n g demand  i n urban  settings,  f o r wilderness-type  recreation.  Wilderness  Experience  and I n t r o d u c t i o n  Respondents were asked travellers to  as " e x p e r t " ,  s t a t e how many y e a r s  have.  The r e s u l t s  t o r a t e themselves  as w i l d e r n e s s  " i n t e r m e d i a t e " o r " n o v i c e " , as w e l l as of wilderness  are given i n Tables  travel  experience  V I I I and I X .  they  82  TABLE  VIII  WILDERNESS T R A V E L L E R  RATINGS  Rating  Bowron(%)  Garibaldi{%)  Robson(%)  Total(%)  Expert  18.7  12.6  26.9  18.5  Intermediate  68.8  68.6  62.4  67.5  Novice  12.5  18.8  10.7  14.0  TABLE I X YEARS OF WILDERNESS TRAVEL  EXPERIENCE  Years  Bowron(%)  Garibaldi(%)  None  13.0  13.9  7.4  12.2  1 - 2  13.3  22.4  15.4  16.5  3 - 5  18.4  22.0  15-5  20.9  5-10  22.0  17.9  22.2  20.8  10-20  22.5  14.4  20.8  19.7  20 +  10.8  9.0  8.7  9.9  Average  10.0  8.0  8.9  9.2  Robson(%)  Total(%)  83  Respondents experts  1  ratings  reported  of themselves  appear  a n a v e r a g e o f 13.2  years  i n t e r m e d i a t e s r e p o r t 8.0  experience,  to have v a l i d i t y wilderness  as  travel 2.0  y e a r s , and n o v i c e s  years.  Answers  t o the questions were s u r p r i s i n g  few w i l d e r n e s s park as  (18.5$).  "experts"  a n d 12$  novices  The f a c t years  wilderness  of i n t e r e s t experience "learing less  this  paper  that one-half travel  parks  patterns  i s relatively  to reinforce group.  that indeed  regard  saying  Once a g a i n  experience.  than  five  recent.  amount  I f the  be p r e s e n t e d  they  by  later i n  was a  highly  would n o t r e t u r n  the data  points to future  clientele.  o f a d u l t s suggests  o f the sample, the long  that wilderness  recreation  with childhood experiences  they were i n t r o d u c e d "friends".  complete  f u t u r e use o f wilderness  to the other h a l f  are l i n k e d  themselves  t h e phenomenon o f  Data w i l l  o n e w i t h o n l y 3.4$  very  that a great  shows t h a t t h e e x p e r i e n c e  introduction to wilderness  and  suggests  was p o s i t i v e we c a n e x p e c t  growth of wilderness  experience  t h e sample had l e s s  experience  t h e same t r i p .  In  consider  14$ a d m i t t e d b e i n g  In fact  experienced  repeat  i n the province  t h e y h a d no p r e v i o u s w i l d e r n e s s  i n these  satisfactory to  said  by d o i n g "  this  users  i n that  (Note  type  recreation.  t o w i l d e r n e s s , over  half  that "schools" account  and an  early  When a s k e d reported f o r only  how "parents"  1.4$  of  8h  wilderness could  be  introductions.)  inferred  o c c t f r as  the  users  OR  another  will  generation  WHAT INTRODUCED YOU  X TO  WILDERNESS T R A V E L ? "  Total  Friends  33.1  Parents  21 .6 Group  (%)  16.6  Literature  11 .2  School  1  Other  A  15.5  Demographic f a c t o r s are influencing explored is  visitation  cultivate  Means  Organized  data, i t  camping t a s t e s .  TABLE "WHO  basis of these  that increased wilderness  current wilderness  with primitive  On  wilderness  use  I n more d e t a i l  t h a t the  More s t u d y  f o c u s i n g on  I n C h a p t e r X.  why  to wilderness  there  among t h e  Important v a r i a b l e s  several of  taste for wilderness  attracted are  and  thus  the  and  lower  The  them w i l l central  elite  what b a r r i e r s  to  are  Dudley  Warner  particularly  s t a t u s groups are needed.  , writing  i n 1878  one.  participation  7 Charles  conclusion  i s a sophisticated  socially  be  commented:  For  as  The i n s t i n c t o f b a r b a r i s m t h a t l e a d s p e o p l e p e r i o d i c a l l y t o t h r o w away t h e h a b i t s o f c i v i l i z a t i o n , and seek t h e f r e e d o m and d i s c o m f o r t o f t h e woods, i s e x p l i c a b l e enough, b u t i t i s n o t easy t o u n d e r s t a n d why s u c h p a s s i o n s s h o u l d b e s t r o n g e s t i n t h o s e who a r e m o s t r e f i n e d a n d m o s t t r a i n e d i n i n t e l l e c t u a l and s o c i a l f a s t i d i o u s n e s s .  86  REFERENCES CHAPTER  V  (1)  T h o r s e l l , J.W., "A T r a i l U s e S u r v e y - B a n f f a n d N a t i o n a l P a r k s " , Recr. Res. Report 3 3 , N a t i o n a l H i s t o r i c Parks Branch, Ottawa, Feb., 1968.  (2)  Source: Ottawa,  (3)  C a t t o n , W.R., "Motivations of Wilderness Users", Pulp and P a p e r M a g a z i n e o f C a n a d a " . Dec. 1 9 , 1969.  (k)  Hendee, J.C., " R u r a l - U r b a n D i f f e r e n c e s R e f l e c t e d Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n P a r t i c i p a t i o n " , J . o f L e i s u r e V. 1, No. 4 , A u t u m n , 1 9 6 9 -  (5)  Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Resources Review Commission, W i l d e r n e s s and R e c r e a t i o n . S t u d y R e p o r t 3 , S u p ' t . Documents, Wash., 1 9 6 2 .  Economic C o u n c i l o f Canada, Annual 1 9 6 9 , p. 130.  Yoho and  Report.  in Res..  of  (6)  Hendee, J.C., e t . a l . , " W i l d e r n e s s Users i n the P a c i f i c N o r t h w e s t - T h e i r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , V a l u e s and Management P r e f e r e n c e s " , F o r e s t S e r v i c e R e s e a r c h P a p e r PNW-61, 1 9 6 8 .  (7)  As quoted i n S m i t h , P . J . , Back t o N a t u r e : M y t h i n U r b a n A m e r i c a . O x f o r d P r e s s , N.Y.,  The A r c a d i a n 1 9 6 9 , p. 8 .  CHAPTER C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF  Essential  experience  the w i l d e r n e s s providing  trip  itself.  answers to  distance travelled  sizes annual  and  and  the  the  and  of wilderness the  users  D a t a were g a t h e r e d  following questions: How  time  long  i s the  spent?  g r o u p s and  the of  towards How  trip  What a r e  what a r e  and  characteristics  much  i n terms  the  amount o f I n v e s t m e n t r e q u i r e d ?  make-up o f  of  the  of  costs What a r e  the patterns  the  of  Trip  The  anticipation  one  t h a t has of  the  stage  of  the  implications It  study  fact  expectations  that prior  i s evident  U s e r s s p e n d an  from the data  f o r the w i l d e r n e s s  This  i s surprising and  of t r i p  the  have  user  presented  trip  a v e r a g e o f f o u r and  preparation for a trip and  choice  .  is in  screening important  f o r management.  that planning  proximity  t o t a l r e c r e a t i o n experience 1  received l i t t l e  f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e the  and  N  use?  Planning  light  WILDERNES S T R I P  i s knowledge of  preparation i s involved?  involved  THE  to the understanding  wilderness  VI  goes on  one-half  to Bowron Park.  familiarity  with  here  the  (Table  f a r i n advance.  months o f Because of  area,  XI)  thought the  G a r i b a l d i shows  88  a different  20%  pattern with only  a month p l a n n i n g between these  their visit.  two  the  computation of  for  comparison.)  extremes.  The (As  they  spend more  FAR  AHEAD WERE  Period  Bowron  (%)  -  extreme v a l u e s  can  i n Table  YOU PLANNING THE  Garibaldi  (%)  T R I P ? I!  Robson  (%)  Total  (%)  33.6  21  19.0  42.6  27.5  27.8  months  27.1  9.9  17.5  20.0  Three - s i x months  18.7  4.5  8.1  12.3  Six  17.3  4.0  7.4  11.3  9.8  1.4  5.4  6.3  18.9  5.3  9.9  13.0  7.0  1.9  3.4  4.0  one  week  One  week - one  One  - three  - twelve  More t h a n Average Median  a  month  months year  (weeks) (weeks)  The  data  use  i s b a s e d on  would not  demonstrate that only a small p r o p o r t i o n of a s h o r t run, i m p u l s i v e d e c i s i o n .  support  the  "escape" theory  where the r e c r e a t i o n i s t little  o r no  j u s t wishes  pre-planning  XI  XI  37.7  than  in  distort  7.6  Less  than  p a t t e r n f o r Robson l i e s  t h e mean, t h e m e d i a n i s g i v e n  TABLE "HOW  saying  required.  This  .9  wilderness fact  of r e c r e a t i o n behavior  to get  away s o m e w h e r e  Because the  with  wilderness  89  trip  i s demanding  motivation period.  i s complicated  I n any  most u s e r s ,  Length of  i n terms of advance p r e p a r a t i o n ,  case the  reach  destination.  Robson i s done on  the  sample spending  less.  The  Taylor's  2  time for  one.  varies with The  receives  mile round  average of  l e n g t h of  study  on  required  o f 73  the  days w i t h o n l y  of users  %  is  less at of  backcountry. w i t h an  staying k  is essentially area.  to  miles  to Berg Lake  weekend u s e ,  o v e r 80$  stay here  3.5  trip  more i n t h e  predominantly with  distance  d a y s , w i t h a l m o s t no-one t a k i n g  a week o r  d a y s and  O96O)  an  the  Bowron Lake c i r c u i t  m i n i m u m 25  The  Mt.  s t a y o f 2.8  movement t o t h e w i l d e r n e s s ,  a v e r a g e o f 7.8  than 5 days.  Garibaldi  over a longer  "escape"  Stay stay of course  done i n an  extended  i s a highly organized  Length of the  and  the  average days  unchanged  or  since  90  TABLE X I I LENGTH OF  No.  o f Days  Bowron  ($)  STAY  Garibaldi  Robson  ($)  ($)  Total  ($)  1 - 2  1 .1  55.6  27.5  22.8  3 - 4  5.2  29.2  51.7  21 .7  5 - 6  24.4  7.6  15.4  17.5  7 - 8  31A  3.1  4.0  17.4  9-10  27.4  2.2  0.7  14.4  5.7  0.5  0.0  3.0  13 +  3.3  0.0  0.0  1 .6  Average  7.8  2.8  3.5  5.4  11  -  Size  12  and Make-up o f  Parties  Two-thirds of wilderness parties four or  persons.  O n l y 13$  more a n d o n l y  wilderness  6.3$  consist  o f the sample  o f between  were i n g r o u p s o f  were t r a v e l l i n g a l o n e .  travel i s neither  and seven  Clearly,  a group nor i n d i v i d u a l  being i na limited sense a s p e c i a l form of small behavior.  two  group  enterprise social  91  TABLE  XIII  TOTAL GROUP  No.  of People  Bowron  OO  1  SIZE  Garibaldi  Robson  00  1 .9  (%)  Total  OO  14.1  8.5  6.3  2  37.7  33.2  48.3  38.5  3 - 4  27.4  34.5  16.8  27.4  5-6  17.1  12.1  7.4  13.6  7  14.6  10.8  1 2.1  13.0  4.5  3.9  Average  Additional half  d a t a o n t h e make-up o f g r o u p s  t h e sample i s comprised  (couples, families, which  3.8  families  4.2  show t h a t o n e -  o f some f o r m o f t h e f a m i l y and f r i e n d s ) .  i n some c a s e s may b e f a m i l y g r o u p s  unit  G r o u p s o f men,  also,  account  f o r the  (23.6%).  greatest single proportion o f users  3 The  d a t a s u p p o r t s Hendee's  findings  of Pacific  Northwest  wilderness users, that the wilderness experience i s  typically  sought  clusters  i n t h e company o f f a m i l y g r o u p s  of close friends.  show, u s e r s t r a v e l l i n g  As d a t a l a t e r  i n such groups  i n this  and s m a l l paper  will  do n o t e x p r e s s a n a v e r s i o n  t o human c o n t a c t a s s u c h , b u t o n l y t o t h e mass a n d t r a n s i t o r y encounters  common t o m o d e r n u r b a n  life.  92  TABLE X I V MAKE-UP OF GROUPS Make-up  Bowron (%)  Garibaldi  Robson {%)  ($)  Total  ($)  8.1  12.8  25.2  23.3  20.1  G r o u p o f women  0.5  3.1  2.7  1 .8  Organized  8.7  6.3  5.4  7.3  19.5  17.5  19.5  18.9  One  person  1 .9  G r o u p o f men  group  Couples  5.9  23.6  Family  group  20.9  21.5  21 .5  21 .2  Family  and f r i e n d s  11.9  11.7  6.0  10.5  11.1  8.5  11 .4  10.4  Other  Cost o f the Wilderness Although  the question  the park?" general  "What was t h e t o t a l  was r a t h e r u n s p e c i f i c ,  figures.  Garibaldi  Trip  users,  The a v e r a g e t o t a l  For one-half the total  theresults offer  cost reported  was l e s s  t o and f r o m t h e p a r k ,  $7.90 p e r day.  some  t h e sample and f o r 90$ o f  c o s t f o r v i s i t i n g Bowron Park,  include t r a v e l costs approximately  cost o f your t r i p t o  t h a n $25.00. which  should  was $ 6 0 . 0 0 o r  For Garibaldi  t h e a v e r a g e was  $ 1 6 . 0 0 o r $5.70 p e r d a y , a n d a t R o b s o n $50.00 o r $14.00 p e r day.  The h i g h e r  average d i s t a n c e  c o s t a t Robson c a n be e x p l a i n e d t r a v e l l e d to reach  that  park.  by the g r e a t e r  93  T A B L E XV TOTAL COST OF W I L D E R N E S S T R I P ( P E R PERSON)  Cost ($)  Bowron  Garibaldi  Robson  22.8  90.1  58.4  50.2  25 - 50  40.7  3.4  14.8  24.3  51 - 100  24.7  0.0  8.1  13.9  {%)  Less  than  25  (%)  (%)  Total  (%)  101 - 200  5.4  0.5  8.1  4.5  - 400  2.7  o.5  4.0  2.3  1.1  0.0  0.7  0.7  $60.00  $16.00  $50.00  $44.00  201  401' + Average  Except  f o r a very few cases  the wilderness v a c a t i o n , required,  c a n be s a i d  Using include  ( o n l y 7% s p e n d o v e r  $100.00)  i n spite of thetravel distances  t o be a r e l a t i v e l y  these f i g u r e s  inexpensive one.  as g i v e n , and e x t e n d i n g them t o  a l lbackcountry users, a t o t a l  o f $270,000 was s p e n t  b y w i l d e r n e s s c a m p e r s a t B o w r o n , $27,200 a t G a r i b a l d i a n d $100,000 a t R o b s o n . this  A l t h o u g h i t i s n o t known where  money i s s p e n t , i t i s s t i l l  visitors  do g e n e r a t e  apparent  o r how  that wilderness  c o n s i d e r a b l e w e a l t h t o t h e economy.  9k  Investment  i n Backcountry  Equipment  The h i g h c o s t o f l i g h t w e i g h t as  a factor  limiting  a substantial of $82.00 barrier  camping equipment i s o f t e n  wilderness use.  o f w i l d e r n e s s u s e r s sampled  a c t as a  the shorter  s t u d e n t s who u s e t h a t  average financial  but only to a small proportion  i s e v i d e n t from Table XVI that G a r i b a l d i  reflects  users  s t a y and t h e h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f  park.  TOTAL INVESTMENT I N BACKCOUNTRY  Less  than  5 - 2 5  ($)  5  Bowron (%)  EQUIPMENT  Garibaldi (%)  (PER PERSON)  Robson  Total  CO  7.6  13.9  6.7  9.3  13.8  25.6  10.1  16.6  26  -  50  18.7  23.3  12.8  18.9  51  -  100  23.6  20.6  25.5  23.1  101  -  150  11.7  6.7  16.1  11 .1  151  -  200  8.1  k.O  13.4  8.0  201  +  13.8  1 .k  Average  have  o f t h o s e i n Robson and Bowron.  TABLE X V I  Investment  have  here.  only one-half the investment This  gear w i t h an  This might  t o some e c o n o m i c g r o u p s ,  It  T h e u s e r s do i n d e e d  investment i n backcountry  per person reported.  cited  $93.00  $51.00  9. k $100.00  9.2 $82.00  95  Annual P a t t e r n of Wilderness  Visits  The  a median of 4 . 4  typical  respondent  of 3.7  per year,  participation  days d u r a t i o n , f o r a t o t a l  days a y e a r .  N o r t h w e s t S t a t e s , as 0 4.5  total (6.3  man  trips  takes  per  days a n n u a l l y ) b u t year)  and  As  are  XVII  i n time  and  XVIII  to spend on i n the  trips  the l e a s t  year). trips  Bowron users  Almost one-half  the  more  frequent  days). such  This  an  is  activity,  summer m o n t h s .  sample  t h e most a c t i v e  (44.8%)  (5-7  (3.4  trips  take  o n l y one  per or  two  annually. A  significant  fact  Is that f o r three-quarters of  sample the d u r a t i o n of the  average t r i p  O n l y 5% of  users  nine  similar  show, t h e r e a r e m i n o r d i f f e r e n c e s being  and  Pacific  give a  slightly  between p a r k s , w i t h Robson users per year)  i n the  duration (2.3  of less  s i n c e most o f i t o c c u r s  Tables  trips  trips  16.3  of  Hendee ( 1 9 6 8 )  r e p o r t e d by  a considerable investment particularly  Wilderness  wilderness  wilderness  days d u r a t i o n .  wilderness  user  areas  I t is clear  i n B.C.  d u r a t i o n r a t h e r than large  park  i s f o u r days or  undertake then,  trips  t h a t the  engages i n f r e q u e n t  one  or  two  long  trips.  have been s e t a s i d e p a r t i a l l y  o f more  fringes.  As  less. than  contemporary  trips  of  Thus,  short  although  f o r people  e x t e n s i v e v a c a t i o n s i n w i l d l a n d s , most o n l y b r i e f l y the outer  the  to  enjoy  penetrate  s t u d i e s of the mountain n a t i o n a l parks  3  h a v e a l s o shown , t h e p r e d o m i n a n c e o f w i l d e r n e s s p a r k brief,  concentrated,  and  at the  margin.  use  is  96  TABLE  XVII  WILDERNESS T R I P S PER YEAR  No. o f T r i p s  Bowron  (%)  Garibaldi  (%)  Robson  Total  (%)  {%)  1 - 2  57.5  33.2  30.9  44.8  3 - 5  25.2  30.0  28.2  27.3  6 - 9  6.5  19.3  19.5  13.0  10 +  7.9  17.0  20.8  13.2  Average  3.4  5.3  5.7  4.5  -  TABLE X V I I I AVERAGE LENGTH OF W I L D E R N E S S T R I P S (DAYS) Days  Bowron  (%)  Garibaldi  Robson  (%)  Total  2 or less  27.1  51 .6  34.2  35.9  3 - 4  35.2  38.6  48.3  38.9  5 - 9  24.9  9.4  12.1  17.7  10 +  7.9  0.0  4.0  4.7  Average  4.6  2.8  3.6  3.9  97  REFERENCES CHAPTER VI  (1)  O'Riordan, T., "Outdoor Recreation Research", i n Resources, Recreation and Research, ed. Foster, H.D. and Sewell, W.R.D., U. V i c t o r i a , 1970.  (2)  T a y l o r , G.D., " V i s i t o r s to the Black Tusk Area of G a r i b a l d i P r o v i n c i a l Park", unpub. Report, Prov. Parks Branch, V i c t o r i a , Feb., 1961.  (3)  For suggestions on c o r r e c t i n g t h i s imbalance and encouraging more extensive backcountry use, see: T h o r s e l l , J.W., "The Mountain National Parks - Some Notes on Wilderness Use", Park News. June, 1969.  98  CHAPTER V I I ^MOTIVATIONS AND BENEFITS OF THE -WILDERNESS EXPERIENCE  D i f f i c u l t i e s of Motivation  Research  B e c a u s e i t i s an i n f e r e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t , t h e q u e s t i o n o f m o t i v a t i o n , o r t h e why o f w i l d e r n e s s u s e , i s a d i f f i c u l t one. It i s d i f f i c u l t  because o f p r e - c o n c e i v e d  images o f what  w i l d e r n e s s c o n s t i t u t e s , t h e s u b t l e and s u b - l i m i n a l a s p e c t s o f t h e e x p e r i e n c e , and b e c a u s e o f p r o b l e m s o f measurement. 1 According  t o Leo Marx , t h e f e e l i n g o f w i l d e r n e s s I s  extravagantly portrayed i n l i t e r a t u r e as:  "... often a kind  o f v i s i o n a r y e x p e r i e n c e , couched i n a l a n g u a g e o f i n t e n s e , 2 e x t r e m e , even m y s t i c a l f e e l i n g . "  Evans'  e s s a y on t h e  e v a n e s c e n t and i d y l l i c b e n e f i t s o f w i l d e r n e s s t r a v e l i s p r o b a b l y t h e u l t i m a t e example o f t h e image as c r e a t e d by n a t u r e writers.  B u t e v e n i f such images o f what t h e u s e r  f r o m w i l d e r n e s s a r e r e c o g n i s e d , i s he s t i l l and  c o n s c i o u s l y aware  able t o v e r b a l i z e h i s true personal motivations?  these unconscious and  anticipates  expressed?  and g u t - l e v e l f e e l i n g s be a d e q u a t e l y  And, f i n a l l y ,  r e v e a l h i s t r u e motives or s o c i a l l y  Can  suspect?  i s the respondent w i l l i n g to  i f t h e y m i g h t be r e c o g n i s e d as  Lapage  3  probed  has c a p s u l i s e d t h e i s s u e :  maudlin  99  B e c a u s e o f t h e s o c i o l o g i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s , the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of m o t i v a t i o n and r e c r e a t i o n p r o d u c t i v i t y i s a f o r m i d a b l e u n d e r t a k i n g and one w h i c h i n t h e f i n a l a n a l y s i s has o n l y n e b u l o u s r e s u l t s . Nonetheless I t r e p r e s e n t s an i n v e s t i g a t i v e avenue t h a t cannot be a v o i d e d . With  these  items  limits  intended  wilderness taking rate  First,  a wilderness  i n the  very  a list  significant,  the motives experience asked reason he  according  most. to the  "Elements of  list  t o s t a t e (1) (2)  Two the  what one  These q u e s t i o n s  asked  to  significant.  I t was  expected  relationship  between  the b e n e f i t s of  other related s i n g l e most experience  the  questions important  from the  trip  a r e c o d e d and i n t e r p r e t e d  typology d i s c u s s e d below under the  the Wilderness  for  of nine possible  rated.  ( a s p i r a t i o n s ) and  and  users  four  the  p o s s i b l e reasons  a conceptual  (perceived r e a l i t y ) .  for his trip  b e n e f i t s of  n e u t r a l , or not  similarly  at least  f o r going  the respondent  recalls  13  of  questionnaire another  t h e r e w o u l d be  and  v a c a t i o n were g i v e n and  b e n e f i t s w e r e g i v e n t o be that  questionnaire contained  to probe the motives  trip.  them as  Later  i n mind, the  Experience".  heading  100  Reasons f o r the Wilderness Studies people  o f what r e a s o n s , to wilderness  motives  exist.  categories and  "feeling  other  areas  the  close to nature". parks  settings.  For  substitutability  place  This  a h i g h v a l u e on  type  activities  " p h o t o g r a p h y " and  mentioned  wilderness  activity  is  not  much a s  important places  to  "do  the  of the  sample  appeals  (and  natural  duplicated i n no  a l l given  In f a c t ,  almost  they  the  traditional  significant half  (h6.k%)  parks  are  reason  for  report i t  are not  to experience  seen  so  and  be  surroundings.  some s u r p r i s e was  traditional  are  wilderness  t h i n g s " as  a p a r t of the n a t u r a l Of  The  undisturbed  - "exercise",  i s a very  s a m p l e and  at a l l .  wilderness  base.  high n e u t r a l responses.  o n e - f i f t h of the  that  c a n n o t be  "fishing"  of f i s h i n g  of  camping"  of r e c r e a t i o n there i s  relatively  only  "wilderness  confirms  which i n fact  this  draw  t h r e e most h i g h l y r a t e d  i n the r e s o u r c e  specific  "relaxing",  physical features  c o m m o n l y show t h a t a h e i r a r c h y  XIX  f e a t u r e s , those  The  and  "seeing n a t u r a l landscape",  c a m p e r s i n B.C. resource  activities  In Table  are  Vacation  52%  the r e l a t i v e l y  of wilderness of Garibaldi  low r a t i n g  - "solitude"  users)  o f one  - only  r a t e i t as  of 62.9%  very  k important.  H o w e v e r , as  n e c e s s a r i l y mean b e i n g form of s o l i t u d e  can  be  ORRRC  observed,  alone with nature found  solitude  does  i n a s m u c h as  i n s m a l l group use  of  a  not special  wilderness  101  where t o t a l in  a later  wilderness nature  visitation  As w i l l  be d i s c u s s e d  s e c t i o n on c a r r y i n g  c a p a c i t y , i tappears  users  or i n s i s t  do n o t e x p e c t  on b e i n g  that  alone  with  b u t a r e a c c u s t o m e d t o a n d may e v e n w e l c o m e t h e s i g h t o f  s m a l l numbers o f o t h e r Neither the  i s not excessive.  second  withfamily,  users.  are parks  lowest rating  seen as a p l a c e f o r s o c i a l next  to fishing  activity  i s the category  -  "being  friends".  "Viewing  wildlife"  force  f o r 82.4$  54.3$  of Garibaldi users.  was a v e r y  o f Bowron Park  significant  motivating  u s e r s , 6 7 . 8 $ o f Robson u s e r s and  This finding  i s i n contrast to a  5 s t u d y o f c a r campers i n t h e Boundary Waters Canoe A r e a only  19$ o f v i s i t o r s  the area. of w i l d l i f e  rated w i l d l i f e  There appears  as a r e a s o n  where  for visiting  t o be a h i g h e r i n t e r e s t o r a w a r e n e s s  among b a c k c o u n t r y  c a m p e r s t h a n among  roadside  campers. Leopold  h a s s t r e s s e d i n h i s Sand C o u n t y A l m a n a c t h e  c o n t r a s t v a l u e o f w i l d e r n e s s as an e x c i t i n g alternative this  t o an u r b a n s o c i e t y .  temporary  There i s moderate support f o r  i d e a o f w i l d e r n e s s as n o v e l t y - 6 1 . 5 $ r a t e " e x p l o r a t i o n o f  a r e a " and j u s t under h a l f different"  as v e r y  (47.9$)  important.  r a t e "doing  something  102  In conclusion, response patterns f i n d i n g s of other wilderness  are p a r a l l e l to  user studies - v i s i t o r s are drawn  to these areas p r i m a r i l y by t h e i r naturalness and  and primitivenes  secondarily by the opportunities they o f f e r f o r temporary  r e s p i t e , adventure and e x p l o r a t i o n .  TABLE XIX MOTIVATIONS FOR BACKCOUNTRY TRAVEL Reason  Very Imp't.  Neutral  Not Imp't.  Seeing n a t u r a l landscape  93 .3  5 .4  1 .1  Wilderness camping  81 . 5  11 . 6  6 .3  Feeling c l o s e to nature  81 . 4  14 .7  3 .6  Escaping from c i v i l i s a t i o n  78 . 8  16 . 2  4 .6  Viewing w i l d l i f e  7 0 .1  24 . 0  4 .5  Solitude  62 .9  27 .3  9 .6  E x p l o r a t i o n of area  61 . 5  29 . 0  9 .0  Exercise  59 . 8  30 . 5  9 .3  Relaxing  58 . 2  29 . 6  12 . 2  Doing something d i f f e r e n t  47 • 9  30 .9  20 . 9  Photography  43 .6  33 . 2  22 . 8  Be with family, f r i e n d s  3 3 .1  34 . 3  32 .4  Fishing  20 . 4  32 .7  46 . 4  103  Benefits of the Wilderness Vacation As often voiced concern of wilderness planners i s the need f o r knowledge of the effects of people on the resource base.  A  question that i s more d i f f i c u l t to measure and that has received less a t t e n t i o n deals with the therapeutic effects of wilderness exposure - or the effect of the resource on people. Table XX presents a summary of the answers to the question: "In what p a r t i c u l a r ways do you think your t r i p benefited you?" TABLE XX BENEFITS OF THE WILDERNESS TRIP Benefits  Very Imp't. Neutral Not Imp't. 00 00 00  Refreshing mentally  87.0  10. 1  2.3  Increased appreciation of nature  80.3  16. 2  2.7  Found s o l i t u d e , privacy  61 .3  28. 9  8.5  Gave opportunity to r e f l e c t , think  58.2  33. 9  7.4  Improve physical health  57.1  34, 6  7.7  Learned more about s e l f , others  37.9  42. 1  19.2  Learned more about camping  32.7  37. 9  28.6  Was s o c i a l l y entertaining  12.8  31 .0  55-5  Other  28:3  3. 5  2.3  104  In the nine item l i s t the two b e n e f i t s judged very by almost a l l users were " r e f r e s h i n g mentally" a p p r e c i a t i o n of nature". but s t i l l  important  and "increased  Three b e n e f i t s given l e s s e r weight  judged as very important by over one-half the  respondents were "found s o l i t u d e , p r i v a c y " , "gave  opportunity  to r e f l e c t and t h i n k " and "improve p h y s i c a l h e a l t h " . r a t i n g s provide  strong i n d i c a t i o n s that wilderness,  These at l e a s t  i n the eye of the beholder, does f u n c t i o n to promote psychic, s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h as w e l l as f o s t e r i n g c l o s e r rapport with nature. The  items "learned more about s e l f , others" and "learned  more about camping" were rated very important by approximately one-third of the sample. "learning-by-doing"  This suggests some support f o r the  phenomenon which states that the more people  p a r t i c i p a t e i n c e r t a i n forms of r e c r e a t i o n the more they w i l l become p r o f i c i e n t at and demand f a c i l i t i e s f o r that r e c r e a t i o n . S i m i l a r l y the f a c t that very few of the respondents r a t e these reasons as not important suggests that the use of and b e n e f i t s from wilderness  are i n some degree oriented to personal  accomplishment. "Was s o c i a l l y e n t e r t a i n i n g " was the only item that more than h a l f the sample  (55.5%) viewed as -"not important".  No discrepancies were noted between these r a t i n g s of benefits and the previous  question on a s p i r a t i o n s .  For instance,  105  where 62.9%  rated " s o l i t u d e " as a very important reason f o r  v i s i t i n g wilderness, 61.3%  also rated i t as a perceived  beneTit (once again the f i g u r e f o r G a r i b a l d i Park i s correspondingly lower). A somewhat s u r p r i s i n g f i n d i n g was  that no  significant  d i f f e r e n c e In the assessment of b e n e f i t s were given between the three d i f f e r e n t parks, despite d i f f e r e n c e s i n e f f o r t expended to v i s i t  each.  Elements of the Wilderness Experience 6 As Klausner  has pointed out, r e c r e a t i o n e x i s t s i n many  d i f f e r e n t forms which, i n themselves, s a t i s f y more basic but l a r g e l y undefined and immeasureable human needs.  In  understanding these needs i t i s necessary to f i r s t the meaning of the t o t a l r e c r e a t i o n experience. 7 Academy of Sciences  understand  As the National  has stressed " ... c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of  the component parts of l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s i s another for  requirement  a theory of r e c r e a t i o n " . 8  I t i s hypothesized by Klausner  that the r e c r e a t i o n  experience can have meaning to the user i n three p o s s i b l e ways: The r e l a t i o n of man to man of  to nature, the s o c i o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n of  and the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n of man  these dimensions  to s e l f .  A l l three  r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t r e c r e a t i o n settings  when taken together, comprise  the very complicated and  man  and,  106 multidimensional r e c r e a t i o n experience.  Such a d e s c r i p t i v e  model reminds r e c r e a t i o n planners and researchers that the tota'lity o f r e c r e a t i o n i s something much more than the small part of i t that they are concerned  with i n a p a r t i c u l a r  study.  Moreover, when e m p i r i c a l data i s a v a i l a b l e on the strengths of the d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t y mixes that c o n s t i t u t e the experience, then the p r o v i s i o n of s e t t i n g s f o r them w i l l be a more l o g i c a l l y derived and p r e c i s e operation. In an attempt  to explore t h i s construct and weigh these  d i f f e r e n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l , s o c i a l and environmental the experience, respondents  were asked  most important reason f o r your t r i p ?  (1) and  q u a l i t i e s of  what was  the s i n g l e  (2) what one  experience of your t r i p to the park do you r e c a l l most v i v i d l y today?  By asking the user to s i n g l e cut one reason and  experience i t was  one  hoped that the strength of d i f f e r e n t mixes of  the elements of the experience could be, at l e a s t crudely, 9  quantified.  A study done by Schefer  on t h i s question and was f i n d i n g was  i n the Adirondaks  based on a s i m i l a r typology.  that a e s t h e t i c (natural) and  focused The main  emotional  (psychological) responses were eight to ten times more important to wilderness users than s o c i a l values. During the coding of the open-ended responses apparent  i t became  that because of d i f f i c u l t i e s i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and  the  wide v a r i e t y of responses, the r e s u l t s would be i n c o n c l u s i v e .  107  I n t h e f i r s t q u e s t i o n o n l y %% o f a l l answers i n t o one o f t h e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s . response (19.4$)  rate  to t h i s question  c o u l d be  The r e l a t i v e l y h i g h n o n -  (lk%)  and t h e l a r g e  who gave more t h a n one r e a s o n i n d i c a t e s  respondents f o r the  themselves  number  that  the  had t r o u b l e d e f i n i n g one s i n g l e  purpose  trip. Of t h o s e r e s p o n s e s  t h a t c o u l d be coded t h e  following  comments were t y p i c a l .  Under t h e man/nature e n c o u n t e r  common r e s p o n s e s  "To r e t u r n t o n a t u r e " ,  were:  in unspoiled wilderness", n a t u r a l beauty  an e x p e r i e n c e character  were:  Under t h e man/others  "To g e t  w i t h my s o n " ,  and d e v e l o p  dimension i n c l u d e :  outdoors  " F o r o u r honeymoon",  T y p i c a l responses "To f i n d  enjoy  encounter  away f r o m i t a l l " , "To  teamwork" and "To g e t  f o r a change o f p a c e " .  "To be  the  "To see Emperor F a l l s " and "To  and w i l d l i f e " .  t y p i c a l responses  self  coded  share  "To b u i l d  out of the  city  coded u n d e r t h e man/  challenge  and  adventure",  "To endure p h y s i c a l h a r d s h i p " and "To go f i s h i n g " . T a b l e XXI shows t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s were about d i v i d e d i n the three  categories  a l t h o u g h M t . Robson u s e r s  more n a t u r e - o r i e n t e d and e x p l i c i t i n t h e i r i n t h e o t h e r two p a r k s . wilderness features,  equally  The t e n t a t i v e  answers  were  than users  conclusion is  that  camping i s m o t i v a t e d e q u a l l y by a s e a r c h f o r n a t u r a l p e r s o n a l a c t i v i t y , and a d e s i r e f o r a s p e c i a l f o r m o f  social interaction. d i m e n s i o n appears  At l e a s t ,  dominant.  f r o m t h i s l i m i t e d d a t a , no one  108  TABLE X X I MAIN  Reason  REASON FOR THE WILDERNESS TRIP Bowron (%)  Garibaldi  Robson  Total  (%)  (%)  (%)  Nature  13.3  25.1  30.2  20.2  Social  20.3  16.6  16.8  18.5  Psychological  15.7  16.1  22.8  17.3  Combination  23.6  15.3  15.4  19.4  Unclassifiable  13.3  10.3  4.7  10.7  No answer  13.8  16.6  10.1  13.9  Response to the second question of what one experience i s most v i v i d l y remembered produces less nebulous r e s u l t s .  Most  respondents r e c a l l a feature of the natural landscape such as "Sunset on Robson G l a c i e r " , "A bear i n camp", "Seeing three moose i n Bowron marsh" or "The view from the Tusk".  The impact  of the natural landscape thus has the strongest influence on user r e c a l l of h i s wilderness t r i p .  A s i g n i f i c a n t proportion  r e c a l l e d a p a r t i c u l a r event, experience, or a c t i v i t y that the respondent himself experienced.  Examples are:  "Running the  chute on the Issac River", "Catching my l i m i t of f i s h " or "Setting up camp i n a thunderstorm",  included i n this group  were a number of unpleasant r e c o l l e c t i o n s involving being attacked by insects, burning a meal i n a campfire, being caught  109  i n a thunderstorm, or f a l l i n g i n t o visitors of  show some r e v e r e n c e  masochistic delight.  discomforts with  are  In  retrospect,  exertion almost  to  10  Perhaps,  as L o w e n t h a l  s e e n as p r a i s e w o r t h y  as  they  has  promote  the  point  suggested, intimacy  nature. Memories  subordinate only  for  a river.  2.6%  to  of  t h e man/man s o c i a l e n c o u n t e r  the man/nature  and m a n / s e l f  mentioning a s o c i a l experience  TABLE  are  definitely  experiences  as m o s t  with  vivid.  XXII  E X P E R I E N C E MOST V I V I D L Y R E C A L L E D Reason  Bowron  (%)  Garibaldi  (%)  Robson  (%)  Total  (%)  Nature  37.4  43.5  45.0  40.8  Social  2.7  3.1  1 .3  2.6  35.0  25.6  27.5  30.6  Combination  5.4  5.4  8.1  5.9  Unclassifiable  9.2  5.4  6.7  7.6  10.3  17.0  11.4  12.6  Psychological  No  answer  110  REFERENCES CHAPTER VII Marx, Leo, "American I n s t i t u t i o n s and Ecological Ideals", Science. V o l . 1 7 0 , Nov. 2 7 , 1970, p. 9 5 0 . Evans, G.S., "The Wilderness", i n Nash, R. ed. The C a l l of the Wild. B r a z i l l e r , N.Y., 1 9 7 0 , p. 7 5 - 7 8 . Lapage, Wilbur F., "Some S o c i o l o g i c a l Aspects of Forest Recreation", J . of For.. 6 1 , 1 , Jan., 1 9 6 3 , p. 3 5 . Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Wilderness and Recreation. Study Report 3» Sup't. of Documents, Wash., 1 9 6 2 , p. 3 0 . Lime, David R. and Cushwa, Charles T., ' W i l d l i f e Esthetics and Auto Campers", Forest Service Research Paper N C - 3 2 , 1 9 6 9 Klausner, S.Z., "Recreation as Social Action", i n National Academy of Sciences, A Program for Outdoor Recreation Research, Pub. 1 7 2 7 ? National Academy of Sciences, Wash., 1 9 6 9 National Academy of Sciences, i b i d . . p. 2 2 . Klausner, S.Z., "Recreation as Social Action" i n National Academy of Sciences, i b i d . , p. 6 1 - 7 3 . Schefer, E.L., J r . , "Aesthetic and Emotional Experiences Rate High with Northeast Wilderness Hikers", Environ, and Behavior. V . 1 , No. 2 , D e c , 1 9 6 9 , p. 1 8 7 - 1 9 7 . Lowenthal, David, "Daniel Boone i s Dead", Natural History, Aug., 1 9 6 8 .  111  CHAPTER OPINIONS  The of  AND EVALUATIONS  characteristics the  demography  background  other  of  and  In  wilderness  A  total  of  under  measures,  wilderness, perception  of  to  of  their  questions  the  visitor  entrance  is  the  description important  behavior  knowledge  and  of  the  policies,  facilities,  resource  interpret  and  evaluate  background  and  experience?  user  opinions  headings:  fees,  the  wilderness  probed  following  and  provides  management  how do u s e r s of  trip  users  significance  basis  18  of  explaining  perception  crowding of  wilderness  suggested  essence,  evaluations control  for  the  on the  the  OF THE WILDERNESS V I S I T  and motivations  Also users  users  itself.  of  material  expectations. reaction  VIII  zoning  and c a p a c i t y ,  and  Facilities,  the  park,  satisfaction  management  perception  and r e t u r n ,  of and  hazards.  Facilities  The  decision  backcountry social of any  and  to is  one w h i c h  environmental  wilderness extrinsic  diminished  introduce  management  facilities requires  is  in  user  the can  improvements  careful  implications.  developments  returns  and  As  consideration the  minimization of easily  offend  satisfaction.  into  the  of  both  fundamental  goal  man's  users  influence,  and l e a d  Wilderness  to  managers  11 2  ideally  do  not  numbers o f  install  p a r t i c i p a n t s but  c o n t r o l measures t h a t human v a l u e s  in  Sanitary first  conveniences  serve  facilities,  Since  backcountry w i l l  To  eight  possible needed".  a l s o change the  by  aware o f  safety  realization  b e c o m e one  and  of  of  accompany i n c r e a s e d  the  use  of  p h y s i c a l environment of social  the  environment of  opinions  of users  r e a c t i o n to f a c i l i t y  the  use, in  order  d e v e l o p m e n t s as  r e s u l t s , given  (more t r a i l s  and  better  access roads),  (primitive shelters).  "needed",  i n Table XXIII  (more c a m p s i t e s ,  s i g n s , and  introductions  Parks B r a n c h , u s e r s were asked  facilities  to f i v e  interpretive  the  facility The  s u p p o r t f o r two  one  for instance,  eventually  gau^e c l i e n t e l e  considered  opposition  health,  a n t i c i p a t e these e f f e c t s .  being  "not  as  to enhance the  changes i n the  m a n a g e m e n t n e e d s t o be to better  to act  rising  wilderness.  necessities that  wilderness.  only  t o accommodate  and  pit  to  rate  "neutral" show  or  general  toilets),  trails, fireplaces, an  even d i v i s i o n  on  113  TABLE XXIII OPINIONS OF BACKCOUNTRY FACILITIES Facility  Needed (%)  Neutral  00  Not Needed  OO  Primitive shelters  33.2  29.8  36.6  More campsites  29.0  26.2  44.1  Better  16.9  21 .7  60.9  More t r a i l s  51 .o  23.9  24.4  Fireplaces  20.4  27.5  51 .6  Pit"  4o.9  26.7  31 .9  23.1  30.6  45.8  6.3  7.7  85.7  trails  toilets  I n t e r p r e t i v e signs Access road  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that i n t e r p r e t i v e signs are seen to have no place i n the backcountry.  Even though  wilderness  managers agree that more i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s needed, other means of accomplishing  i t (for example, i n t e r p r e t i v e booklets)  are  recommended. There i s also a strong opposition to making the wilderness  more a c c e s s i b l e by constructing a road to cut down  even the f i r s t two miles of t r a v e l distance.  In t h e i r comments  that often accompanied t h i s question respondents appeared to be, not so much against the road i t s e l f , but what the road would b r i n g .  114  The r e a c t i o n s t o . f a c i l i t y i n t r o d u c t i o n varied on some items between parks.  Bowron users s t r o n g l y requested  trails  to a l p i n e areas and s a n i t a r y f a c i l i t i e s at campsites. G a r i b a l d i users d i d not wish to see b e t t e r t r a i l s  (76%  said  not needed) though a s i g n i f i c a n t number at Robson d i d . f i n d i n g suggests caution on the over-engineering of  This  backcountry  t r a i l s and more s p e c i f i c a l l y on the t r a i l improvement program i n the Black Tusk Meadows. When asked what type of campsites users  (58.7$)  they p r e f e r r e d , most  state that they l i k e to camp alone.  Even i n Black  Tusk Meadows where campers are l i m i t e d to group campsites majority s t i l l wish to camp alone.  Just over a t h i r d  the  (36%)  would choose s i t e s i n proximity to others but almost no-one would p r e f e r l a r g e organized campgrounds.  TABLE XXIV CAMPSITE PREFERENCE Preference  Bowron (%)  Garibaldi (%)  Robson (%)  Total (%)  Far from other campers  62.6  46.6  67 A  58.7  Short distance from others  22.5  18.8  14,8  19.8  A few others around  13.3  25.6  1 2.1  16.7  0.5  0.7  0.3  7-6  4.7  4.1  Large organized campgrounds  0.0  No s p e c i f i c preference  1  .6  ~  115  In general, wilderness r e c r e a t i o n i s t s are against "humanizing" the backcountry  - there i s only l i m i t e d demand  f o r ' f a c i l i t i e s outside of what i s already there.  In f a c t ,  most users r e f l e c t a d e s i r e to "leave i t as i t i s " with 8 1 % agreeing that i n terms of development, the parks are " j u s t 1  about r i g h t " (Table XXV). Hendee's  f i n d i n g that  "Spartanism"  as the strongest f a c t o r i n the user conception of wilderness i s c o n s i s t e n t with the c o n c l u s i o n a r r i v e d at here that the s t y l e of wilderness camping emphasizes the n a t u r a l and simple rather than comfort and convenience.  At the same time some  basic f a c i l i t i e s are accepted as necessary and a l l - o u t p r i m i t i v i s m holds l i t t l e appeal f o r most wilderness campers. TABLE XXV USER ASSESSMENT OF BACKCOUNTRY FACILITY DEVELOPMENT State of Devel.  Bowron  Garibaldi  Robson T o t a l (%)  (%)  Over-developed  7.6  10.3  10.7  9.0  Under-developed  6.8  9.4  14.1  9.0  85.4  80.3  73.2  81 . 4  Just about r i g h t  116  Management C o n t r o l Measures None of the eight suggested management measures given i n Table XXVI received the support of more than 3 0 $ of users except f o r the two s p e c i a l items that p e r t a i n s p e c i f i c a l l y to Bowron Park.  TABLE XXVI MANAGEMENT CONTROL MEASURES Measure  Entrance fee Reservations  system  Agree  Neutral  ($)  ($)  ($)  29.5  23.1  46.8  21  21  55.2  .6  .9  Disagree  Controlled hunting  18.6  5.8  75.2  S e l e c t i v e logging  11.1  2.4  85.8  Rationing use  26.6  29.2  40.6  Restricted  25.6  21  48.3  Motor boat p a t r o l s *  40.6  26.8  32.3  R e s t r i c t i n g group s i z e to s i x *  69.1  12.7  18.2  *  campsites  .2  Bowron only  As expected, very strong objections were r a i sed on the p o s s i b i l i t y of s e l e c t i v e logging and hunting i n the parks (hunting i s now permitted only i n Mt. Robson).  Nor d i d users  agree with a reservations system, r a t i o n i n g use, or r e s t r i c t e d campsites.  There was moderate support fcr an entrance fee i n  117  Bowron Park ( 3 9 % agreed) but almost none i n the other two parks.  Bowron Park users also agreed with the two  special  que'stions on l i m i t i n g group s i z e (now i n e f f e c t ) and p a r t i a l l y with condoning motor boat p a t r o l s on the l a k e s . In r e j e c t i n g most a l l suggest management c o n t r o l s , few users appear w i l l i n g to give up the t r a d i t i o n a l f r o n t i e r freedoms of wilderness t r a v e l .  Although methods of l i m i t i n g  entry such as r a t i o n i n g use have been seen as i n e v i t a b l e to k ensure each i n d i v i d u a l access to unspoiled wilderness , implementation of controls would be a major break with the time-honored t r a d i t i o n s of f r e e and unlimited access to wilderness.  Before such controls are e f f e c t e d or f a c i l i t i e s  introduced, an educational program on why  such constraints are  necessary would have to be undertaken. Entrance Fees Data from the above question show that despite the high economic  status of most users, only 3 0 % of the t o t a l sample  agree with charging an entrance f e e .  When asked to suggest  what a reasonable fee might be, 64% gave answers ranging from $.25  to  $25.00  with most suggesting a nominal fee of one or  two d o l l a r s . Willingness to pay an entrance fee seems to be a f u n c t i o n of the length of stay i n the park - the average f i g u r e suggested  118  f o r Bowron was $ 5 . 0 0 , $.75.  f o r Robson i t was $ 1 . 6 0 and f o r G a r i b a l d i  Extending these average amounts f o r a l l users over the  sea'son, a t o t a l r e t u r n of approximately $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 could be realized.  Although t h i s i s not a large amount i n r e l a t i o n to  o v e r a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s , i t could be argued that the c o l l e c t i o n of an entrance fee might improve acceptance of 2  wilderness reserves among other resource users .  TABLE XXVII SUGGESTED ENTRANCE FEE Fee ($)  Bowron (%)  Garibaldi (%)  Nothing  22.8  Less than $1 1  2  -  2-1+  8.9 10.8 7.6  Robson  Total (%)  39.5  26.9  28.6  .7  28.2  22.7  11 . 2  20.8  13.0  9.4  6.1  41  1  .4  4 - 6  24.7  0.0  3.4  13.0  6 - 1 0  15.7  0.0  0.0  7.8  1 0 - 2 0  2.2  0.0  0.7  2.2  20 +  1 .1  0.0  0.0  0.5  No answer  6.2  6.3  10.7  7.2  $-.75  $1 . 6 0  Average* *  $5.00  Does not include those who did not suggest a f e e .  $3.25  119  Zoning the Parks The way  i n which people perceive a resource system explains to  a considerable extent the ways i n which i t i s used.  On the  basis of the wilderness appeal of the parks, one would expect that users would favour uses that would maintain the park as a n a t u r a l area.  This appears  asked to assign weights  to be the case f o r when users were  to f i v e p o s s i b l e park uses, the  f o l l o w i n g average percentages were given: 47.0  Wilderness r e c r e a t i o n area  36.8  W i l d l i f e sanctuary S c i e n t i f i c research reserve  11.1  Road access r e c r e a t i o n area  2.9  Area f o r f u t u r e resource development  2.2  Total  100.0%  Respondents view each of the three parks p r i m a r i l y as wilderness r e c r e a t i o n areas and secondarily as w i l d l i f e sanctuaries.  The f u n c t i o n of wilderness parks f o r s c i e n t i f i c  research i s also accepted i n a small way given f o r that use.  with a weight of  11.1%  Once again roads and resource developments  are given almost no c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n any of the three parks.  1  20  Perception of Wilderness Three questions d e a l t with the user conception of wilderness i n the parks:  What p r o p o r t i o n o f the park was considered as  wilderness, where users thought  the wilderness began, and how  much wilderness was needed i n the province i n general.  The  term "wilderness" was not d e f i n e d . Respondents considered over three-quarters of the area of each park as wilderness (Table XXVIII).  With allowances  f o r areas of i n t e n s i v e use and development t h i s i s a c l o s e approximation of r e a l i t y .  (In future studies the respondent  might be asked to mark on a map what areas he does consider as wildernes s.)  TABLE PERCENT OF  XXVIII  PARK CONSIDERED  Percent  Bowron  "WILDERNESS"  Garibaldi  Robson  Total  (%)  (%)  32.5  42.6  39.6  37.0  70 - 84  42.0  33.6  30.2  37.1  55-69  8.9  5.4  4.0  6.9  54  8.4  4.0  9.4  7.3  25 - 39  1 .6  0.5  2.0  1 .4  10 -- 24  1 .1  0.5  2.7  1 .2  0 - 9  0.5  0.0  0.0  0.3  No  4.9  13.5  1 2.1  8.9  81.5  77.0  77.9  More  i+O -  85  than  answer  76.1  Average  The  explored  by  question  3  Lucas  i n the  was  that a definite  and  this  concept  differed of  o f where u s e r s  such  a  by  enter  (%)  the  Quetico-Superior.  threshold of wilderness the  mode o f  travel  of  wilderness  was  The  main  finding  entry  was  reached  the  user.  t h r e s h o l d i s w e l l d e s c r i b e d by  Paul  E a r l y i n e v e r y w i l d e r n e s s t r i p t h e r e comes a moment o f a w a r e n e s s , a s u d d e n s e n s e t h a t y o u are there. I f e l t i t i n the Olympics a t the end o f a f i f t e e n - m i l e w a l k t h r o u g h t h e r a i n forest; i n t h e Q u e t i c o c a n o e c o u n t r y when we h a d p u t t h r e e o r f o u r p o r t a g e s b e t w e e n us and the l a s t s e t t l e m e n t . I t i s as i f , somewhere a l o n g t h e way, a d o o r has o p e n e d s i l e n t l y and y o u h a v e b e e n i n v i t e d t o come i n .  The Brooks*.  5  122  The question was thus asked:  "At which point on your  t r i p did you f e e l you l e f t c i v i l i z a t i o n behind and entered the "wilderness"?"  Table XXIX confirms that people do form a  mental picture of a wilderness threshold but there are wide variations i n where i t begins.  TABLE XXIX POINT OF WILDERNESS ENTRY Point  Bowron (%)  Just beyond roadhead  1 2.7  Within f i r s t two miles 2 - 4 miles 5-6  miles  7 miles or more  Garibaldi (%)  Robson (%)  Total  25-6  9.4  15.9  22.2  3.4  26.9  17.5  9.5  4.0  16.1  9.2  20.0  13.5  24.4  33.2  22.8  26.7  14.4  16.8  11 .1  4.0  14.8  Never  6.8  No answer  4.3  5.8  4.0  4.7  Median (miles)  5.1  6.0  3.5  5.3  The estimated point of wilderness entry depends i n part on the park v i s i t e d .  In Garibaldi one-quarter of the  respondents said they entered the wilderness just out ofthe parking l o t but another one-third did not reach i t u n t i l t r a v e l l i n g beyond the upper meadows and 14.4% said they never  123  found i t .  In Bowron, a l l but 6 . 8 $  entered what they considered  the wilderness at some point but the d i s t r i b u t i o n was over a l l c a t e g o r i e s .  Mt. Robson users show a s i m i l a r dispersed  d i s t r i b u t i o n but a higher p r o p o r t i o n ( 1 6 . 8 $ ) enter i t .  spread  say they never did  As w i l l be shown i n the s e c t i o n on v a r i a b l e s  affecting  use, t h i s v a r i a t i o n  accounted  f o r by d i f f e r e n t sizes of groups and lengths of stay  of the  i n response  can p a r t i a l l y be  respondents. As a general conclusion, most users do enter what they 5*3  consider wilderness a f t e r a r e l a t i v e l y short distance of miles or l e s s than a day's t r a v e l from the roadhead. A t h i r d question on wilderness perception concerned adequacy of wilderness land i n the province.  the  As well as being  ambiguous, t h i s question i s perhaps l i k e asking a music l o v e r "how  many symphonies do we need?"  Very few respondents  thought  we have enough or too much already and a l a r g e number stated they did not know.  Inferences from t h i s question are  limited.  124  TABLE XXX ADEQUACY OF WILDERNESS LAND IN THE PROVINCE Bowron  Response  Garibaldi  Robson  Total (%)  Don't r e a l l y know  29.5  19.7  38.9  28.5  Should have much more  46.3  51 .1  40.3  46.6  9.2  6.7  10.1  8.6  13.0  18.8  10.1  14.3  1 .1  2.7  0.0  Need j u s t a l i t t l e more Enough e x i s t s at present Too much e x i s t s at present  1 .4  Crowding and Capacity The e s s e n t i a l question o f concern here i s : How many people can enjoy a wilderness area at one time without destroying the wilderness aspect?  How do r e c r e a t i o n i s t s perceive other  r e c r e a t i o n i s t s i n the wilderness environment and to what degree does the presence of other users d e t r a c t from a q u a l i t y experience?  I f the harmony of wilderness camping i s i m p e r i l l e d  beyond some upper l i m i t , what i s that l i m i t ? Evaluation of crowding i n any r e c r e a t i o n system of course depends on the s t y l e of camping and the expectations of the user.  As wilderness campers a n t i c i p a t e seeing few others i t  must be emphasised that t h e i r opinions of crowding and capacity are r e l a t i v e .  As human r e l a t i o n s h i p s are a basic  determinant  125  of user s a t i s f a c t i o n and the r e c r e a t i o n a l " p r o d u c t i v i t y " of the park, a set of s i x questions the'user's evaluation o f other  were posed to i n v e s t i g a t e  users and the capacity of the  park. In Bowron Park there are strong i n d i c a t i o n s that the p s y c h o l o g i c a l c a r r y i n g capacity has been reached and that use l e v e l s are at the s a t u r a t i o n p o i n t . reported  One-half the sample  they had at l e a s t some trouble f i n d i n g campsites  (Table XXXI) and 54$ said they were bothered by crowding on the lakes or at campsites (Table XXXII).  About three-quarters  of  Bowron users also thought that the optimum use l e v e l has been reached and that the park e i t h e r can hold no more people or accommodates too many already  (2k.7%)  (51.0$)  (Table XXXIII).  TABLE XXXI "DID YOU HAVE ANY TROUBLE FINDING UNOCCUPIED CAMPSITES?" Response  Yes  - often  Bowron  ($)  Q.k  Garibaldi  ($)  Robson  ($)  Total  ($)  1 2.6  9.4  9.9  Sometimes  41.5  32.7  20.8  34.7  No  49.6  51 .6  68.5  54.0  126  TABLE  XXXII  "WERE YOU BOTHERED BY CROWDING  Bowron (%)  Response  ON ANY  TRAILS  Garibaldi (%)  OR  CAMPSITES?*  Robson (%)  Total (%)  9.8  12.6  10.7  10.8  Sometimes  45.0  38.1  22.2  38.3  No  45.0  48.4  67.1  50.5  Yes  -  often  TABLE "HOW  MANY PEOPLE DO YOU THINK THE PARK COULD H O L D ? "  Response  About  t h e same a s now  Just  a f e w more  Room  f o r twice  Too  many  No  answer  a s many  already  The Garibaldi  XXXIII  wilderness Park.  5-1% were b o t h e r e d  Here  Bowron (%)  Garibaldi (%)  Robson (%)  51.0  33.2  30.9  41 .6  16.8  17.5  31.5  20.0  27.8  20.8  15.9  24.7  16.6  12 .1  19.7  0.8  4.9  4.7  2.8  6.8  overuse problem i s s l i g h t l y 45% h a d some t r o u b l e  finding  less  Total (%)  real i n  campsites,  b y c r o w d i n g , a n d 50% t h o u g h t t h e p a r k was a t  127  its  Even i n M t . R o b s o n , 3 0 $ had  use s a t u r a t i o n p o i n t .  trouble  finding  and'42$ t h o u g h t  c a m p s i t e s , o n e - t h i r d were b o t h e r e d by  some crowding  t h e p a r k h a d e n o u g h o r t o o many v i s i t o r s  at  present. Concluding use l e v e l s  from t h e above t h r e e  are at or close  are acceptable from  questions that  t o s a t u r a t i o n , what l e v e l s  the user viewpoint?  where u s e r s have perhaps  In Garibaldi  become c o n d i t i o n e d  l a r g e numbers  of people, respondents w i l l  to 6 . 5 groups  per day (Table XXXIV).  group  o f 3 * 5 persons  size  people per day. f o u r groups Very  persons  Park, relatively  meeting  With a suggested  up  optimum  means a b o u t 2 3 -  about  o r 14- p e o p l e p e r d a y . few users thus expect t o t a l s o l i t u d e  Sixty-four  backcountry.  agree  with maintaining  o f t h r e e o r f o u r and m e e t i n g  Answers  travelling  i n the  I n the parks i n groups  four or f i v e  camping l i e s  people e n t i r e l y , but rather  to  W i l d e r n e s s campers  a low user density  o t h e r groups  per day.  that a  not i n the a b i l i t y  the chance  -  groups  three or four  t o b o t h the above q u e s t i o n s i n d i c a t e  of the appeal o f wilderness  trip  s i z e w i t h a l m o s t no one w a s h i n g  o f n i n e or more.  They e n v i s i o n  on t h e i r  b e t w e e n two and f i v e  percent o f users suggested  as a n optimum g r o u p  generally  escape  o f use  I n Bowron and R o b s o n t h e t o t a l i s l e s s  t r a v e l alone or i n groups thus  tolerate  ( T a b l e XXXV) t h i s  most r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l a c c e p t m e e t i n g per day.  to expect  present  t o meet a k i n  part to  128 group not  i n a setting that  often  found  i n the urban  was made i n t h e a b o v e  6  Klessig  affords  an ease  of social  situation.  section  A  intercourse  similar  on m o t i v a t i o n  observation  and by B u l t e n a  and  . TABLE  XXXIV  "WHAT I S AN AVERAGE NUMBER OF GROUPS YOU COULD MEET A DAY BEFORE YOU BEGAN TO F E E L CROWDED?"  Bowron  No. o f G r o u p s  Garibaldi  Robson  (%)  (%)  Total  (%)  4.9  9.4  11 .1  67.2  39.5  58.4  57.1  11 .9  32.3  24.8  20.7  3.8  21 .5  6.0  9.6  One  only  15.5  Two  -  five  Six  - nine  Ten  o r more  TABLE  XXXV  " WHAT DO YOU THINK THE OPTIMAL GROUP S I Z E I S FOR  WILDERNESS  Bowron  Size  (%)  TRAVEL?"  Garibaldi  (%)  Robson  (%)  Total  (%)  One  person  0.0  0.9  1 .3  0.5  Two  people  1 5-2  14.8  26.2  17.3  63.7  65.5  63.8  64.2  18.4  17.0  6.0  15.5  ' 0.9  0.0  1.1  Three  or  four  Five  -  eight  Nine  o r more  1 .6  1  Lastly, reaction "//as  t o the e f f e c t s o f o t h e r s  satisfaction  t h e q u e s t i o n was  and asked:  t h e r e a n y t h i n g t h a t p a r t i c u l a r l y bothered you about  trip?" 78$  as an i n d i c a t o r o f u s e r  The w i l d e r n e s s v a c a t i o n i s n o t w i t h o u t i t s  of users  made some c o m p l a i n t w i t h e v i d e n c e  t h e main c r i t i c i s m i n Robson and B o w r o n . i n r e g a r d to the f a c t t h a t  the  annoyances  -  of garbage b e i n g  This i s  where t r i p b e n e f i t s  29  understandable  are  very  dependent on an u n d i s t u r b e d n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n even t h e  slightest  amount o f r u b b i s h or b i o t i c d e t e r i o r a t i o n may have a s t r o n g e f f e c t on u s e r s '  assessment of the q u a l i t y o f the  Common c o m p l a i n t s g i v e n i n t h e traffic  i n Robson, a i r c r a f t  and b e a r t r o u b l e s  "Other" category  i n Bowron.  management  were  horse  l a n d i n g s i n G a r i b a l d i and Bowron G e n e r a l l y , c o m p l a i n t s about  a s e r s and t h e a f t e r - e f f e c t s o f o t h e r against  experience.  users  p o l i c i e s or p h y s i c a l  outweighed  other  complaints  factors.  TABLE X X X V I USER COMPLAINTS Bowron  Complaint  Garibaldi  Robson  Total  (%)  (%)  (fo)  (fo)  17.3  30.5  22.8  22.4  others  10.0  9.+  4.0  8.6  garbage  32.3  15.3  30.2  26.7  Lack of  information  3.5  .  11 .4  6.9  Lack o f  facilities  8.9  9.9  7.4  8.9  27.9  25.6  24.2  26.5  Nothing Behaviour of Evidence of  Other  1  9.4  130  Satisfaction Despite 87$  and  adverse  Return user r e a c t i o n t o crowding  of respondents  park v i s i t .  said  they were  Bowron users  w i t h 16$ r e p o r t i n g l e s s  complete  study  than complete  satisfaction with  Rating  Very  satisfied satisfied disappointed  disappointed  Since  a  return, a high  that  just  This  user  XXXVII SATISFACTION  Garibaldi  Robson  Total  ($)  ($)  ($)  ($)  84.0  91 .0  88.6  87.0  9.5  5.8  9.4  8.4  5.2  2.7  1  3-6  1.4  0.5  0.7  pleasant r e c a l l  will reinforce  p r o p o r t i o n of users  .3  0.9  a d e c i s i o n to  w o u l d be e x p e c t e d they  o r p o s s i b l y r e t u r n t o do t h e same t r i p  Indications  figure  experience.  I n f a c t , a l l b u t 3 . 4 $ o f t h e t o t a l sample s a i d definitely  lower  their  h i g h when compared t o  Bowron  Slightly  with  satisfaction.  the r e c r e a t i o n  L E V E L OF USER  Mildly  complaints,  o f u r b a n r e c r e a t i o n where o n l y 4 0 $ r e p o r t  TABLE  Very  satisfied"  report a significantly  satisfaction level i s relatively 7 Gillespie's  "very  and m i n o r  t o do s o . will  again.  o f c o n t i n u i n g f u t u r e demand a r e g i v e n b y t h e f a c t  under o n e - h a l f  o f Bowron  u s e r s , 71$ o f R o b s o n  users  131  and 91$ of G a r i b a l d i users say they d e f i n i t e l y intend to r e t u r n . G a r i b a l d i i n p a r t i c u l a r has developed a l o y a l r e t u r n c l i e n t e l e who' v i s i t the Black Tusk area frequently to enjoy i t s s p e c i a l attractions.  TABLE XXXVIII INTENTION TO RETURN Response  Bowron  Garibaldi  Robson  Total  (%)  (%)  (%)  (%)  D e f i n i t e l y yes  48.8  83.9  71 .1  63.8  Possibly  44.4  1 6.1  28.9  32.8  0.0  0.0  Unlikely  6.8  3-4  With users expressing high s a t i s f a c t i o n l e v e l s and an almost unanimous i n t e n t i o n to r e t u r n , i t would appear c r i t i c a l l e v e l s of user s a t i s f a c t i o n have not been  that  exceeded.  Some caution on t h i s conclusion i s suggested i n l i g h t of the previous findings on crowding which found that s a t u r a t i o n i s at l e a s t being approached.  Further, i t i s common, i n  retrospect to embellish the experience, suppress the annoyances, and judge the s a t i s f a c t i o n l e v e l i n a benevolent way.  There  i s a d i f f e r e n c e too i n what users say they intend to do and what they a c t u a l l y w i l l do. difficult are  Other means of measuring the  concept of user s a t i s f a c t i o n and future i n t e n t i o n  encouraged.  132  P e r c e p t i o n o f Hazards Although the elements part of the inherent f o r p a r k managers  o f danger and m y s t e r y h a v e a l w a y s appeal o f wilderness, there  t o make t h e w i l d e r n e s s  safe  i s a  been  tendency  f o r everybody.  I n Bowron P a r k f o r i n s t a n c e , a l l p o r t a g e s and c a m p s i t e s a r e m a r k e d , as a r e d a n g e r o u s  sections  o u t and motor b o a t p a t r o l s Shelters  and s a n i t a r y  to c o n t r o l  "garbage  of the r i v e r s .  cover the c i r c u i t  facilities  a minimum t h e t h r e a t e n i n g u n c e r t a i n t i e s is  i t possible  wilderness concerns  aida  program  B u t by reducing t o  of wilderness  travel,  t h a t an e s s e n t i a l p a r t o f t h e c h a l l e n g e o f  i s lost?  The q u e s t i o n t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d  t h e awareness  assessment  register  regularly.  are available  bears" i s i n operation.  Users  here  o f u s e r s t o c e r t a i n h a z a r d s and t h e  o f t h e amount o f d a n g e r t h e y f a c e  on t h e i r  wilderness  trip.  Users were p r e s e n t e d w i t h a l i s t that  t h e y might have f a c e d on t h e i r  on a s c a l e r a n g i n g  f r o m one t o f o u r .  T a b l e AA.VIA, show t h a t f o u r I t e m s danger" w h i l e other f i v e .  trip  of nine possible and asked  ratings  are given  Some d a n g e r i s s e e n  cougars, forest  exposure, storms  possible  dangers.  "no  to the  Wo d a n g e r i s s e e n f r o m s t a r v a t i o n , g e t t i n g  physical i n j u r y , w i t h the l a t t e r  them  The r e s u l t s , a s g i v e n i n  pollution or insects.  greatest  to rate  a r e seen as p r e s e n t i n g  "minor" o r "moderate"  fires,  hazards  lost,  f r o m b e a r s and  and w e a t h e r , and  two b e i n g j u d g e d a s t h e  Very few r e s p o n d e n t s  judged any o f  133  the  items  t o be  "very  Differences parks. bears  Most or  cougars  bears rate  of  and  but  storms  do  and  physical  see  lower  than  seen  i n uncontrollable acts  insulated users (Table  injury. from  assess XL).  On  any  the  from  on  in  chapter.  final  see  no or  of nature  t h r e a t s or  danger  data w i l l  observations the  the  other  pollution  serious  "no  more for  users two  changing  be  between  danger"  from  of  getting  cognizant the  storms  of  tend  to  of  getting  Some d a n g e r and  users  hazards  related  the  parks.  insects. -  lost.  of  hazards  i n Robson  i n v o l v e d t o be  meaning  exist  possibility  the whole backcountry  overall  These  are  Except  the  users  or  physical  water,  wilderness  lost  see  some p o s s i b i l i t y  on  injury  or  correctly  weather.  summary, m o s t  starving  p e r c e p t i o n of hazards  users  travelling  a l l dangers  In  i n the  Garibaldi  Bowron u s e r s , hazards  dangerous".  weather  are  - over  of wilderness  and  well 90$  none o r  t o a number  is  of  of minor other  i n the  parks  134  TABLE  XXXIX  DANGER  No  Hazard  Danger  RATINGS  Minor  Danger  Moderate Danger (J)  Dangerous (%)  (%)  (%)  Starvation  80.0  15.9  3.2  0.3  Getting  67.9  25.4  5-9  0.7  Pollution  67.4  20.1  7.2  4.9  Insects  56.4  31  9-5  2.2  Exposure  46.6  38.7  1 2.6  1 .8  Forest  44.3  31.2  16.1  8.1  Bearscougars  43.1  42.9  1 0.2  3-1  S-torms, w e a t h e r  21  49.5  24.8  3.4  Physical  12.8  45.3  33-7  7.0  lost  fires  injury  .6  .6  T A B L E XL OVERALL  DANGER RATING  Bowron (%)  Rating  OF WILDERNESS V I S I T  Garibaldi (%)  No d a n g e r  13.3  27.4  Minor  76.2  61  10.6  10.3  0.0  0.5  danger  Moderate Very  danger  dangerous  .9  Robson (%)  Total (%)  20.8  19.0  67.8  70.2  10.1  1 0.3  1  .3  0.4  135  A  Note  o n U n s o l i c i t e d Comments  Almost to  two o u t o f t h r e e  the normal response  These many  unsolicited  Branch  unsolicited  categories:  answers  given  opinions  staff  developments strong  too  many  strong any  (k)  were  people  o f the three  expressed  rather  o p p o s i t i o n was  of their  some a c c u s a t i o n s  than  expressed  parks.  experience, of bias  on  o f any s o p h i s t i c a t e d  majority  wilderness  against  about  and  remarks.  the vast  f o r the unspoiled  of  (3)  planning;  commented o n t h e l a c k  often  i n four  additional information  irrelevant  or services with  preferences  Complaints  (2)  on t h e e x c e l l e n c e  and v a r i o u s  no-one  (The  a m p l i f i c a t i o n s and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  and t h e s u r v e y ;  Almost  topics,  personnel.)  c a n be c l a s s i f i e d  management a n d p a r k  remarks  some q u e s t i o n s  many  comments f r o m t h e  to f i e l d  responses  (1)  on r e s o u r c e  a great  a l l relevant  on c e r t a i n i t e m s ;  complementary park  f o r i n the questionnaire.  for distribution  general  i n addition  h e l p f u l management s u g g e s t i o n s .  has r e c o r d e d  questionnaires  The  called  made r e m a r k s  comments d e a l t w i t h  o f them o f f e r i n g  Parks  respondents  indicating atmosphere.  t o o much d e v e l o p m e n t o r  any l a c k  o f same.  f o r any r o a d  Particularly  b u i l d i n g plans i n  136  REFERENCES  CHAPTER  VIII  H e n d e e , J . C . e t . a l . , " W i l d e r n e s s U s e r s i n the Pacific N o r t h w e s t - T h e i r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , V a l u e s and Management P r e f e r e n c e s " , F o r e s t S e r v i c e R e s e a r c h P a p e r PNW-61, 1 9 6 8 . T h i s s u g g e s t i o n h a s b e e n made b y M e r r i a m , L . C . J . , "The Bob M a r s h a l l W i l d e r n e s s A r e a o f M o n t a n a - Some S o c i o E c o n o m i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s " , J . o f F o r . , Nov., 1 9 6 4 , p. 7 9 4 . L u c a s , R.C., " R e c r e a t i o n a l C a p a c i t y of the QueticoS u p e r i o r A r e a " , F o r e s t S e r v i c e Research Paper L S - 1 5 , Sept., 1964. See f o r i n s t a n c e : E d w a r d s , R.Y., "The F u t u r e o f R e c r e a t i o n on W i l d l a n d s " , F o r e s t r y C h r o n i c l e , J u n e , 1 9 6 8 , p. 2 4 - 2 9 , and A s c h m a n , H o m e r , " P e o p l e , R e c r e a t i o n , W i l d l a n d s , and W i l d e r n e s s " , L a n d s c a p e , W i n t e r , 1 9 6 8 - 6 9 , p. 4 0 - 4 4 . B r o o k s , P a u l , i n ORRRC, W i l d e r n e s s and R e c r e a t i o n . R e p o r t 3 , S u p ' t . o f D o c u m e n t s , Wash., 1 9 6 2 , p. 3 1 .  Study  B u l t e n a , G.L., and K l e s s i g , L . L . , " S a t i s f a c t i o n i n Camping: A C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and G u i d e t o S o c i a l Research", J . of L e i s u r e Res., V.1, No. 4 , A u t u m n , 1 9 6 9 . G i l l e s p i e , G.A., and B r e w e r , D., "Estimating Satisfaction L e v e l s o f O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n i s t s " , J . o f S o i l and W a t e r C o n s . . V . 2 2 , No.6, Nov., 1 9 6 7 , p. 2 4 7 - 2 4 9 -  137  CHAPTER I X SUMMARY P R O F I L E S  General Questionnaire The f o l l o w i n g data  presented 1.  OF WILDERNESS USERS  Conclusions  i s a summary o f t h e f i n d i n g s i n Chapters  People  V to IX.  must and a r e w i l l i n g  to t r a v e l long  to reach wilderness parks. not  from the e m p i r i c a l  A park's  distances  clientele i s  only a function of i t s l o c a t i o n r e l a t i v e  population centres, but also  to  to i t s r e p u t a t i o n ,  d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s , and p o s i t i o n w i t h r e g a r d  to other  parks.  2.  Although  a l l age g r o u p s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d , t h e use o f  wilderness  parks  i s predominantly  a young a d u l t male  Wilderness  users  are disproportionately  the higher  e d u c a t i o n , i n c o m e , and  activity. 3.  groups i n s o c i e t y .  They a l s o  m e t r o p o l i t a n i n background population.  occupational  tend  than  drawn  the  t o be  more  general  from  138  k.  Only a m i n o r i t y of backcountry v a c a t i o n e r s parks consider themselves travellers.  "expert"  i n the  wilderness  For approximately o n e - h a l f  of  w i l d e r n e s s u s e r s , i n t e r e s t i n and use o f t h e s e has been g e n e r a t e d w i t h i n the p a s t f i v e 5.  years.  The t a s t e f o r w i l d e r n e s s r e c r e a t i o n i s l i n k e d w i t h childhood experience  and an e a r l y i n t r o d u c t i o n t o  w i l d e r n e s s a c t i v i t i e s by p a r e n t s  and f r i e n d s .  s c h o o l s do n o t a c t as an i n t r o d u c t o r y a g e n t wilderness-type 6.  P l a n n i n g and a n t i c i p a t i o n o f the w i l d e r n e s s - the w i l d e r n e s s  w e l l o r g a n i s e d one i n terms o f advance  to  vacation  trip is a preparation.  Length of stay i s a f u n c t i o n of d i s t a n c e few u s e r s  The  recreation.  goes on f a r i n advance  7.  parks  travelled  -  t a k e e x t e n d e d b a c k c o u n t r y t r i p s o r spend  more t i m e t h a n n e c e s s a r y  to cover  the r e q u i r e d  distance. 8.  W i l d e r n e s s t r a v e l i s n e i t h e r a group n o r an i n d i v i d u a l e n t e r p r i s e w i t h the m a j o r i t y of w i l d e r n e s s , p a r t i e s c o n s i s t i n g o f between  two and f o u r p e r s o n s .  wilderness experience  is  t y p i c a l l y sought  i n the  company o f f a m i l y groups and s m a l l c l u s t e r s friends.  The  of  close  139  9.  The  wilderness  though a  trip  is a relatively  substantial  investment  inexpensive  i n equipment  one  is  carried.  10.  Wilderness  users  backcountry  11.  take  extended  days  or  Wilderness  an  undisturbed  personal  park  activity,  social  basis. the  time  Very  typical  in  few, trip  the however,  being  four  drawn  and  to  thus  the  place  environment. a  search  and  parks  primarily  a high  They  value  appear  to  on be  for natural features,  a desire for a  special  form  interaction.  express  i n terms  gaining a  backcountry  of  closer  recreationists and  use.  the  are  benefits of  psychic  and  motives,  against  express  wilderness  physical  rapport with  their  basic primitive  enhance  are  e q u a l l y by  Consistent with  the  with  naturalness  Respondents  in  13.  campers  their  travel  annual  trips  by  of  an  considerable  less.  motivated  12.  on  spend  wilderness  a limited  facilities  and  nature.  "humanising"  only  health  the demand  that enable  and  for  1 uo  Users  are not  i n favor of controls  and  reject the n o t i o n o f c h a r g i n g an  The  wilderness i s s t i l l  viewed  as  a  regarded  primarily  as a r e a s  secondarily  their  behavior  entrance  as a r i g h t  "commons" f o r a l l t o  Wilderness recreationists  on  and  enjoy.  p e r c e i v e the  parks  for wilderness recreation  as w i l d l i f e  sanctuaries.  also reserve small areas r e s e a r c h but r e j e c t  fee.  They  of the parks  r o a d a c c e s s and  for  and  would scientific  resource  development. Wilderness  travellers  wilderness  threshold  short d i s t a n c e from Wilderness groups other  groups  of user  per day. nor  enter i t after  a  of  a  relatively  roadhead. travelling meeting  Total  of other people and  Indications  have been reached are close  picture  i n the parks f o u r or  solitude  Is  in  five  neither  desired.  satisfaction  respondents.  user  the  form a mental  o f t h r e e o r f o u r and  presence  parks  and  users envision  anticipated The  do  and  i  a basic  determinant  i s r e c o g n i s e d as are  that  such  o p t i m a l use  t h a t .the s a m p l e d  to saturation.  satisfaction,  r -  areas  Critical  however, have n o t been  of  levels  by levels the of  exceeded  141  and  almost the e n t i r e  intention reality  to r e t u r n .  19. W i l d e r n e s s  Variations  park v i s i t o r s  parks,  patterns users  noting  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s and  of response.  The f i r s t  parks  o v e r a l l danger i n  areas  wilderness  i s a generic  question  The ORRRC  i n t h e U.S.  user  group or i f they study  of  that the appeal  one w h i c h i s m o d i f i e d areas  i n their  to ask i s whether  wilderness  concluded  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the wilderness  i n each of the  similarities  a r e a homogenous 1  f r o m one a n o t h e r .  wilderness  by  minor n a t u r a l  analysis i t i s possible to construct a  of the t y p i c a l wilderness  i n the three  differ  are high.  recognise little  and  Profiles  From the p r e c e d i n g  three  very  perceived  trip.  i n User  summary p r o f i l e  definite  divergent  satisfaction levels  hazards but assess  a  T r i p a s p i r a t i o n s and  are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  corresponding  their  sample express  only  three  of  slightly  themselves.  Similarly,  2 Hendee  noted  that the study  different  researchers  recurring  similar  general provides  of wilderness  users  i n t h e U.S.  i n different  areas  turns  working  themes u n d e r l y i n g  c o n c l u s i o n here agrees a different  different wilderness wilderness  type  i n wilderness  of wilderness  clientele,  and t h e u n d e r l y i n g  experience  the generic  themes i n d e e d  appeals are  up  use.  t h a t , even though each  by  The park  to a of  similar.  slightly  142  Each park does, i n f a c t , a f f o r d a d i s t i n c t l y kind  of w i l d e r n e s s  experience  slightly different differences  between parks  background of trip.  But  m i n o r and areas  users  of  a  significant  characteristics,  demographic  and  evaluations  of  except f o r c e r t a i n instances  the  variations  are  on  the  There are  to  the b a s i s  of d i f f e r e n c e s between  the  the  themselves.  three  basic  appeals of wilderness satisfactions  parks.  Likewise,  possible land  and  the  use  of  p a r k and  the  of  the  place the  of  between importance  of condition  Not  only  of d i f f e r e n t  Further,  are  does the  the  recognition  existence  of  that is  given  wilderness  r e c r e a t i o n spectrum but  types of wilderness  presented.  important  management s t r a t e g i e s  form of r e c r e a t i o n a l wilderness  v a r i e t y w i t h i n the  opportunities  user weighting  o v e r a l l a g r e e m e n t on  f o r each park.  support.  existence  assessment  almost i d e n t i c a l  suggest that varying  i s more t h a n one  provide  the  v a r i a t i o n s i n user c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  enough however to  strong  the  and  parks.  Certain  required  are  uses w i t h i n the  d e m o n s t r a t e s an  there  society.  in trip  wilderness  are  i n tarn, caters  opinions  t h e b e n e f i t s and  of  and  explainable  The  the  group of  and,  different  the  f u r t h e r deepens  the  143  V i s i t o r s t o t h e B l a c k Tusk Meadows - G a r i b a l d i  Park  G a r i b a l d i P a r k i s a d a y - u s e o r weekend w i l d e r n e s s , o f f e r i n g r e l a t i v e l y easy a c c e s s and q u i c k escape  from the nearby  m e t r o p o l i s i n t o an u n d i s t u r b e d n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t .  In this  sense i t f u n c t i o n s as a c l o s e - i n r e g i o n a l p a r k c a t e r i n g t o a l o c a l c l i e n t e l e whose e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r a t l e a s t a q u a s i wilderness experience are adequately  fulfilled.  B e c a u s e o f t h i s p r o x i m i t y t o t h e Lower M a i n l a n d  region,  G a r i b a l d i d i s p l a y s many o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a l o c a l 3  r e c r e a t i o n a r e a as g i v e n by T o s c h e r  .  G a r i b a l d i has a s i m i l a r  p a t t e r n o f use t o t h a t f o u n d i n a s t u d y o f Oregon w i l d e r n e s s a r e a v i s i t o r s where 91$ o f u s e r s were O r e g o n i a n s who s t a y e d j u s t f o r t h e day and r e t u r n e d t o t h e i r homes l e s s t h a n 100 4 m i l e s away  .  A l t h o u g h i t a l s o r e c e i v e s s i g n i f i c a n t day u s e ,  G a r i b a l d i p r o v i d e s p r e d o m i n a n t l y o v e r n i g h t use on weekends w i t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same p r o p o r t i o n o f u s e r s drawn f r o m  within  t h e same d i s t a n c e . The G a r i b a l d i u s e r i s n o t o n l y f r o m t h e c i t y b u t has been r a i s e d i n a p r e d o m i n a n t l y u r b a n e n v i r o n m e n t .  He i i a  r e t u r n u s e r and has spent l e s s t h a n 2 weeks p l a n n i n g h i s v i s i t . He t r a v e l s w i t h a s m a l l group o f f r i e n d s and camps o u t f o r two n i g h t s i n the park.  The c o s t o f h i s t r i p a v e r a g e s o n l y  ^16.00.  V i s i t o r s t o G a r i b a l d i tend t o be drawn from a w i d e r c r o s ^ - s e c t i o n of the socioeconomic  c l a s s e s of the l o c a l r e g i o n  1¥+  than  user?  levels the  to  the  other  are h i g h bat  other  two  two  still  parks.  parks.  significantly  Y o u n g e r age  proportion with  " s t u d e n t s " as  category.  Very  few  wilderness  travellers;  on h i s f i r s t  users  that Garibaldi  an  more e x t e n s i v e w i l d e r n e s s The o f any  Garibaldi  facilities  Is  g i v e s no  the  support  either  found  of  i n greater  almost  experienced  one  in five  cases  is a  novice  i t is possible  introductory training  i s not  i n the park  access  than  ground  for  vacations.  user  of  i n favor of  and  road  i n o p p o s i t i o n t o any  and  the i n t r o d u c t i o n  is particularly  trail  negative  c o n d i t i o n s and  to the base of  t h e meadows.  t h e management m e a s u r e s  f o r the  i m p o s i t i o n of  the  an  He  suggested  entrance  fee  to  park. The  area  Garibaldi  for wilderness  sanctuary. as  o f an  are  In these  towards f u r t h e r improvements of possibility  groups are  in Garibaldi  trip.  provides  lower  income  t h e m o s t common o c c u p a t i o n a l  i n fact,  wilderness  E d u c a t i o n a l and  being  He  user  r e c r e a t i o n and  perceives  " w i l d e r n e s s " but  has  gone beyond  has  an  the  consistently  the  even chance of being  a campsite tolerated affected.  w i t h no without In  trouble. his level  spite  of  park  s e c o n d a r i l y as  g r e a t e s t percentage  does not  campsite  views the  feel  a r e a and bothered Up of  he  past by  a of  enters the  per  he  the  park  i t until  and  of  day  are  s a t i s f a c t i o n being  <^ome m i n o r c o m p l a i n t s  an  wildlife  treeline.  crowding  to 2 3 people  as  is  he He  finding  seriously satisfied  145  w i t h h i s park the near  visit  users  a l t h o u g h t h e y do  weather c o n d i t i o n s , no  very l i t t l e  expected  hazards  r e c o g n i s e minor dangers and  forest  relations  important.  to return  involved i n i n the form  fires.  In  the of  In retrospect  "feeling  that  users  than  search f o r natural features and  k i n group  social  "seeing  "escape  "solitude"  natural  from  are l e s s  to users i n other parks p r e s e n t and  from  a trip  civilisation" for his  important  f o r obvious  little  to G a r i b a l d i  t e r m s o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l h e a l t h and "natural" world.  find  -  wildlife  to  reasons  is  found  area. Benefits  the  the area  t h e most i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s  and  t h e r e a r e more p e o p l e  the  a  close to nature",  "Viewing w i l d l i f e "  Garibaldi  by  for visiting  Specifically,  " w i l d e r n e s s camping" are  visit.  exist  for personal a c t i v i t y  also  landscape", and  of reasons  i s motivated mostly  with desire  "solitude"  and  He feels  h i m s e l f o r o t h e r s on  "the view  from  the  was he  not  looking  are given  primarily  increased rapport with f o r or expecting  His m a i n r e c a l l  environment  rusk".  an  Park  d i d n o t l e a r n much a b o u t  the t r i p .  a f e a t u r e of the n a t u r a l or  be  major c h a l l e n g e s were p e r c e i v e d .  the user  in  see  storms,  A combination  in  can d e f i n i t e l y  future.  Garibaldi trip  and  s u c h as  of  the  to  camping, trip  "the a l p i n e  is flora"  146  V i s i t o r s to Bowron Lakes Park The Bowron Lakes canoe t r i p i s one of the longest and most unique wilderness vacations offered i n the B.C.  park system.  Its distance from major centres of population and i t s 7^ mile length r e q u i r e a major e f f o r t i n o r g a n i s a t i o n , time and equipment.  special  The uniqueness of i t s physiography, o f f e r i n g the  only canoe t r i p of i t s type west of the Quetico draws people from a l l over western North America.  Bowron Lakes park thus  functions to provide an extended backcountry experience through an- extensive wilderness area by a r e l a t i v e l y uncommon (at l e a s t i n western Canada) means of wilderness t r a v e l . Almost two out of three users to Bowron Park o r i g i n a t e w i t h i n B r i t i s h Columbia, with most of these coming from the Greater Vancouver area, 500  miles d i s t a n t .  The remainder of  users are Americans, p r i m a r i l y from Washington and C a l i f o r n i a . The t y p i c a l user spends seven weeks planning the t r i p which he completes i n eight days plus t r a v e l time to and from the park.  The t r i p requires an expenditure of $ 6 0 and an  investment i n equipment of just under $ 1 0 0 . The user himself i s most l i k e l y a c o l l e g e graduate, Is employed  i n a managerial or p r o f e s s i o n a l occupation and earns  over $ 1 3 , 0 0 0 a year.  He has, more often than not, been brought  up i n a small town or r u r a l environment than i n a c i t y .  He has  about ten years wilderness t r a v e l experience and most often  15+7  r a t e s himself as an "intermediate" wilderness t r a v e l l e r . The v i s i t o r to the Bowron comes f o r much the same reasons and a c t i v i t i e s as the v i s i t o r to G a r i b a l d i Park with the exception that " s o l i t u d e " and "viewing w i l d l i f e " are of greater importance  to him.  These reasons are at l e a s t  a n t i c i p a t e d more i n a t r i p of such l e n g t h and remoteness. B e n e f i t s o f the t r i p s however are assessed the same. The Bowron user r e c a l l s i n about equal proportions a feature of the n a t u r a l environment  such as "a sunset on Lanezi  Lake" or a personal experience such as "running the Is sac River". This l a s t example i s mentioned by a great number o f people as being the most e x c i t i n g h i g h l i g h t of the t r i p .  On the whole  very l i t t l e danger i s perceived although " p h y s i c a l i n j u r y " , "storms and weather" and "bears" are seen as minor hazards. The Bowron user would encourage the development of t r a i l s g i v i n g access to alpine areas of the park as well as more sanitary f a c i l i t i e s at campsites. charging an entrance fee and amount.  $5«00  Only one-third disagree with i s suggested as a reasonable  There i s strong support f o r the r e g u l a t i o n l i m i t i n g  group size to s i x and only one-third would disagree with r a t i o n i n g use.  Less than one-half agree with the e x i s t i n g  p r a c t i c e of using motor boats f o r park p a t r o l .  The user i n  Bowron Park i s w i l l i n g to d i s c i p l i n e h i s behavior, he does recognise the need f o r some basic f a c i l i t i e s , and he does support  148  management procedures that w i l l help maintain the wilderness s p i r i t hy c o n t r o l l i n g use. The Bowron Park user weights the p o s s i b l e uses of the park i n the same manner as users to the other two parks.  He  s i m i l a r l y f e e l s the greatest proportion of the park i s "wilderness" and enters i t a f t e r the second portage.  He Is  more often than not bothered by crowding and has some difficulty  f i n d i n g an unoccupied campsite.  He w i l l  tolerate  meeting two to f i v e other groups per day with an average size of-two canoes.  He does not think the park can hold any more  people at present and g e n e r a l l y wishes management to keep the park "as i t i s " .  The Bowron user rates h i s experience as being  a very s a t i s f a c t o r y one and states there i s strong l i k e l i h o o d that he w i l l r e t u r n to t r y i t again.  V i s i t o r s to the Berg Lake Area - Mount Robson Park Mount Robson, "The Monarch of the Rockies", i s probably, from the  Berg Lake side, the most s i n g u l a r l y spectacular peak  contained i n any park i n Canada.  The r e p u t a t i o n of Mt. Robson  as the highest peak i n the Canadian Rockies has long a t t r a c t e d a l p i n i s t s , o u t f i t t e r s and backpackers to explore i t s beauties. With the d e c l i n e of extended p a c k t r a i n t r a v e l i n the mountains and the opening of the northern Trans-Canada Highway through the park, the Berg Lake t r i p has become one of the s i x or seven f a v o r i t e backpacking t r i p s i n the Rockies.  149  On the b a s i s of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r i g i n s of i t s users, Mt. Robson could be a n a t i o n a l park.  A l l but 13$  of i t s users  come from outside the province that administers i t .  Mt. Robson  Park f u n c t i o n s as one element of the 9,000 square mile n a t i o n a l and p r o v i n c i a l park complex that b u f f e r s the Alberta/B.C. border.  The p a t t e r n of use i n Robson i n turn i s not  specific  or d e s t i n a t i o n oriented as i s the case f o r Bowron and  Garibaldi.  Rather, the t r i p to Robson i s part of a package v i s i t  (except  for  some l o c a l A l b e r t a use) to the Canadian Rockies by people  on extended  vacations through the mountain parks system.  The arduous 13 mile distance from the highway to Berg Lake precludes any day v i s i t s to the area.  The average  user  hikes there i n a day, stays over at Berg Lake f o r two days, then returns to the roadhead.  and  The median amount of planning  involved i s about three weeks and the t r i p cost i s around  $50.  The t y p i c a l user of Robson Park i s a more accomplished and committed user than h i s counterpart i n G a r i b a l d i or Bowron Parks.  Although most users r a t e themselves  as "intermediates",  there are twice as many "experts" i n Robson as there are i n Garibaldi.  Robson users tend to t r a v e l i n smaller groups with  the majority of p a r t i e s made up of just two persons. greater investment  He has a  i n equipment and takes more wilderness  per year than users i n e i t h e r Bowron or G a r i b a l d i . more d e f i n i t e i n h i s answer as to why  trips  He i s also  he v i s i t s the park with  fewer " u n c l a s s i f i a b l e " and "no response" answers.  Of users i n  150  the three parks the Robson user i s the keenest on "photography" and " s o l i t u d e " as reasons f o r the v i s i t . where " f i s h i n g " i s almost  I t i s the only park  insignificant.  Ihe background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Robson Park wilderness users are also d i s t i n c t i v e .  He has an average of almost 17  years of schooling, the equivalent of a post-graduate  degree.  "Managers and P r o f e s s i o n a l s " are the most common o c c u p a t i o n a l group with "students" making up most of the remainder. average f a m i l y income i s over $ 1 2 , 0 0 0 a year.  Ihe  The Robson user  i s . a l s o more urban i n background than users i n the other  two  5 parks which gives support to Catton's  p r o p o s i t i o n that urban  backgrounds tend to favor the development of "wilderness p u r i s t " a t t i t u d e s more so than r u r a l ones. Robson users are l e s s w i l l i n g to d i s c i p l i n e  their  behaviour and do not see the need f o r any of the management measures suggested. facilities  Nor do they wish the development of  although there i s some demand f o r "more t r a i l s "  "primitive shelters".  and  Robson i s the one park where sanitary  f a c i l i t i e s are not provided and most users do not think they should be. Robson users give s i m i l a r weighting to p o s s i b l e uses of the park although, most l i k e l y because of t h e i r higher educational status, they tend to give s l i g h t l y more support for  " s c i e n t i f i c " uses.  151  Despite  the existence of a road through  three-quarters o f the park i s left  hiking  t h a n i n Bowron  percentage  also f e l t  behind  that  sooner  a t Robson  or Garibaldi  they never  ( w i t h i n two  fact,  left I t .  a p l a c e t o camp n o r was h e b o t h e r e d  one-half of the users  more p e o p l e . and  thought  respondent  the park  Users were v e r y s a t i s f i e d  despite the distance required indicated  hours  though a higher  The u s e r i n R o b s o n P a r k d i d n o t h a v e much finding  over  i s c o n s i d e r e d as " w i l d e r n e s s " .  Civilisation time)  the park,  trouble  by crowding. could s t i l l  with their  In absorb  experience  t o r e a c h t h e p a r k , n o t one  he w o u l d n o t r e t u r n  t o the area again.  REFERENCES CHAPTER IX  Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Wilderness and Recreation. Study Report 3 , Sup't. of Documents, Wash., 1962. Hendee, J.C., e t . a l . , "Wilderness Users i n the P a c i f i c Northwest - Their C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , Values and Management Preferences", Forest Service Research Paper PNW-61 , 1968. Toscher, S.R., "The A p p l i c a t i o n of Theories of S o c i a l Behavior to the Explanation of V a r i a b i l i t y of Use Patterns Within a Recreation Complex", unpub. Ph.D. t h e s i s , U. of Michigan, 1969. Burch, W.R., J r . , and Wenger, W.D., "The S o c i a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of P a r t i c i p a n t s i n Three Styles of Family Camping", Forest Service Research Paper PNW-4-8, 1967. Catton, W.R., "People Who Hate Crowds Don't Hate People", Paper given t o the Fourth Colorado Open Space Conf., Estes Park, Oct., 1967.  153  CHAPTER  X  VARIABLES AFFECTING USE  Introduction Thus f a r , t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s u r v e y have been p r e s e n t e d on t h e b a s i s o f area v i s i t e d t y p i c a l user given. independent  and a d e s c r i p t i v e  summary p r o f i l e  Each park has been c o n s i d e r e d as an  v a r i a b l e i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f the d a t a .  I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e to manipulate o t h e r u s e r g r o u p i n g s based  on t r i p  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of respondents. different and  of the  groups  and  the data to c o n s t r u c t  socio-economic  The b r o a d  concept i s t h a t  characterize different recreation  t h a t i f we know what groups  use and r e a c t  activities  to s p e c i f i c  a c t i v i t i e s we c a n b e t t e r a n t i c i p a t e t h e demands made on t h e 1  resource.  As Rosenburg  puts i t :  In any attempt t o s y s t e m a t i z e e n v i r o n m e n t a l needs we t r y and d i s c o v e r d i s t i n c t c a t e g o r i e s o f p e o p l e , whose needs show c e r t a i n common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , groups and sub-groups t o whom common p l a n n i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a p p l y . I t i s thus v i t a l  f o r park p l a n n e r s t o be aware o f the  d i f f e r e n t types o f response different parameters  types o f users. are noted,  to t h e park environment  among  Moreover, when changes i n group  such as s h i f t s  i n the age o r o c c u p a t i o n  s t r u c t u r e , the p l a n n e r w i l l be b e t t e r a b l e t o a n t i c i p a t e demand.  future  15-+ S u c h q u e s t i o n s a s t h e f o l l o w i n g may b e a s k e d : does l i f e  style,  recreation  choice?  degree of user appreciative be  regional  The  preference?  response. basis  second  objective  factors  To a t t e m p t  independent  user  or p r e d i c t o r  experience  important  (park v i s i t e d  of this  analysis  influence  then  i sto  how p e o p l e  variation  react to  i nquestionnaire  groupings, which  variables.  on t h e  were viewed  i n mind  i t i s possible  the extent  t o which  t o I d e n t i f y which  i s c a t e g o r i z e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g  ones  dimensions  i s c o n s i d e r e d V]_): Vy  Education  V-^  Age  Vy  Years  of wilderness  V"^  Regional origin  Vq  Total  group  Commitment  V^o  Environment  Proficiency  V ] ^ Sex  their  they  i n questionnaire response.  length of stay  these user  as  By c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e  V2  V£  this  process?  i n reducing variation data  affect  t o some  a n d how m i g h t  t h e d a t a were aggregated  one a t a t i m e , k e e p i n g  The  All  which  this,  may b e i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d , are  background  g r o u p s a r e more p e r c e p t i v e o r  to assist i n explaining  of t e n d i f f e r e n t  factors  What  i n the planning  examine s e l e c t e d  or c u l t u r a l  Is educational status predictive  of the recreation  considered  wilderness,  origin  How  size of upbringing  c a t e g o r i e s v/ere t h e n c r o s s - c l a s s i f i e d  questionnaire responses.  Chi-square  tests  travel  against  o f independence  155  and T - t e s t s o f d i f f e r e n c e s between means make i t p o s s i b l e to determine which f a c t o r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e response.  The  chi'-square s t a t i s t i c i s i d e a l f o r t h i s purpose as the primary i n t e r e s t i s i n determining what d i f f e r e n c e s , i f any, there are among d i f f e r e n t categories  of users when compared on the above  s o c i a l and t r i p dimensions.  Then, on the basis of the number  of s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s and the l e v e l s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , i t i s possible  to d i s t i n g u i s h which seem to be important  i n explaining  indicators  wilderness r e c r e a t i o n use and which do not.  Chi-square does not, however, show the quantity of v a r i a t i o n a t t r i b u t a b l e to each v a r i a b l e , and thus does not provide an o b j e c t i v e basis f o r ranking the importance of variables.  As the concern at t h i s point i s only i n the  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f v a r i a b l e s , the exact ranking i s not important. S i m i l a r l y , no attempt i s made here to e s t a b l i s h the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the 11 v a r i a b l e s , and each w i l l be considered  separately.  Response bv Length of Stay How does the length influence vacation?  of time a person spends i n the backcountry  h i s perception and assessment of the wilderness Is the experience of camping out just one night and  then returning  to the c i t y a d i f f e r e n t one from spending a week  or more i n the backcountry?  156  To I n v e s t i g a t e v a r i a t i o n s i n response  among those  spending d i f f e r e n t lengths of time i n the parks, the sample was*divided  i n t o those staying just one or two days,  those  staying three to eight days and those staying nine days or more.  Caution i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of d i f f e r e n c e s i s urged, due  to the strong i n f l u e n c e o f park v i s i t e d on length of stay. Those i n the category "nine days or more" are almost a l l Bowron Park users, while those i n tha short stay category are almost a l l from G a r i b a l d i Park.  The middle category i s a  mixture o f users from a l l three parks. not independent  Length o f stay then i s  o f the r e c r e a t i o n s i t e (V^ ) and appropriate  caveats are given where a p p l i c a b l e . F i r s t l y , as i s not the case i n V a r i a b l e 1, the demographic a t t r i b u t e s of education, occupation and environment of upbringing do not vary with user d e c i s i o n s on the l e n g t h o f stay.  That i s , v i s i t o r s with d i f f e r e n t occupations, education  l e v e l s and childhood residence are found i n equal proportions i n a l l three length of stay c a t e g o r i e s .  Income l e v e l s , however,  are r e l a t e d with l e n g t h of stay, with long stay users r e p o r t i n g higher average  incomes ($13,530 vs. $12,640 and $10,910 f o r  medium and short stay u s e r s ) .  Income does have some e f f e c t on  how long the wilderness vacation w i l l  last.  Though the average number of years of wilderness t r a v e l experience i s s i m i l a r , more long stay users consider  themselves  "experts" than medium or short stay users (Table XLI).  Thus,  157  a b i l i t y and l e n g t h o f stay are also s i g n i f i c a n t l y  related.  TABLE XLI WILDERNESS PROFICIENCY - BY LENGTH OF STAY Stay (days)  Expert (%)  Intermediate  Novice (%)  N  1 - 2  15-4  61 .5  23.1  169  3 - 8  18.8  70.8  10.5  421  +  21.8  64.8  13.4  142  9  Those staying f o r longer periods t r a v e l i n l a r g e r p a r t i e s and are p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more o f t e n with an organised group.  Long stay users also r e p o r t a greater investment i n  equipment and a higher average cost f o r t h e i r  trip.  Length of stay a l s o a f f e c t s the user assessment of h i s motivations and b e n e f i t s of wilderness t r a v e l .  Long stay users  give s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher r a t i n g s f o r f i v e of the p o s s i b l e reasons f o r v i s i t i n g the park.  The longer the stay the greater  were expectations of the f o l l o w i n g wilderness values: "wilderness camping", "viewing w i l d l i f e " , " f i s h i n g " , "do something d i f f e r e n t " and " s o l i t u d e " .  At the same time, long  stay users rated two reasons as l e s s important: and  "exploration of area".  "exercise"  The lower r a t i n g of "exploration" by  long stay users i s consistent with the lower r a t i n g of that reason by Bowron Park v i s i t o r s .  158  TABLE XLII MOTIVATION - BY LENGTH OF STAY (% r a t i n g "very important") Viewing Wildlife  SoliDoing tude Something Different  Explor- Exercise ation of Area  Stay (days)  Wilderness Camping  Fishing  1 - 2  62.1  12.4  58.6  43.8  47.9  66.9  69.8  3 - 8  85.3  18.1  71.5  45.8  66.5  63.9  58.7  9 +  93.7  36.6  83.8  59.2  69.7  50.0  53.5  The longer the stay the higher are three b e n e f i t s of wilderness t r a v e l :  "learned more about camping", "learned more  about s e l f , others" and " s o l i t u d e " .  I t appears that these  b e n e f i t s are only gained a f t e r a c e r t a i n length o f time i n the backcountry and that the "learning-by-doing" process has a d e f i n i t e time dimension. TABLE XLIII BENEFITS - BY LENGTH OF STAY (% r a t i n g "very important") Stay (days)  Learned More About Camping  Learned More About Self, Others  Solitude  1 - 2  19.5  29.6  51 . 5  3 - 8  34.0  38.0  63.7  9 +  44.4  47.9  65.5  159  No matter what the length of stay, s a t i s f a c t i o n are almost i d e n t i c a l .  S a t i s f a c t i o n , - of course,  levels  i s r e l a t i v e to  a n t i c i p a t e d rewards which does not mean that the s a t i s f a c t i o n derived from a short stay i s equal from a long  stay.  expectations  to the s a t i s f a c t i o n derived  Rather, the conclusion i s that the  f o r each type of t r i p are s a t i s f i e d equally w e l l .  Almost every question on f a c i l i t y i n t r o d u c t i o n s and management measures v a r i e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y with length o f stay. Generally, long  stay users are more i n favor o f more f a c i l i t i e s  than short stay users.  Those who stay longer  following f a c i l i t i e s i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher "More campsites", "better t r a i l s " , toilets".  support the proportions:  "more t r a i l s " and " p i t  At the same time, s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower support i s  given to " f i r e p l a c e s " and " i n t e r p r e t i v e  signs".  The f i n d i n g s  suggest that the longer the stay i n the park the greater the demand f o r basic f a c i l i t i e s . TABLE XLIV FACILITY OPINIONS - BY LENGTH OF STAY (% r a t i n g "needed") Stay More Better More Pit Fireplaces Interpretive (days) Campsites T r a i l s T r a i l s T o i l e t s Signs 1  -  2  2 7 . 8  7.1  4 4 . 4  3 3 . 7 -  2 5 . 4  2 8 . 4  3 - 8  2 6 . 6  2 0 . 7  4 9 . 2  41.8  19.0  2 3 . 3  9  3 5 . 9  16.9  64.1  4 7 . 9  16.9  +  1 6 . 9  160  A relationship campsite preference preferring  also exists  with  t o camp a l o n e  Long  stay users  a higher  proportion  vs. 50.3$  (6k,8% will  between l e n g t h  of long  i n return f o r assurances of a high  experience.  Fewer l o n g hunting"  The s u g g e s t e d  averages $ 5 . 0 0 , the  short  "rationing  f o r t h e medium  stay user  allowing  u s e " and an  entrance f e e by t h e long stay user  i ti s $0.90.  entrance f e e i s charged  This  i t should  users).  quality  and " s e l e c t i v e l o g g i n g " , b u t more  w i t h a " r e s e r v a t i o n system", fee".  agree w i t h  stay  users  restrictions  more r e a d i l y  "controlled  stay  f o r short  a c c e p t management  stay users  o f s t a y and  stay  agree  "entrance user  i t i s $3.40 and f o r  suggests  be r e l a t e d  that  i f an  t o l e n g t h o f time  spent i n the park.  TABLE XLV MANAGEMENT O P I N I O N S - BY LENGTH OF (% s t a t i n g " a g r e e " )  Stay Entrance Reservation (days) Fee System  Rationing Use  STAY  Controlled Hunting  Selective Logging  1  -  2  17.2  13.0  16.0  24.3  17.8  3  -  8  28.5  20.0  27.6  19.2  10.0  9  +  48.6  36.6  36.6  10.6  5.6  User p e r c e p t i o n with length of stay.  o f where t h e w i l d e r n e s s  More s h o r t  stay users  i s entered  enter  varies  immediately  161  (28.4% v s . 1 0 . 6 % f o r l o n g 3.5%  vs.  o f long  entirely delayed will  clear  stay users).  the entry  or never enter  The r e l a t i o n s h i p  but the longer  the stay  p o i n t and t h e g r e a t e r  (16.6%  i s not  i n the p a r k t h e more the likelihood i t  e v e n t u a l l y be r e a c h e d . User p e r c e p t i o n  although short  again  stay users  proportions  report  as l o n g those  they  of long  on short  trips  This  Stay (days)  by crowding, b u t higher  reported  stay users  they  "sometimes" do.  were n o t as  i s higher  than f o r those  campsites  - Often  on longer  Sometimes  CAMPSITES?"  No  (%)  (%)  (%)  1 -  2  16.0  30.8  49.1  3 -  8  9.5  30.4  59.4  3.5  50.7  45.1  9  +  ones.  XLVI  YOU HAVE ANY TROUBLE F I N D I N G UNOCCUPIED - BY LENGTH OF STAY  Yes  bothered  suggests t h a t t h e use t o l e r a n c e f o r  TABLE "DID  More  finding  o r d i d n o t h a v e a s much t r o u b l e f i n d i n g  stay users.  differ  ones.  " o f t e n " have t r o u b l e  stay users short  and c a p a c i t y a l s o  a r e n o t simple  "often" bothered  On t h e w h o l e , crowding  o f crowding  the relationships  c a m p s i t e s and were  by  stay users)  162  TABLE XLVII "WERE YOU BOTHERED BY CROWDING ON ANY TRAILS OR CAMPSITES?" - BY LENGTH OF STAY Stay (days)  Yes - Often ($)  Sometimes ($)  No ($)  1 - 2  13.0  32.5  53.3  3-8  10.5  36.8  52.5  9 +  7.8  49.3  43.0  That short stay users have a higher use tolerance than long stay users i s suggested i n responses to several other questions on c a p a c i t y .  Short stay users w i l l meet a maximum  of 6.6 groups per day (approximately crowded.  The corresponding  25 people) before  feeling  medians f o r medium and long  stay  users are 4 . 5 and 4 . 0 groups per day. More short stay users agree that the parks could hold more people - 54.4$ i n comparison to 32.8$ of medium stay users and only 23.9$ o f long stay users. Long stay users are not only l e s s t o l e r a n t of other users but they are more s e n s i t i v e to t h e i r e f f e c t s . 31.9$ of short stay users reported no complaints,  While  only 21.4$  of medium and 13.4$ of long stay users were not bothered by anything.  S p e c i f i c a l l y , "behavior  of others" and "garbage"  were the two items that r a i s e d approximately complaints  among the long stay users.  twice as many  163  On t h e p e r c e p t i o n higher and  r a t i n g s t o three  o f dangers, long  items:  i s still  given  proportionately  "storms  Though t h e o v e r a l l  danger  as "minor" hy most r e s p o n d e n t s ,  more l o n g  stay users  Users agree that the longer travels  gave  "hears and c o u g a r s " ,  w e a t h e r " and " p h y s i c a l i n j u r y " .  rating  stay users  i n the backcountry  give  one s t a y s  rating.  and t h e f u r t h e r one  the greater  TABLE  a higher  are the hazards  Involved.  XLVIII  OVERALL DANGER R A T I N G - BY LENGTH OF  STAY  Stay (days)  No D a n g e r (%)  Minor (%)  1 - 2  29.0  62.7  7.7  0.6  3 - 8  18.1  70.1  11 .k  0.5  9  10.6  79.6  9.9  0.0  +  In  summary, d e s p i t e  Moderate (%)  the inter-relationship  l e n g t h o f s t a y and park v i s i t e d ,  in  use.  wilderness  greater  stay users  t r a v e l , have  to  other  in  general.  and v i s i t o r  users  motivations,  proficient  receive  a r e more i n f a v o r o f b a s i c  c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s , and a r e more  and t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e w i l d e r n e s s  More r e s e a r c h  stay users  backcountry  affecting  a r e g e n e r a l l y more  stronger  b e n e f i t s from the t r i p ,  facilities  short  Long  variable  i s urged.  Dangerous (%)  between  the l e n g t h o f the  v a c a t i o n does appear t o be an i m p o r t a n t wilderness  Very  sensitive  environment  on d i f f e r e n c e s between l o n g  s t a y and  1 o4-  Response by  Age  2  As  Sessoms  is  one  outdoor age  3  and  o f the  recreation.  This  on  49 y e a r s ,  into  and  The  to the three  50 y e a r s  results  expected,  groups.  while over  To  categories:  One-half one-half  e x p l o r e the i n f l u e n c e  10  respondents  t o 29 y e a r s , 30  to  older.  s h o w t h a t age  i s indeed  i n response.  o c c u p a t i o n and  in  shown t h a t , a l t h o u g h a l l  an  First,  the demographic background  Education,  cycle  participation  wilderness experience,  and  life  wilderness recreation i s  age  explaining variations  i n the  influencing  a young a d u l t a c t i v i t y .  response  were g r o u p e d  position  s t u d y has  groups are r e p r e s e n t e d ,  o f age  age  have n o t e d ,  strongest factors  predominantly  in  Burch  important as would  o f t h e y o u n g e r age middle  be  of each group v a r i e d .  income l e v e l s were h i g h e r  of the  factor  and  g r o u p were  u p p e r age  i n the  older  "students"  groups  were  "managers and p r o f e s s i o n a l s " . Environment o f u p b r i n g i n g does not groups but age  means o f w i l d e r n e s s  i n t r o d u c t i o n does.  g r o u p s w e r e more o f t e n i n t r o d u c e d b y  "friends" by  the  (34.1%)  "literature"  (18.9%)  and  "other"  an o c c u p a t i o n a l r e a s o n .  not  introduced to wilderness e a r l y  other  factors.  "parents"  age Younger  (25.3%)  and  w h i l e o l d e r u s e r s w e r e i n t r o d u c e d more o f t e n  was  ' acquaintances,  vary between  participation  This  (22.6%),  suggests In l i f e  in later  life  w h i c h i n most  t h a t i f people by may  parents be  cases are  or  elicited  by  165  The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e w i l d e r n e s s by  age g r o u p .  planning the  their  older  was 4 . 0 5.4  and  The y o u n g e r trips  time  than those o f  T h e m e d i a n s t a y o f t h e 10-29 t h e m i d d l e and o l d e r  varied  age  group 5*5  age g r o u p s s t a y e d  days, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Median time  the  also  s p e n d much l e s s  which are of l e s s duration  age g r o u p .  days, while  age g r o u p  trip  spent p l a n n i n g  the t r i p  was 3.8  y o u n g e s t age g r o u p , 11.1 w e e k s f o r t h e m i d d l e  weeks f o r  and  14.0  weeks f o r t h e o l d e s t . On a n a n n u a l b a s i s y o u n g e r p e o p l e more t r i p s part of  of shorter  duration  take  significantly  than older people.  This  be due t o s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f a c t o r s a s w e l l a s a  the trend  t o more f r e q u e n t  TABLE  but shorter  A v e r a g e No. of Wilderness Trips/Year  continuation vacations.  XLIX  ANNUAL P A R T I C I P A T I O N - BY AGE  Age Group  wilderness  may i n  Average Length o f Wilderness Trip  GROUP  Total Participation Days/Year  N  10 - 29  4.8  3.8  18  396  30 - 49  4.1  3.9  16  281  50 +  2.9  4.6 .  13  53  166  There were s i g n i f i c a n t the  cost  of the wilderness  equipment  v a r i a t i o n s between groups on  trip,  but smaller v a r i a t i o n si n  investment.  TABLE L T R I P COST AND EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT - BY AGE GROUP  Age  Group  Average T r i p Cost  Average  Investment  ($)  ($)  10  - 29  35.40  84.00  30  - 49  49.00  90.00  50  +  93.70  75.00  The rated  fact  similar  proportions  o f young  t h e m s e l v e s as " e x p e r t s " o r " n o v i c e s "  wilderness  ability  Aside are  that  important  of d i f f e r e n t motivated friends"  from these  demographic and t r i p  variations i n motivations,  by a search  The m i d d l e  for "solitude"  on these  orientation  to wilderness  two i t e m s  and " b e i n g  perceptions  w i t h f a m i l y and  The e x p l a n a t i o n o f  may b e d u e t o t h e d i f f e r e n t  at different  desire f o r"solitude"  and  there  a g e g r o u p w e r e more  stages  o f the l i f e  t h e young n o r t h e o l d a r e i n t h e l a b o u r  have l e s s  that  differences  opinions  e i t h e r t h e young o r t h e o l d .  differences  Neither  suggests  i s not r e l a t e d t o age.  age g r o u p s .  than  and o l d  than  those  cycle.  f o r c e and perhaps  i n middle age.  167  M i d d l e - a g e d p e o p l e a r e a l s o more l i k e l y family  groups than other  motivation  people  t o be t r a v e l l i n g i n  and c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y  rate  that  higher.  TABLE L I M O T I V A T I O N - B Y AGE GROUP (% r a t i n g " v e r y important")  Age  Group  Solitude  Being with Family, Friends  10 - 29  60.0  26.5  30 - 49  70.8  h2oh  50 +,  43.4  34.0  Consistent  with their  g r o u p s show d i f f e r e n t of the wilderness important" aged  evaluations of "solitude"  trip.  "Solitude" i s rated  age  as a b e n e f i t  as a  "very middle-  and 45.5% o f t h e o l d .  important  benefit  "learned  by t h e young  middle-aged  more a b o u t c a m p i n g " was r a t e d  ( 6 0 . 7 % ) i n much h i g h e r  (31.1%) o r o l d ( 7 . 4 % ) .  "learning-by-doing" of  different  b e n e f i t b y 60.6% o f t h e y o u n g , 6 5 . 5 % o f t h e  The  the  stated motives,  process  This  i s significantly  proportions  as than  suggests that the a f f e c t e d by age  respondent. Opinions  on f a c i l i t i e s  a n d management m e a s u r e s  differed  168  only  i n minor ways.  Older  visitors  g a v e more s u p p o r t  to the  i m p o s i t i o n o f a n e n t r y f e e ( a l t h o u g h t h i s may b e m o r e t'o t h e h i g h e r facilities  income o f t h i s  group) and a l s o thought  were a g r e a t e r need  The o l d a r e a l s o w i l l i n g  amount i f a n e n t r a n c e  f e e i s charged.  users  tend  older  people.  crowding  relating  t o have a lower  t o crowding  either  o f the other  L i k e w i s e , fewer people  other  a r e more s e n s i t i v e wilderness  (54.0$, 44.4$ a n d  and o l d , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  and a l s o suggested  f o r group t r a v e l . seek  age groups  i n t h e youngest age group thought t h e  c o u l d h o l d more p e o p l e  fewer o f t h e young they  and c a p a c i t y younger  P r o p o r t i o n a t e l y , more y o u n g were b o t h e r e d b y  than  optimum s i z e  t o pay a higher  threshold o f allowable use than  34.0$ o f t h e y o u n g , m i d d l e - a g e d  parks  sanitary  (60.4$ o f t h e o l d a g r e e v s .  33.3$ o f t h e y o u n g ) .  On q u e s t i o n s  related  a smaller  Thus, although p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y  "solitude"  on t h e i r  toor idealistic  wilderness  i ntheir  visit,  reactions to  users.  There a r e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the p e r c e p t i o n of hazards o f the w i l d e r n e s s t r i p  between t h e t h r e e groups,  t h o u g h no  e x p l a n a t i o n c a n be o f f e r e d f o r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . visitors  give higher  "getting  lost"  danger r a t i n g s t o " p h y s i c a l i n j u r y " ,  and " p o l l u t i o n "  than  the other  two age groups.  "Exposure" i s r a t e d h i g h e r b y t h e o l d e r age group. young people experience  do n o t r e c o g n i s e  involving  Middle-aged  or are indeed  some d a n g e r .  Perhaps  seeking an  169  In age  summary, r e s p o n s e  groups  shows a number o f s i g n i f i c a n t  the l o g i c a l trip  also  on t h e i r  t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e by  socio-economic  varied. trip  differences  Older people  t h a n younger  older  is  different  The s u g g e s t e d  stages i n the l i f e groups and  agree  cycle.  on f a c i l i t y  t o crowding  than the older  Response by  age  and t i m e basis  On q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g  i n response  younger  and  than those o f  explanation of the v a r i a t i o n  toward  w i l d e r n e s s use a t d i f f e r e n t  Except f o r minor  i t e m s , a l l age  I n t r o d u c t i o n s , management  wilderness perception.  sensitive  the type of wilderness  and p e r c e p t i o n o f d a n g e r s ,  orientations  Besides  g r o u p s , a l t h o u g h on an a n n u a l  u s e r s show a g r e a t e r a f f i n i t y  the middle-aged.  variations.  i n v e s t more d o l l a r s  t h e young a r e more f r e q u e n t u s e r s . m o t i v a t i o n and b e n e f i t s  different  measures  Y o u n g e r p e o p l e , h o w e v e r , were more  and p l a c e d a l o w e r l i m i t  on  capacity  groups.  Origin  k Cowan  h a s commented o n t h e f r e e d o m  C a n a d a a n d t h e U.S. the  share  same t i m e he o b s e r v e s  their that  total  i n t h e U.S.  D i f f e r e n c e s i n American  and C a n a d i a n  o f each  i n the l i g h t  country.  American  the citizens of  recreation resource.  At  " ... r e c o g n i t i o n o f w i l d e r n e s s  v a l u e s i s more a d v a n c e d  are expected  with which  than i n Canada". reaction to wilderness  of differences  In the cultural  history  w i l d e r n e s s i d e o l o g y , f o r example, i s  i m b u e d a g o o d d e a l more i n t h e l i t e r a r y  and  historical  170  traditions one  real  of that country  frontier,  Jackson  Turner  .  I n c o n t r a s t , C a n a d a h a s h a d no  n o m a j o r I n d i a n w a r s a n d no F r e d e r i c k  t o c h r o n i c l e t h e meaning o f w i l d e r n e s s t o  Canadian n a t i o n a l i s m . to  5  Nor h a s t h e r e b e e n C a n a d i a n  the pastoral rhetoric  counterparts  o f Thoreau, Emerson, Muir,  whitman o r  Burroughs. The  general  Canadian a t t i t u d e  Why make a n i s s u e o f w i l d e r n e s s it  left  access  i n the country? to wilderness  most C a n a d i a n s . led  m i g h t be e x p r e s s e d  when t h e r e  has always been comparatively  No w i l d e r n e s s  i n Canada.  resource concern  cult,  The g e n e r a l  simple f o r which  A c t i n t h e U.S., i s i s t h a t f o r most  and c o n s e r v a t i o n i s s u e s , C a n a d i a n s e x p r e s s and show l e s s p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t  than  less  do A m e r i c a n s .  t h a t Canada h a s no  equivalents to national citizen  such as t h e Wilderness  and t h e  comparable t o t h a t  impression  T h i s may i n p a r t b e due t o t h e f a c t viable  i s plenty of  The " n o r t h " i s a l w a y s t h e r e  t o the c r e a t i o n of the Wilderness  evident  still  as:  conservation  S o c i e t y , the S i e r r a Club  strong  lobbies  or the National  Audubon S o c i e t y .  With these structure expect to  and s u g g e s t e d  differences i n history,  and a t t i t u d e s b e t w e e n t h e two c o u n t r i e s , one would  t h a t Cowan's c o n t e n t i o n h a s m e r i t .  The c o n c e r n  here i s  see whether t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f w i l d e r n e s s  values is  real  i s reflected  f o r the general  among w i l d e r n e s s population.  park users  The sample t h u s  as i t l i k e l y i s d i v i d e d by  171  country are  of residence  Americans,  of the respondent,  the r e s t  higher  As w i l l  travel,  and  benefits,  his  trip  and  other  shown b e l o w , class,  he d e v o t e s  users  categories  than  comparative of both  $4,000  more  parks  distinct  user  i s from  a  experienced i n  i n terms o f time  Canadian  2.4  annually  and  i n Tables  a n d a much  professional"  countries .  park  more y e a r s  t h o u g h not as e x t r e m e , of both  income  are given  have  a n d money  to the e f f e c t s  education,  6  populations  i s more  sensitive  groups  more  the "managerial,  differences,  two  the American  the average  American v i s i t o r s  income o f  he  wilderness  he g i v e s g r e a t e r r e c o g n i t i o n t o i t s v a l u e s  and he i s more  The  in  be  socio-economic  wilderness  LIV.  i n B.C.  the b a s i s of questionnaire response,  groups.  o f whom  Canadians.  C a n a d i a n and A m e r i c a n u s e r s are,on  one-quarter  crowding  user.  occupation LII, LIII  and  o f s c h o o l i n g , an  greater proportion  occupations. occur  of  on  between  Similar the general  172  TABLE L I I USER E D U C A T I O N L E V E L S - BY  Years o f  Schooling  ORIGIN  Canadians  Americans  (%)  (fo)  0.2  0.0  6-10  10.7  1.2  11 - 13  30.8  16.4  14 - 16  24.2  22.8  17-20  27.2  43.3  6.3  15.2  Less  than 6  20 + N  571  Average  14.8 TABLE  171 years  Income  ($)  years  LIII  USER INCOME L E V E L S - BY Annual  17.2  ORIGIN  Canadians  Americans  (%)  (%)  6.0  5.9  3,000 - 6,000  9.1  7.6  6,000 - 9,000  24.0  8.8  9,000 - 12,000  23.1  15.2  12,000 - 15,000  14.0 .-  17.0  15,000 - 20,000  9.8  14.6  20,000 +  10.0  23.3  Average  $11,500  $15,500  Less  than  3,000  173  TABLE L I V USER OCCUPATION - BY  ORIGIN  Americans  Canadians  Occupation  (%)  (%)  35.4  46.8  6.1  3.5  9.3  5.3  F i s h i n g , Lumbering, Mining, Farming  1.8  1 .2  Housewife  2.3  1.2  Student  29.8  22.2  Retired  0.9  1.2  14.5  18.7  Managerial, Professional Sales,  Clerical  Constr.,  Manuf.  Other  American v i s i t o r s experienced of Americans as  wilderness  travel  A much l a r g e r  of Canadians).  than Americans  than  two y e a r s  wilderness  i n p l a n n i n g f o r t h e m (18.3  Canadians).  The A m e r i c a n v i s i t o r  "novices  proportion  wilderness  (13.2%). vacations  c o m p a r e d t o t h e C a n a d i a n a v e r a g e o f 5.0  more t i m e  themselves  Further, a greater  (32.6%) r e p o r t l e s s  experience  proportion  a s many c o n s i d e r t h e m s e l v e s  Americans take longer as  a r e a l s o more  (33.3% v s . 14.0% o f C a n a d i a n s ) r a t e  v s . 15.9%  of Canadians  parks  travellers.  " e x p e r t s " and o n l y h a l f  (7.6%  t o B.C.  (6.8  days  d a y s ) and i n v e s t  w e e k s v s . 11.4  spends t h r e e  times  weeks f o r a s much  174  ( $ 9 3 v s . $31 f o r C a n a d i a n s ) and c a r r i e s w i t h h i m a  money  greater for  investment i n backcountry  t h e average Canadian).  prepared  f o r the t r i p  preparation  The t y p i c a l  American i s thus  well  advance  and equipment. are s i g n i f i c a n t l y  fewer Americans r e p o r t i n g they  were  Only 7 . 0 $ r e p o r t e d ,  trip.  definitely  ($100 v s . $76  i n terms o f e x p e r i e n c e ,  Satisfaction levels  their  equipment  "very  different  satisfied"  however, t h a t they  with  with would  not return.  TABLE LV USER S A T I S F A C T I O N L E V E L S - BY  Rating  Canadians ($)  Very  satisfied  Mildly  81.9  6.7  13.5  3.9  2.9  0.7  1.8  disappointed  disappointed  Regional  origin  Americans ($)  88.8  satisfied  Slightly Very  ORIGIN  of users  also influences the strength  of motivations  and t h e assessment o f b e n e f i t s o f t h e t r i p .  Americans give  a l l reasons f o r v i s i t i n g  "physical  exercise" a higher  significantly  stronger  rating.  are given  wilderness  The r e a s o n s  i n Table LVI.  except rated  175  TABLE L V I M O T I V A T I O N - BY O R I G I N (% r a t i n g "very s i g n i f i c a n t " )  Americans  Canadians  Reason  (%)  79.5  88.9  79.2  88.3  68.1  80.1  Solitude  58.1  78.4  Fishing  18.4  27.5  Exercise  62.5  50.9  Wilderness  Camping  Feeling  close  to  Viewing  wildlife  nature  In a d d i t i o n to t h e i r Americans also trip.  Except  gave a h i g h e r  generally evaluation  given i n Table  LVII  higher  significantly  expectations,  of the benefits  f o r "improved p h y s i c a l h e a l t h "  e n t e r t a i n i n g " a l l b e n e f i t s were r a t e d those  higher  so.  and by  of the  "socially Americans,  176  TABLE  LVII  E V A L U A T I O N OF B E N E F I T S - BY O R I G I N ($ r a t i ng " v e r y i m p o r t a n t ")  Benefit  Canadians  Americans  ($)  ($)  Increased appreciation of nature  86.0  Gave o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e f l e c t and t h i n k  53.9  72.5  Found  58.5  70.2  solitude,  privacy  C a n a d i a n and A m e r i c a n o p i n i o n s o n f a c i l i t i e s and management m e a s u r e s a r e s i m i l a r items. trails  Americans, found  improving  accustomed  e x c e p t f o r r e s p o n s e o n two  perhaps  to a higher standard o f  i n U.S. p a r k s , g i v e g r e a t e r i m p o r t a n c e t o  trail  conditions.  Americans  a r e a l s o more  to  pay an e n t r a n c e f e e - o n l y 26.3$ would  of  Canadians). On w e i g h t i n g p o s s i b l e  the  park uses  w i l d e r n e s s i s e n t e r e d , both groups  Twice  willing  disagree (vs.  and e s t i m a t i n g give  similar  53.1$  where  response.  a s many A m e r i c a n s , h o w e v e r , c o n s i d e r t h e p a r k s t o b e  "overdeveloped"  04.6$  v s . 7.5$ o f Canadians).  More A m e r i c a n s were b o t h e r e d b y c r o w d i n g and significantly has  fewer Americans  (25.7$)  believe  t h e c a p a c i t y t o a c c o m m o d a t e more p e o p l e  that  the park  (vs. 39.1$ of  177  of  Canadians).  than Canadians  Americans and  p r e f e r meeting  seek campsites  fewer groups  away f r o m  per  other people  in  much h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n s (70.8% v s . 55*2% o f C a n a d i a n s ) . American  user  thus not o n l y seeks  greater p r o p o r t i o n s , but also of  on h i s t r i p  g i v e s a more r i g o r o u s  The in  definition  i t .  The  above e v i d e n c e  image o f t h e A m e r i c a n American very  u s e r s on  indicates  backcountry  the average  a w a r e o f , and  Canadian  more f r o m t h e i r o p i n i o n s do  p o s s i b l e uses d i f f e r e n c e s on user  and  Response by Within the  experience.  the dangers  and  one.  group o f users  being  of  of time  and  i n t u r n expect  and  Although American  and  on f a c i l i t i e s , management, i n v o l v e d , t h e number o f  influence  suggest  that  the o r i g i n of  i n h i s response  to  the  the  experience.  Commitment sample t h e r e are t h o s e who  occasionally  Wilderness u s e r s can  a n n u a l use  inveterate  travelled  t h e above i t e m s  v a c a t i o n s , those many.  critical  i s an u n f a i r  a r e an e l i t e  coincide  i s a significant  wilderness  tourist  the o f t e n  T h e y i n v e s t more i n t e r m s  money e x p e n d i t u r e s , d i s t a n c e benefit  that  i n search of the t r a d i t i o n a l v a l u e s  wilderness recreation.  of  solitude  day  as  an  who  seldom take w i l d e r n e s s  t a k e t h e m and  t h u s be  classified  i n d i c a t o r o f commitment.  w i l d e r n e s s user d i f f e r  from  t h o s e who using  How  frequency  does  t h e u s e r who  take  the  participate  178  in  moderation  this  or  from the user  a n a l y s i s those  o r more w i l d e r n e s s committed, those c o m m i t t e d , and committed  respondents trips  per  those  who  year  taking three  participates  rarely?  r e p o r t that they  are  to f i v e  t a k i n g o n l y one  considered trips o r two  per  For  take  differences  with differential  i n education,  upbringing.  The  firmly year  trips  moderately  as  It  w o u l d be  have l o n g e r  T h i s i s the  consider  themselves  committed  i s 4.3 and  6.5  o c c u p a t i o n , income or  h i s demographic expected  experience  travel.  experience  commitments show no  commitment o f a w i l d e r n e s s  i n f l u e n c e d by  non-  and  case  v e r y few  committed  to  f o r the non-committed, 6.3  i n wilderness users  Median years f o r the  Commitment  Expert  (%)  COMMITMENT  Intermediate  Novice  of  moderately  committed.  P R O F I C I E N C Y R A T I N G - BY  be  users  h i g h l y committed  (Table L V I I I ) .  firmly  appears  of  background.  a r e more p r o f i c i e n t  "novices"  f o r the  environment  user  t h a t more f i r m l y  as  significant  TABLE L V I I I  N  (%)  (%)  8.4  70.1  21.4  Moderate  19.7  71.9  8.4  203  Firm  35.7  59.7  4.6  196  Low  six  users.  Users  little  who  332  179  Firmly  committed  users  report  investment  i n equipment  ($9*+  Supporting  further  frequency  measure  that  o f commitment  different  for the  are the intentions  fully  74.0$  return,  66.5$  o f t h e moderate  average non-committed).  o f use does  -  groups  definitely  $70  vs.  a higher  give  to return  of the firmly  a  reasonable  of the  committed  and  56.6$  w i l l  of the non-  committed.  Users differently committed higher, area"  with  differential  to questionnaire  users  while  Non-  and "doing  something  firmly  committed  users  "exploration  suggest  inquisitive  and seeks  rate  significantly  that  the firmly  more  the non-committed does  on motivations.  react  "fishing"  and "photography"  however,  Items  o f commitment  rate  differences  than  levels  higher.  committed  different"  These user  i s  i n t h e way o f i n t e l l e c t u a l  user.  The assessment  of  of the subtle more challenge  benefits,  not vary. TABLE L I X MOTIVATION  Commitment  Fishing ($ r a t i n g "not important")  - B Y COMMITMENT Doing Something Different ($  Exploration o f Area  rating  Photography  "important")  Low  40.7  56.0  54.8  37.6  Moderate  44.8  43.4  64.0  48.8  Firm  58.7  37.2  73.0  47.0  180  The g r e a t e r t h e commitment t h e g r e a t e r to the introduction of certain f a c i l i t i e s measures. less  behavior. the park  and m a n a g e m e n t  The more o n e e n g a g e s i n w i l d e r n e s s  willing  he i s t o accept  Significantly "overdeveloped"  non-committed  intrusions  more f i r m l y  the objection  r e c r e a t i o nt h e  or to discipline h i s  committed users  (17.4%) t h a n t h e m o d e r a t e  consider  (8.9/0 o r  (4.8%) i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h o s e w i t h h i g h e r  commitment a r e more s e n s i t i v e t o d e v e l o p m e n t .  TABLE L X F A C I L I T Y OPINIONS - BY COMMITMENT (% s a y i n g " n o t n e e d e d " )  Commitment  More  Trails  Pit  Toilets  Road  Acces  Low  19.9  25.0  81.6  Moderate  25.6  33.5  88.2  Firm  32.1  42.9  90.8  TABLE L X I MANAGEMENT MEASURE - B Y COMMITMENT (% s a y i n g " d i s a g r e e " ) Commitment  Entrance Fee  Reservation System  Rationing Use  Low  41.3  47.6  36.1  Moderate  47.8  54.2  39.4  Firm  55.6  69.9  50.0  181  Strength opinions  on crowding  appear t o a l t e r  twice  o f commitment shows l i t t l e and c a p a c i t y .  visitor  reaction  relationship to  Frequency o f use does n o t  t o other  visitors.  Commitment i s r e l a t e d  to the perception  o f danger  with  the proportion of firmly  committed users  rating the  o v e r a l l danger as n o t e x i s t i n g . TABLE  LXII  OVERALL DANGER R A T I N G - B Y COMMITMENT Commitment  None  Minor  Moderate  Low  15.4  72.9  11.5  0.3  Moderate  13.8  76.4  9.4  0.5  Firm  30.6  58.7  10.2  0.5  In is  summary, t h e d a t a  a reasonable  users  as " f i r m l y  have l o n g e r  money t o t h e a c t i v i t y . but  suggest t h e f i r m l y  expectations. opinions  that frequency  Although  on f a c i l i t i e s  committed" a r e "expert"  experience  capacity. on  these  Differences i n motivations committed user  More wilderness  a r e minor  i s more p u r i s t  i n his  h i s m o t i v e s may b e more r e f i n e d more r e s t r i c t i v e ,  s a t i s f a c t i o n and t h e p e r c e p t i o n  there  items.  and h i s  i s little  basic questions  of  o f w i l d e r n e s s and  Commitment does n o t a p p e a r t o be a n i m p o r t a n t major  o f use  a n d d e v o t e more t i m e a n d  d i f f e r e n c e between groups on t h e u n d e r l y i n g benefits,  Dangerous  measure o f commitment t o w i l d e r n e s s .  classified  travellers,  does c o n f i r m  Very  influence  182  R e s p o n s e "bv P r o f i c i e n c y What d i f f e r e n c e s a r e a p p a r e n t when u s e r s proficiency  - i . e . novice,  be  t h a t t h e o p i n i o n s and m o t i v a t i o n s  expected  users values  intermediate  are c l a s s i f i e d by  w o u l d b e more r e f i n e d than n o v i c e s .  may b e g i v e n g r e a t e r even though they  of wilderness  i s so, the views o f t h i s  consideration i n planning  group  and management,  a r e i n t h e m i n o r i t y w i t h i n t h e sample.  of the three groups. and.income l e v e l s . while  I t would  o f the expert  a n d more p e r c e p t i v e  I f this  There a r e f i r s t l y  students  and e x p e r t ?  d i f f e r e n c e s i n demographic  "Expert"  users  report higher  background  education  A greater proportion of "novices" are  fewer a r e i n t h e m a n a g e r i a l / p r o f e s s i o n a l  occupations.  TABLE L X I I I INCOME AND EDUCATION  Proficiency  L E V E L S - BY PROFICIENCY  A v e r a g e No. o f Years o f Schooling  Average Annual Income ($)  N  Expert  16.2  14,130  138  Intermediate  15.2  12,190  501  Novice  14.8  11,240  104  183  The to  manner i n w h i c h t h e  wilderness  introduced  travel differs  by  "parents"  suggests  the  i n that  i n wilderness  b r o u g h t up  i n urban areas  (52.9$) o r  "novices"  length of  "expert"  u s e r i s one  "novice"  user.  the  the day  weeks) t h a n f o r  longer  of  less again  cultivation  than e i t h e r  concrete  are  we  can  the  i s also correspondingly  less  (13.5  weeks).  expect  average  average  stay only do  thus  lower.  The  "experts"  "experts"  often  being  f o r the  than that of  less  "intermediates"  t r a v e l t o be  "novices"  associated  so.  i n v e s t m e n t and  trip.  users  backcountry t r i p  18.9$  trip  "Expert"  a s p h a l t and  'While 37.5$ o f  the backcountry only  have a g r e a t e r  often  and  This  i n the  With a p o p u l a t i o n  competence i n w i l d e r n e s s  wilderness  "experts")  travel i s also  (44.2$)  (67.3$).  I n c r e a s i n g l y r a i s e d on  (8.6  were more  preferences.  with environment of upbringing.  time planning  introduced  (12.5$ v s . 2 4 . 6 $ o f " e x p e r t s " ) .  Proficiency  The  "novices"  i n f l u e n c e of f a m i l y background  of r e c r e a t i o n  future  groups were  (50.0$ v s . 26.8$ o f  "friends"  o f t e n by  three  one  length for  "Experts"  a l s o spend more on  night  their  in  of  "novices" in  turn  184  TABLE COST AND  LXIV  INVESTMENT - BY  Proficiency  PROFICIENCY  Average T r i p C o s t ($)  Average Investment i n Equipment ($)  Expert  56.00  112.00  Intermediate  44.00  80.00  Novice  32.50  50.00  It  w o u l d be  expected  that proficiency  t h e above measure o f commitment. "experts"  take longer  and  As T a b l e  more f r e q u e n t  i s related  LXV  trips  to  affirms, than the  other  two c a t e g o r i e s .  TABLE ANNUAL PATTERN OF  Proficiency  LXV  WILDERNESS USE  A v e r a g e No. Wilderness Trips/Year  of  - BY  PROFICIENCY  Average Length of Wilderness Trip  Participation Days/Year  Expert  6.9  4.3  30  Intermediate  4.2  3.9  16  Novice  2.6  3.1  8  185  The  "expert" wilderness  from the beginner  traveller  thus  i n t h a t he i s f r o m a h i g h e r  'group, h a s more o f t e n h a d a t o w n o r r u r a l experience and  i s linked  socio-economic  upbringing, h i s  more t o f a m i l y b a c k g r o u n d  p a r t i c i p a t e s much m o r e a c t i v e l y  than  i s distinct  and he  Invests  " i n t e r m e d i a t e s " and  "novices". Wilderness receptivity reasons  proficiency  t o the appeals  for visiting  Inference  also influences the r e l a t i v e  of wilderness.  wilderness higher  i s that the higher  than  f u n c t i o n o f time  "novices".  the proficiency  a n t i c i p a t i o n of the values o f wilderness. to d i s c e r n i n t h i s  "Experts" rate  a n a l y s i s i f these  and age t h a n  TABLE  five  The  the greater the  ( I ti s not possible  d i f f e r e n c e s a r e more a  ability.)  LXVI  MOTIVATION - BY P R O F I C I E N C Y (% r a t i n g " v e r y i m p o r t a n t " )  Proficiency  Fishing  Exploration of Area  Photography  Relaxation  Solitude  Expert  21.0  70.3  52.2  60.9  72.5  Intermediate  22.0  61 .7  "+3.9  58.5  60.9  Novice  1  2.5  50.0  29.8  53.5  59.6  186  "Experts" wilderness,  r a t e two o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l  " s o l i t u d e " and " t h e o p p o r t u n i t y  • t h i n k " , a s more i m p o r t a n t "novices",  who  experience, again  that  b e n e f i t s than  w o u l d be e x p e c t e d  give  much g r e a t e r  of  to r e f l e c t  "novices".  and  Meanwhile,  t o l e a r n more f r o m t h e  weight to t h i s b e n e f i t  "learning-by-doing"  to beginning  values  applies with  greater  suggesting relevance  users.  TABLE  LXVII  B E N E F I T S - BY P R O F I C I E N C Y ($ r a t i n g a s "very s i g n i f i c a n t " )  Proficiency  Gave Opportunity to R e f l e c t and T h i n k  Solitude  Learned Learned More A b o u t More A b o u t Camping Self, Others  Experts  68.8  65-2  13.8  35-5  Intermediate  57-3  62.9  35.1  38.3  Novice  49.0  48.1  45.2  40.4  "Expert" facility  users  i n t r o d u c t i o n s and t e n d  with the suggestions. the  more d i s c r i m i n a t o r y o n  to disagree  29.8$ o f " n o v i c e s " d i s a p p r o v e .  "experts"  (15.9$)  "intermediates"  more t h a n  "novices"  The d i f f e r e n c e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t  case o f " p r i m i t i v e s h e l t e r s " where  versus of  are s l i g h t l y  consider  the park  only i n  49.3$ o f " e x p e r t s " A much h i g h e r  proportion  "overdeveloped"  (8.4$) o r " n o v i c e s " ( 3 . 9 $ ) .  than  Proficiency i s  187 likewise related prefering  t o campsite  t o camp a l o n e  preference  i n higher  "intermediates" or "novices"  with  "experts"  proportions  (66.7%, 60.9%  than  and  38.3%,  respectively). Surprisingly, on u s e r  proficiency  d o e s n o t h a v e much i n f l u e n c e  o p i n i o n s o n management m e a s u r e s , c r o w d i n g ,  o r e v a l u a t i o n s o f p o s s i b l e d a n g e r s and u s e s . wilderness of  travel  the wilderness  Further are  significantly trip  affects  satisfaction  Proficiency i n  only the characteristics  and t h e m o t i v a t i o n s and b e n e f i t s o f i t .  analysis of the interrelationship  o f age and  ability  suggested.  Response by L e v e l o f E d u c a t i o n As the  seen above, although  a l l education levels  sample, the e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l  above t h e n a t i o n a l average. Do h i g h e r  educated  o f the t y p i c a l  in  u s e r s have a d i f f e r e n t  r a t e s v a r y by e d u c a t i o n l e v e l ,  three groups - those  those  w i t h 11 - 16 y e a r s As  related  with ten years and t h o s e  demographic v a r i a b l e s ,  i s well here i s :  r e a c t i o n t o o r more  To i n v e s t i g a t e how users or less  w i t h 17  e d u c a t i o n , income and o c c u p a t i o n  Lower e d u c a t i o n  user  The q u e s t i o n o f c o n c e r n  mature o p i n i o n s o f w i l d e r n e s s v a l u e s ? response  are represented i n  were  classified  of schooling,  years  o r more.  are a l l closely  d i f f e r e n c e s here are  groups r e p o r t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  lower  expected.  average  188  incomes and have p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y l o w e r managerial/professional 'educated  occupations.  group have been r a i s e d Those i n t h e h i g h e r  familiarity  than those  above, p r o f i c i e n c y  related  Fewer o f t h e h i g h e r  i n rural  educated  areas.  c a t e g o r y have a l o n g e r  w i t h w i l d e r n e s s r e c r e a t i o n a n d a r e more o f t e n  "expert" users noted  representation i n the  to educational  w i t h fewer years i n wilderness  of schooling.  travel  As  i s clearly  attainment.  TABLE  LXVIII  P R O F I C I E N C Y R A T I N G - BY EDUCATION  Years o f Schooling  Expert (%)  Intermediate (%)  Novice (%)  12.5  68.8  18.8  11 - 16  15.5  69.6  15.0  381  17  2k.0  6k.0  12.0  292  10  or less  o r more  Higher greater educated  educated  investment  equipment than  the interrelationships  and income l i m i t s  6k  a l s o s p e n d more a n d h a v e a  i n backcountry  groups although  proficiency  users  N  lower with  t h e i n f e r e n c e s t h a t c a n be drawn.  189  TABLE  LXIX  COST AND INVESTMENT  Years o f Schooling  Average T r i p  - BY  EDUCATION  Average Investment In Equipment ($)  Cost  ($)  10 o r l e s s  40.25  58.00  11  - 16  37.40  82.40  17  o r more  55.00  86.50  The likely  g r o u p make-up o f h i g h e r  t o be " c o u p l e s "  ( 2 5 . 3 % v s . 3.1%  group) b u t i s l e s s l i k e l y 18.8% o f t h e l o w e r  educated  users  o f the lower  t o be an " o r g a n i s e d  educated  group).  party i s also significantly  i s much m o r e education (6.2% v s .  group"  Size of the wilderness  smaller f o r the higher  educated  group though l e n g t h o f s t a y does n o t d i f f e r . Higher in  "fishing"  their  educated  are significantly  a n d more i n t e r e s t e d i n " s o l i t u d e "  wilderness  the reasons  users  visit.  The h i g h e r  of "relaxation",  educated  "feeling  less interested as r e a s o n s f o r  a l s o tend  to rate  close to nature",  " p h o t o g r a p h y " and "see n a t u r a l l a n d s c a p e "  generally higher  than  7 lower  educated  intellectual  groups.  challenges  Catton's appeal  groups i n s o c i e t y i s given  proposition that  more t o t h e h i g h e r  some s u p p o r t  by t h i s  nature's educated  data.  " R e f r e s h i n g m e n t a l l y " and " s o l i t u d e " were e v a l u a t e d as greater benefits of the higher  educated  groups while  "socially  190  entertaining" lower.  and " l e a r n e d more a b o u t c a m p i n g " w e r e r a t e d  T h i s would  again  indirectly  support  Catton's  proposition.  TABLE L X X B E N E F I T S - BY EDUCATION (% r a t i n g " v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t " )  Years of Schooling 10  Refreshing Mentally  Solitude  Socially Entertaining  L e a r n e d More About Camping 43.8  76.6  51.6  26.6  11-16  86.1  61.2  14.2  17  91.1  63.4  or less  o r more  Education facility  level  8.6  29.5  appears t o have o n l y minor e f f e c t s  a n d management o p i n i o n s .  significantly  33.1  more s u p p o r t  Lower e d u c a t e d g r o u p s  to "interpretive  signs" while  educated  g r o u p s a r e p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more a g a i n s t  hunting"  and " s e l e c t i v e l o g g i n g " I n t h e p a r k s .  related higher  t o campsite educated  with higher  group p r e f e r i n g campsites  Education that  significantly  uses.  The h i g h e r  "scientific  preference  on  give higher  "controlled Education i s  proportions of the away f r o m  others.  i s t h e o n l y o n e o f 11 v a r i a b l e s c o n s i d e r e d affects  the estimation o f p o s s i b l e park  educated group g i v e s  research"  and s l i g h t l y  less  slightly weight  more w e i g h t t o to "future  1 91  resource development"  than those i n the lowest education  category. With h i g h e r educated parties,  prefering  proportions, crowding do  i t would  be e x p e c t e d t h a t  Lower e d u c a t e d  significantly The  user  affects groups  o p i n i o n s on  Higher  educated  p e r d a y (k.k%  v s . k,3  groups  v s . 6.2% optimum  f o r the lower  t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f two  rate  higher but s t i l l  above r e s u l t s  "insects" minor  i n explaining  fires"  i n wilderness travel,  Higher  High education i s  educated  to the  groups  a r e more w i l d e r n e s s  o u t l o o k , a n d a r e more s e n s i t i v e  o f the  differential  but a f f e c t s response  w i l d e r n e s s e x p e r i e n c e as w e l l .  with lower education.  and " f o r e s t  hazards.  to the wilderness questionnaire.  proficient  danger  h a v e shown t h a t e d u c a t i o n l e v e l  not only a p r e d i s p o s i n g f a c t o r  in  their  i n greater  and s u g g e s t a s m a l l e r  (3.5 persons  i s an i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e  response  i n smaller  group). Education level  as  o f groups  group)  size f o r wilderness travel  items.  also vary.  set a lower l i m i t  the lower educated  educated  travelling  c a m p s i t e s and s o l i t u d e  and c a p a c i t y would  i n fact  for  isolated  groups  a r e more "purist"  to other users than  those  1 92  R e s p o n s e by W i l d e r n e s s T r a v e l E x p e r i e n c e A l t h o u g h t h e r e i s a s t r o n g r e l a t i o n between y e a r s t r a v e l experience  and p r o f i c i e n c y ,  I t does n o t  f o l l o w that long-time users  are always  experience  "novices".  users  are  p u r e l y on t h e b a s i s classified  i n five  they r e p o r t e d .  always of years  of  necessarily  "experts"  or  short  To examine  of experience,  wilderness  users  response were  groups a c c o r d i n g to the l e n g t h o f  R e s u l t s c l o s e l y f o l l o w those found  p r o f i c i e n c y t h o u g h t h e number o f  experience  for  significant differences  is  not  as h i g h . Long e x p e r i e n c e  u s e r s have h i g h e r I n c o m e s ,  e d u c a t i o n and b e l o n g t o t h e occupations As were  "managerial/professional"  i n h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n s t h a n do s h o r t e x p e r i e n c e  "expert"  were l e s s  more  wilderness  travellers,  long experience  users.  users  u r b a n i n b a c k g r o u n d and were more o f t e n i n t r o d u c e d  wilderness  t r a v e l by " p a r e n t s "  experience.  Cost, investment  t h a n were u s e r s w i t h o n l y i n equipment, l e n g t h of  recent  trip,  p r e - p l a n n i n g and a n n u a l p a t t e r n o f use were r e p o r t e d l o n g e r greater  by t h o s e w i t h l o n g e r e x p e r i e n c e There w e r e ,  however,  few d i f f e r e n c e s  c o n c e r n i n g t h e m o t i v a t i o n s and b e n e f i t s p o s s i b l e reasons  and b e n e f i t s  i n wilderness between  or  travel. groups  of the v i s i t .  o n l y the c a t e g o r y  to  Of a l l  " l e a r n e d more  about c a m p i n g " v a r i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y between groups w i t h 50.0$ of those  w i t h two y e a r s  experience  or l e s s  and 20.5$ o f  those  193  w i t h t e n y e a r s o r more e x p e r i e n c e r a t i n g i t as significant".  Except f o r t h i s minor i t e m , the s u g g e s t i o n  t h a t p a s t e x p e r i e n c e does n o t a f f e c t the b e n e f i t s  "very  m o t i v a t i o n or  is  increase  t h e u s e r o b t a i n s f r o m t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l use o f  wildlands. As i s p r o f i c i e n c y , y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e i s n o t r e l a t e d t o o p i n i o n s on management, e v a l u a t i o n o f c a p a c i t y o r o f p o s s i b l e u s e s and w i l d e r n e s s e n t r y .  In contrast  assessment to  p r o f i c i e n c y r a t i n g s , w i l d e r n e s s e x p e r i e n c e does n o t i n f l u e n c e o p i n i o n s on f a c i l i t i e s b u t does a f f e c t p o s s i b i l i t y of dangers.  the e s t i m a t i o n o f  the  Users w i t h short experience tend to  r a t e most d a n g e r s h i g h e r t h a n l o n g e x p e r i e n c e u s e r s ,  especially  " s t a r v a t i o n " and " i n s e c t s " . I t i s apparent that years of wilderness  travel  e x p e r i e n c e i s n o t a s t r o n g an i n f l u e n c e on r e s p o n s e  as  p r o f i c i e n c y and t h a t o t h e r f a c t o r s i n the make-up o f t h e a c c o u n t f o r more v a r i a t i o n i n r e s p o n s e t h a n s i m p l y p a s t experience.  user  94  1  R e s p o n s e by  Size of  As  have  the  nor  individual  o f k.2 it  data  be  shown, w i l d e r n e s s  e n t e r p r i s e w i t h an  persons.  could  Party travel  i s neither a  average party  Though v a r i a t i o n s from t h i s  that  the  a d d i t i o n of  just  a few  p e r s o n s may  enough t o change the n a t u r e  of  data  thus categorized  the b e h a v i o r a l  between f i v e  classifications  A number o f the  different  to explore  significant  groups are  time planning  the  backcountry.  No  of party  trip  found.  and  stay  r e a s o n s why  reported  average are  critical was  the  size  small be  experience.  The  differences  sizes.  d i f f e r e n c e s i n response Larger  group  groups spend a  significantly  longer  in  l a r g e r groups s t a y longer  between longer the can  be  suggested.  TABLE PRE-PLANNING AND  Group  Size  LENGTH OF  P l a n n i n g Time (weeks)  LXXI STAY - BY  S I Z E OF  Average Length of (days)  PARTY  Stay  N  1  4.1  3.5  48  2  11 .0  4.1  285  3 - k  1  2.0  6.0  204  5-6  16.9  6.0  101  22.1  6.5  7  or  more  96  195  Larger with  family  g r o u p s a r e more s o c i a l l y - o r i e n t e d r a t i n g  a n d f r i e n d s " a n d "was  more a s i g n i f i c a n t m o t i v e there  w e r e no n o t i c e a b l e  motivation  and b e n e f i t  socially  and b e n e f i t differences  of the t r i p . i n response  Otherwise  tothe  LXXII  M O T I V A T I O N AND B E N E F I T S - B Y  Size  e n t e r t a i n i n g " as  questions.  TABLE  Group  Be W i t h F a m i l y , F r i e n d s (% r a t i n g "very important")  S I Z E OF  PARTY  Socially Entertaining {% r a t i n g "not s i g n i f i c a n t " )  1  14.6  64.6  2  23.9  65.6  38.2  50.O  48.5  42.6  3  -  4  5 - 6  7  o r more  41.7  Larger groups also facility  introductions,  toilets". to  Larger  an e n t r y  limiting  44.8  tend  t o be more f a v o r a b l e  towards  e s p e c i a l l y "more c a m p s i t e s " a n d " p i t  groups a l s o  give  f e e and a r e s e r v a t i o n s  group  "being  significantly  more  support  s y s t e m b u t do n o t a g r e e  with  size to s i x people.  L a r g e r groups a l s o have a d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t i o n o f where the  wilderness  i s entered.  The m e d i a n e n t r y  point  f o r groups  1 96  of f i v e it  o r more i s 3.0  i s 6.0  O v e r 95$  miles.  • e v e n t u a l l y do e n t e r smaller  groups do.  for  optimum s i z e  f o r groups o f four or l e s s  o f respondents from l a r g e  the wilderness  b u t o n l y 87$  As would be e x p e c t e d ,  more t r o u b l e f i n d i n g large  miles while  unoccupied  campsites  f o r wilderness  travel  groups  of those  from  l a r g e r groups had and suggested (5-0  a 2.9  persons vs.  groups o f h or l e s s ) .  It  i s evident  some e f f e c t  on user  take  trips,  longer  to accept  from t h i s data  response  to wilderness.  a r e more s o c i a l l y  restrictions  and  a r e n o t as " p u r i s t "  are  the smaller  that size  Larger  inclined,  on t h e b e h a v i o r i n their  o f p a r t y has parties  a r e more  and f a c i l i t y  willing  introductions  perception of wilderness  as  groups.  Response bv Environment o f  Upbringing  D o e s g r o w i n g up i n a n u r b a n e n v i r o n m e n t make a p e r s o n more unfeeling  about wilderness  values  o r more i n s e n s i t i v e  i n his  8 wildland  behavior?  urban or r u r a l other  Hendee  residence  h a s commented t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n  of users  d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s a n d t h a t t h e o r i e s w o u l d be m o r e  appropriately built  around f a c t o r s other  of users.  Findings from t h i s  wilderness  opinions, perceptions  related they  are small i n comparison to  study.agree  of other  past  trip  residence  that variation i n  and m o t i v a t i o n s  t o the environment of upbringing  a r e more a p r o d u c t  than  are not  of the user,  rather  and d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s .  197  One  d i f f e r e n c e , however, t h a t does occur  have i m p o r t a n t p l a n n i n g i m p l i c a t i o n s •ability  o f users from d i f f e r e n t  brought  up I n u r b a n  involves  the differential  backgrounds.  areas reported l e s s  a n d t h a t may-  Respondents  wilderness  travel  experience than others ( 6 . 7 years vs. 8 . 9 years f o r those raised  i n towns and 1 0 . 7 y e a r s f o r those r a i s e d  Consequently  many m o r e o f t h o s e r a i s e d  (17.7% vs. 6.4% o f r u r a l  "novices"  ability  i n urban  people).  areas).  areas are  I t i s thus  possible  that  be  i f the trend to urbanisation continues.  lower  the future  i nrural  of wilderness travellers  will  Response by Sex The  fact  there  t h a t o n l y 3 0 % o f t h e s a m p l e w e r e women i n d i c a t e s  i s something  females. difference One  fewer  w i l d e r n e s s t h a t does n o t a t t r a c t  However, a n a l y s i s i n response  difference  "novices"  about  o f t h e s e d a t a show v e r y  between male and female  dangers.  themselves  as  v s . 1 2 . 2 % o f men) a n d h a v e c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y  years of wilderness t r a v e l  difference  little  wilderness users.  i s t h a t more women t h a n men r a t e  (26.9%  that  i n response  experience.  The o n l y o t h e r  occurs on t h e q u e s t i o n o f p e r c e p t i o n o f  Women, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y  higher danger r a t i n g s t o f i v e amount o f d a n g e r i s s t i l l  perhaps,  of the nine  give  significantly  items l i s t e d .  considered "minor"  by both  Total  groups.  198  Summary o f t h e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a b l e s  One o f t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s  a n a l y s i s was t o d e t e r m i n e t h e  importance t h a t c o u l d be a s c r i b e d t o e l e v e n as  f a c t o r s causing  and  perceptions.  In visitor  motivation,  opinions  I t was f o u n d t h a t a l l o f t h e m h a d  interactions with more t h a n  variation  selected variables  significant  some o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n s e s ,  some  others. 2  As m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , X objective basis f o rranking  and T - t e s t s  do n o t p r o v i d e  the importance o f v a r i a b l e s .  on t h e b a s i s o f t h e number o f s i g n i f i c a n t  interactions  level of significance  a t t a i n e d , s i x v a r i a b l e s c a n be  as  factors, three  strong  importance  influencing  and two a r e o f v e r y  "park v i s i t e d " i n response.  However,  and t h e  identified  are of intermediate  little  importance.  Of a l l f a c t o r s  was o b s e r v e d t o c o n t r i b u t e t h e m o s t t o v a r i a t i o n s In fact,  s i g n i f i c a n t l y by p a r k . First,  an  almost every response  T h e r e a r e two s u g g e s t e d r e a s o n s f o r t h i s .  each park provides  vacation e l i c i t i n g  varied  a different  different  Secondly, each park a t t r a c t s  type  expectations a visitor  of wilderness and e v a l u a t i o n s .  group o f d i f f e r e n t  composition. Other important regional origin, Wilderness  influencing  a g e , commitment and e d u c a t i o n  p r o f i c i e n c y , years  of party are o f intermediate upbringing  factors are length of stay,  of wilderness importance.  and s e x a r e t h e l e a s t  important  level.  experience  and  Environment o f factors.  size  199  From T a b l e of  the  'items.  LXXIII  v a r i a b l e s had A l l user  any  i t can effect  groupings  to the d i f f e r e n t  Similarly  only regional origin  derived  therefrom.  parks  observed  t h a t few  s e v e r a l of the education  had  an  effect  or  none  questionnaire  gave the  p o s s i b l e uses o f t h e  T h e r e a p p e a r s t o be  the uses wilderness  on  except  weighting  levels.  be  same  parks.  upon  satisfaction  a common u n d e r l y i n g a s s e s s m e n t  c a n be  put  t o and  the  of  satisfactions  TABLE  LXXIII  SUMMARY OF S I G N I F I C A N T Questionnaire Responses  Education Income Occupation Origin Upbringing Proficiency Wilderness I n t r o . Wilderness exper. Pre-planning Length of stay Make-up Size of party Cost Investment T r i p s per year Av. l e n g t h Motives Benefits Facilities Management Entrance f e e P o s s i b l e uses  V-,  V  Park  L. o f stay  X X X X X X X X X  X  X \r  A  X X X A  r  X  X X X X  2  V3 Age  •/  A  X  X X X  X X A  X X X X X X X X X X X  X  X V  X  X  X X X X X X X  V5 Origin  X X X X X  INTERACTIONS  V5  V7  CommProfEduca- Years itraent i c i e n c y t i o n exper.  X .r  A  X X "V A  r  X X  X X  ~\r  A  X  X X  X X  A  X X X X X X X  ' 7  A  X X  X  X  X X '. r  A  X  (X - when a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e o c c u r r e d  Vs  X X  X A  r  X X X X X  X  V  Total size  Upbringing  X X X X X X X  V-j -j  1 0  Sex  X  X  X X  A  A  J\  X  Vq  X  X  X X X  X X  X  T r  A  X  X X  A  X X X X X X  X X  X  A  b e t w e e n t h e i n f l u e n c i n g v a r i a b l e and q u e s t i o n n a i r e response) (Table  LXXIII  continued  p.201)  TABLE L X X I I I SUMMARY OF Questionnaire Responses  % Wilderness Wilderness entry Campsite p r e f . Find campsites Crowding Park c a p a c i t y Groups per day Optimum s i z e Complaints Satisfaction Return Danger s O v e r a l l danger  V-,  V  Park  L. o f stay  X X X X X X X X X X X X  (X = when a s i g n i f i c a n t  SIGNIFICANT  INTERACTIONS  V5  2  Age  Origin  (continued)  V7  Vg  CommProfEduca- Years i t merit iciency tion exper.  V  V  q  Total size  1 0  Upbringing  V  1 1  Sex  X X X X  "V  X  r  X X X  X X  X  X X X  X X  X  X  X X X  X X X X  X X  v  X  X  X X X X  X X X  X  X  X  d i f f e r e n c e occurred between the  influencing  variable  and q u e s t i o n n a i r e response)  202  REFERENCES CHAPTER  X  R o s e n b e r g , G., " C i t y P l a n n i n g T h e o r y a n d t h e Q u a l i t y o f L i f e " , Am. B e h a v . S c . . V o l . 9 , No. 4 , D e c . , 1 9 6 5 , P. 3 . S e s s o m s , H. D o u g l a s , "An A n a l y s i s o f S e l e c t e d V a r i a b l e s A f f e c t i n g Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n P a t t e r n s " , 4 2 , October, 1963, p. 112 - 115B u r c h , W.R.J., " W i l d e r n e s s - T h e L i f e C y c l e a n d F o r e s t R e c r e a t i o n a l C h o i c e " , J . o f F o r . , 6 4 , 1 9 6 6 , p. 6 0 6 610. C o w a n , I . McT., " W i l d e r n e s s - C o n c e p t , F u n c t i o n a n d M a n a g e m e n t " , H o r a c e M. A l b r i g h t C o n s e r v a t i o n L e c t u r e s h i p V I I , B e r k e l e y , A p r i l , 1 9 6 8 , p. 2 6 . Nash, R o d e r i c k , W i l d e r n e s s and t h e A m e r i c a n M i n d , U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , New H a v e n , 1 9 6 7 .  Yale  For general p o p u l a t i o n comparisons see Bertram, G.W., "The C o n t r i b u t i o n o f E d u c a t i o n t o E c o n o m i c G r o w t h " , S t a f f S t u d y No. 1 2 , E c o n o m i c C o u n c i l o f C a n a d a , 1 9 6 6 , a n d P o d o l u k , J . R . , " I n c o m e s o f C a n a d i a n s " , D.B.S. C e n s u s M o n o g r a p h , 1 9 6 8 , p. 1 2 8 . C a t t o n , W.R., " M o t i v a t i o n s o f W i l d e r n e s s U s e r s " , and P a p e r M a g a z i n e o f C a n a d a , D e c , 1 9 , 1 9 6 9 .  Pulp  Hendee, J.C., "Rural-Urban D i f f e r e n c e s R e f l e c t e d i n Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n P a r t i c i p a t i o n " , J . o f L e i s u r e R e s . . V. 1 , No. 4 , A u t u m n , 1 9 6 9 -  203  CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS AND  A number o f c o n c l u s i o n s discussed The  thus  I M P L I C A T I O N S OF USER  on i n d i v i d u a l  f a r h a v e no o v e r a l l  c o n c e r n now i s t o l i n k  opinions  to planning  chapter  findings The  interpretations will  dealing  Future  with  leaps  results park  been context.  a t t r i b u t e s and  1  are required.  some o f t h e  are not readily  be based on c o l l e c t i v e  as w e l l as t h e a u t h o r ' s  though  The m i s s i o n o f  condense, and e x t e n d  a r e a s where c o n c l u s i o n s  questionnaire  t h a t have  meaning i n a p o l i c y  recreationists  i s to collect,  into  items  STUDY  and management c o n s i d e r a t i o n s e v e n  some s u b j e c t i v e c o n c e p t u a l this  Al  apparent.  aspects  of the  experience  users.  Forecast  I n t h e absence o f r e g u l a t o r y mechanisms such as t h e p r i c e system t o guide p u b l i c expenditures  on parks,  t h a t r e c r e a t i o n " c o n s u m e r s " be p r o v i d e d to r e g i s t e r  their  preferences  closely monitored. recreationists for  judging  with  and t h a t t h e s e  i ti s c r u c i a l some  preferences  E m p i r i c a l evidence from t h i s  and t h e i r  preferences  provide  f u t u r e demands f o r w i l d e r n e s s  opportunity  study  be  of  some g u i d e l i n e s  recreation i n this  province.  Findings  h e r e a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r o j e c t i o n s made i n  20h  the  U.S., w h i c h f o r e c a s t  continuing  geometric  g r o w t h i n demand  1 for To  the recreational  services  of the natural  explain  this  growth the f i r s t  associated  with  demographic  population  growth,  mechanism t o c o n s i d e r  changes.  the r u r a l  t o urban  shift,  increase  i n per capita  the  increase  i n leisure  of  the population  As  noted  the  t i m e , and t h e i n c r e a s e  Not  only  i n the m o b i l i t y  corresponding recreation.  u s e r s an i n c r e a s i n g  segment o f  s o c i e t y , b u t as a p r o d u c t o f a l l t h e above demographic p e o p l e a r e b e c o m i n g more s e n s i t i v e t o t h e g e n e r a l the  environment. 2  Alberta sharply  concluded  that  upgraded during  consumer t a s t e s fairly  A recent  "Delphi"  the next three  decades".  f o r the use o f w i l d l a n d s  will  be  Increasing  f o r r e c r e a t i o n may  be  intensified  awareness.  "learning-by-doing" exposed  quality of  "environmental appreciation  Another mechanism l e a d i n g  are  changes,  study o f S o c i a l Futures i n  c o n f i d e n t l y based on a p r o j e c t i o n o f t h i s  environmental  systems.  As more and more  preferences f o r wilderness-type are wilderness  income,  u s e r s as a whole belong t o  socio-economic groups i n s o c i e t y .  i n taste  at  levels,  transportation  p e o p l e move i n t o t h e s e g r o u p s we c a n e x p e c t shifts  the increase  and e s p e c i a l l y d i s c r e t i o n a r y  i n C h a p t e r V, w i l d e r n e s s  higher  Overall  i n education  t h r o u g h more e f f i c i e n t  .  i s  These i n c l u d e :  b o t h ends o f t h e age s p e c t r u m , t h e r i s e the  environment  process which  t o and b e n e f i t  to increased states  that  demand i s t h e t h e more  from the use o f a r e s o u r c e  people t h e more  205  they w i l l  3  demand  such use .  The u s e r  that learning-by-doing i s a potent •the young the  and t h e i n e x p e r i e n c e d .  effects  strongly  of the learning  survey  does  indicate  factor,  especially  among  Research  t o uncover  more o f  process  o n t h e demand f u n c t i o n i s  suggested. In  sum, a c o m b i n a t i o n  o f such  factors  as the h i s t o r i c a l  record, learning-by-doing, increased environmental and  demographic  point  changes i n f a v o r o f w i l d e r n e s s c l i e n t e l e , a l l  to an increasing  wildlands.  How l o n g  determined.  demand f o r t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e o f  this  trend w i l l  satiation will  Determination  continue  and t h e e x p e r i e n c e .  user  Lime  h  and  Congestion  such and  g r o w t h i n demand.  i s one o f m a i n t a i n i n g t h e q u a l i t y To d e t e r m i n e  s t u d i e s are r e q u i r e d on both p e r c e p t i o n and b e h a v i o r  f o r the Boundary water The  of  be  f o r e c a s t f o r i n c r e a s e d use o f w i l d e r n e s s , the key  resource  and  cannot  o f Use C a p a c i t y  problem  parks,  indefinitely.  ultimately limit  planning  of  continue  O b v i o u s l y , because o f the supply l i m i t s ,  booming use cannot  with this  awareness,  crowding  premise  carrying  resource  capacities  capabilities  i n t h e manner s u g g e s t e d  Canoe  by  Area.  has been e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t v i s i t o r  i s a very basic determinant  i s recognised  o f both the  of user  as such by r e s p o n d e n t s .  perception  satisfaction  The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f  206  capacity thus i s not simply a matter of what the land d i c t a t e s hut a l s o what d i f f e r e n t user groups i d e n t i f y as acceptable ' l e v e l s of use.  Although resource c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w i l l o f t e n  take precedence, I t i s conceivable that v i s i t o r to crowding could set capacity l e v e l s lower  sensitivity  than any land  capability levels. As the user survey r e v e a l s , despite the f a c t that 50 percent of v i s i t o r s were bothered by crowding or had d i f f i c u l t y f i n d i n g campsites,  85 percent r e p o r t that they do enter  wilderness a t some point on t h e i r t r i p , u s u a l l y within f i v e miles of the roadhead.  I t can be i n f e r r e d , t h e r e f o r e , that  the parks, i n the user's judgment, are providing a wilderness experience i n a l l but 15 percent of cases.  In the user•s  estimation, present use l e v e l s do not s e r i o u s l y d e t r a c t from the q u a l i t y of the area. There are i n d i c a t i o n s , however, e s p e c i a l l y i n two of the sample areas, that the p s y c h o l o g i c a l use s a t u r a t i o n l e v e l i s being approached.  Most v i s i t o r s think the park i s incapable  of accommodating f u r t h e r increases i n the number of v i s i t o r s . T o t a l use now i s estimated to be close to c a p a c i t y . appear to be approaching  The parks  a watershed i n user capacity where a  choice w i l l soon have to be made between l i m i t i n g the number of v i s i t o r s or l o s i n g the wilderness environment. The  s i t u a t i o n i s analagous to the common property  207  problem discussed First,  i n Chapter  we c o u l d  we c o u l d  trails  and a g r e a t  within  existing  o f the parks impact.  apply  potential  are less exists  park boundaries.)  T h i r d , we c o u l d individual  A t t h e same  time  we a l r e a d y h a v e . than  (In  30 m i l e s o f  access  f o r d i s p e r s i n g demand S e c o n d , we c o u l d  t o maximize p e r s o n a l  expense o f r e d u c i n g could  the areas  f o r instance, there  are clear.  of n a t u r a l areas i s  e s t a b l i s h more p a r k s .  u s e more e f f e c t i v e l y  Garibaldi  site  The a l t e r n a t i v e s  recognising that the supply  'inelastic,  use  III.  satisfaction  regulate and  minimize  accommodate e v e r y o n e a t t h e and r e s o u r c e  more i n t e n s i v e w i l d e r n e s s  quality.  planning,  O r , we  engineering  methods, r e c r e a t i o n l a y o u t s , and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e v i c e s t o provide apply  optimums i n a l l d i r e c t i o n s .  more e f f e c t i v e l y  planning  Obviously  the p o o r l y developed  i t i s time  a r t of  wilderness  and management.  While v i s i t o r s wilderness  sense t h i s approaching  c a p a c i t y , they  restrictions  saturation i n  do n o t a p p e a r r e a d y t o  i n r e t u r n f o r assurances  of a high  quality  and s u s t a i n e d r e s o u r c e  that users  a r e g e n e r a l l y a g a i n s t a l l m a j o r management a n d  d i s c i p l i n a r y measures. resistance  was l o w e r .  commons t h a t This  wilderness  should  base.  accept  experience  limits.  to  The s u r v e y  I n t h e more h e a v i l y u s e d p a r k s , The w i l d e r n e s s  i s still  be open t o a l l w i t h o u t  suggests  indicates  that before  entry are introduced,  regarded  c h a r g e and  however, as a without  any changes and c o n t r o l s on  i n t e n s i v e i n f o r m a t i o n and  208  e d u c a t i o n programs are r e q u i r e d to convince wilderness property  cannot  be  indefinitely  that saturation w i l l  G r o w t h and special If  irretrievable  some f o r m  and  quality  limitations to r e a l i s e  than  let  tread softly  be  essence  and  continually  presented experience something  new of  be  entirely  t h a t suggests and  an  philosophical  on  our  related  and  manner as  same  time,  in  exercised.  wilderness,  possible.  Parks  Second  view  remainder  Look  system.  of the be  now  wilderness  evolving  into  of the d i s c u s s i o n  i n tone  o f w i l d e r n e s s t o m o d e r n man wilderness park  some  absolutely necessary  t h a t i t may  heuristic  maintained.  area  the  i f that  to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s  alternative  The  the  i s one  i n the P r o v i n c i a l  the p o s s i b i l i t y  quite different.  definition this  not  At  s p e c t r e on  forward  convince  absorbed  action i s s t i l l  - A Some e v i d e n c e  to  i n the parks,  that recreation  make o n l y t h e  Experience  be  of the w i l d e r n e s s .  are i n e v i t a b l e .  c a s t an a u t h o r i t a r i a n  Wilderness  will  common  o f w i l d e r n e s s i s t o be  moves i n a s i n c o n s p i c u o u s b u t  The  the  w h e r e f r e e d o m o f c h o i c e and  Rather us  a  programs w i l l  of wilderness i s to continue  i s important  society  ruin  accommodation cannot  restrictions it  as  that  right. A major f u n c t i o n of these  users  regarded  users  and and  will the  attempt  a  implications  209  The  first  questionnaire  q u e s t i o n t o ask i s :  purporting  Was t h e s u r v e y  t o study the wilderness experience  • i n a r e a s t h a t were, i n f a c t ,  a l r e a d y something  other  than  5 wilderness?  The f o l l o w i n g  comment b y Sommer  of questionnaires i n uncovering the r e a l man l e d t o t h i s  more s u b j e c t i v e  on the l i m i t a t i o n  meaning o f n a t u r e t o  discussion.  H i s comment w a s :  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s or survey approaches t o the study o f environmental influences are l i m i t e d by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e e n v i r o n m e n t t e n d s t o a f f e c t people from beyond t h e i r f o c u s o f awareness. Except i n r a r e i n s t a n c e s , such as standing awestruck i n a grove o f m a j e s t i c redwoods o r a l o n g s i d e t h e e t e r n a l c a l e n d a r o f t h e Grand C a n y o n , p e o p l e do n o t a r t i c u l a t e i n a n y o r g a n i s e d way how t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t a f f e c t s them.  With t h i s public  limitation  agency  i n mind c o n s i d e r a g a i n t h e f o l l o w i n g  6  description  of wilderness:  The w i l d e r n e s s e n v i r o n m e n t i s s u c h t h a t u s e r s can e x p e r i e n c e a wide range o f i n t a n g i b l e values; f e e l i n g o f s o l i t u d e , sense o f freedom, r e f r e s h m e n t , s p i r i t u a l awareness, s e r e n i t y , and self reliance. Solitude  and s e r e n i t y ?  With a l l those r u l e s  With a l l those o t h e r people?  and r e s t r i c t i o n s  t o do w i t h g a r b a g e ,  and where t o l i g h t  excitement  reliance?  and s e l f  c a m p s i t e s , danger not only d i f f i c u l t descriptions  warning  o n w h e r e t o camp, w h a t fires?  With a l l those  Adventure, prepared  s i g n s and p a t r o l b o a t s ?  concepts  Freedom?  These a r e  t o measure b u t a r e r a t h e r  idealistic  o f t h e w i l d e r n e s s as i t i s e x p e r i e n c e d i n t h e  210  developed  campsites  a t B l a c k T u s k Meadows, a t t h e l o d g e  R o b s o n R a n c h , o r a t a n y o f t h e camps o r s h e l t e r s  a t Mt.  on t h e Bowron  •chain. It  seems t h a t a new r e c r e a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n  w i l d e r n e s s park appearing  Backcountry  ubiquitous while  travellers  purity,  The preserves,  and b a s i c f a c i l i t i e s a r e  safer than  a city  that they  should  o n l y be c o n s i d e r e d  o f use o f w i l d l a n d designed  no l o n g e r  exists.  With  Branch,  the contemporary wilderness  himself  a new w i l d e r n e s s  version of the frontier at t h e Bowron Lakes t o l d  experience, world.  quasi-wilderness  to suit the  undernourished  urban  me:  the a i d o f t h e Parks traveller  embellished  "Once t h e y  August.  w i t h h i s own outfitter  made i t a p a r k ,  Wilderness,  c o n t e x t , i s an outmoded i l l u s o r y to the backcountry  creates f o r  B u t as a l o n g - t i m e  was t h e e n d o f t h e w i l d e r n e s s . "  or  aren o t  The days o f t h e u n d e f i l e d savage w i l d e r n e s s a r e o v e r  frontier  applied  been  street.  a r g u m e n t c a n t h u s b e made t h a t t h e p a r k s  o r a type  frontier  have  m a n a g e m e n t p o l i c i e s w h i c h h a v e made t h e  r e c r e a t i o n a l needs o f an e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y  the  solitude,  e l i m i n a t e d due t o i n f o r m a t i o n s e r v i c e s and s a f e t y and  w i l d e r n e s s a good d e a l  public.  total  t h e e l e m e n t s o f f e a r and a d v e n t u r e  convenience-oriented  areas  more r e l e v a n t t o t h e u r b a n age i s  t h a t does n o t i n c l u d e t o t a l  or danger.  largely  experience,  of the  i n i t s original  concept  of the provincial  that  parks  when i t i s during  July  -  211  To s u p p o r t average v i s i t o r . 'from t h e v e r y  these  propositions, consider again the  Recognising  sensitive  that wilderness  and d e d i c a t e d  the very  inexperienced  majority  of wilderness v i s i t o r s  extremes. is  living  is  seeking  natural  The t y p i c a l  city-oriented  users  wilderness  range  purists to  "fun-seekers", the  fall  somewhere b e t w e e n  these  u s e r , h o w e v e r , h a s b e e n b r o u g h t up and  i n an urban area  and, although  certain wilderness  he i s aware o f and  values, h i s perception of the  environment i s d e f i n i t e l y  limited  by t h i s  condition of  7 his  residence.  As Winn  observes:  ... p e o p l e c a n n o t come t o i d e n t i f y w i t h n a t u r e u n l e s s t h e y h a v e g r o w n up w i t h and become a part o f i t . Lacking wilderness oases i n the c i t i e s ... u r b a n man i s h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t o develop any widespread a p p r e c i a t i o n o f the mysterious beauty o f the f o r e s t . The d o e s he w i s h  contemporary user t o be a l o n e  excursion with the  select  recreational nature there  to encounter  by h i m s e l f nor He i s o n a  primitive country  t h a t T h e r e a u and M u i r and e x p l o r e n a t u r e  - a sort of with  t a l k e d o f , n o r i s he  i n " a l l h e r moods".  wilderness  v a c a t i o n h a s become  a s much a s i t i s n a t u r e - o r i e n t e d .  t h e r e l e v a n t comment t h a t :  short  t r a v e l and  He i s n o t t h e r e t o commune  the contemporary user's  recreation-oriented offers  to enjoy  i n open w i l d  "consumership".  i n t h e sense  Rather,  i n the backcountry.  friends  d e l i g h t s o f wandering  does n o t t r a v e l  "Present  Shepard  day r e c r e a t i o n ,  which i s o f t e n d e f i n e d n e g a t i v e l y as escape from an  unpleasant  21 2  environment or boring r o u t i n e , i s r e p l a c i n g the pilgrimage w h i c h had n a t u r a l wonders as i t s o b j e c t i v e . " •of w i l d e r n e s s u s e r s to  The l o n g i n g f o r n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t s  i n p a r t , due t o t h e c o n t e m p t u o u s a t t i t u d e  urban  two o f t h e sample p a r k s  to  reach  to  t h e c a r . The w h o l e t r i p  intimate  it but  we a d o p t  toward  life.  In  like  part  are there because of a negative r e a c t i o n  urban disamenities.  is,  Not a s m a l l  the destination, record  a t a s t e o f the outdoors a t the margin.  i s a l s o on a schedule  a-vis nature.  He b e g i n s  i n sight  in  cases  of another  of nature.  time  i t and  histrip  assured  longer vis-  that the route i s  n o o b s t a c l e s , t h a t he w i l l u s u a l l y  Although  the mystery o f the n a t u r a l  h i s r e a c t i o n to the t r i p  senses  very  o f h i s journey.  i ti s helpful  9 "Boorstin's  savor  a n d h a s much t h e same e x p e r i e n c e  i n v o l v e d on the p h y s i c a l aspect  understanding  users  p a r t y , a n d t h a t he w i l l b e p r o v i d e d f o r  o f emergencies.  risk  f o r any  t o Bowron stays  e n v i r o n m e n t w i l l a l w a y s e v o k e a n awe, t h e u s e r little  enough  and r e t u r n  Wilderness  but only penetrate  The v i s i t o r  w e l l marked and w i l l p r e s e n t be  t h e image o n f i l m ,  scarcely allows  contact w i t h o r study  briefly  the stay i s just long  Law":  ... when o n e r i s k s s o l i t t l e o r e x p e r i e n c e s so l i t t l e o n t h e v o y a g e , t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f b e i n g t h e r e somehow b e c o m e s e m p t i e r a n d more trivial. When g e t t i n g t h e r e was more t r o u b l e s o m e , b e i n g t h e r e was more v i v i d .  In  to recall  213  Thus, modern w i l d e r n e s s u s e r s of n a t u r a l wonders; • m i g h t be  classified  Wilderness  highly organised having  landscape  as  are  be  as E c k b o  notes,  movement a n d  t o u r i s m " , he  activity,  w r i t e s , " i s the r e s u l t  relaxation,  a nostalgic  recent rise  indication  of t h i s  the  groups, "The  of the  impact  variety,  f o r f a m i l y , e t h n i c , or  are  of conducted  t r e n d toward  o u t i n g programs i s  backcountry  a major commercial a c t i v i t y  c o n s e r v a t i o n c l u b s and pay  that  roots." The  outings  travel,  occurring i n  of urban dwellers i n search of  cultural  values  abstract objectives.  quest  search  t h a t t o u r i s m i s a more  o f mass t r a v e l or  in  urban-oriented.  replacing wilderness 10  m o r e g e n e r a l i s e d and of  solely  t r e n d i n g t o w a r d s new  consumer, image, or  t o u r i s m may  difference being,  and  they  are not  are designed  the modest f e e t o enjoy  the  tourism.  of outdoor  to enable  wilderness.  Such  and  anyone a b l e The  "Way  to the  Wilderness"  program  to  Wilderness  11  Society's  an  features:  ... 77 a d v e n t u r o u s o u t i n g s f o r t h e w i l d e r n e s s tempted v a c a t i o n e r - a c h o i c e sampling of North America's s t i l l magnificent wilderness h e r i t a g e ... t r i p s a r e p l a n n e d f o r t h e i n e x p e r i e n c e d as w e l l as f o r s e a s o n e d w i l d e r n e s s e n t h u s i a s t s . Complete arrangements a r e made f o r y o u f r o m t h e t i m e y o u a r r i v e ... u n t i l t h e t r i p i s o v e r .... An e x p e r i e n c e d w i l d e r n e s s t r a v e l l e r s e r v e s as d i r e c t o r o f e a c h t r i p , and a p h y s i c i a n n o r m a l l y i s p r e s e n t t o h e l p y o u w i t h a n y m e d i c a l p r o b l e m s .... We h a v e n o t s p a r e d any e f f o r t t o g i v e y o u a w o r t h w h i l e and m e m o r a b l e w i l d e r n e s s e x p e r i e n c e .  21 4  Excerpts  from the q u a l i t y  brochure o f the popular 12  American River Touring wilderness  experience  Association  describe  what t h e  i s becoming f o r thousands o f urban  Americans: Too o f t e n p e o p l e t h i n k t h a t w i l d e r n e s s i s enjoyed o n l y by rugged outdoorsmen. We f e e l t h a t w i l d e r n e s s s h o u l d be a v a i l a b l e t o e v e r y o n e , r e g a r d l e s s o f age o r l i m i t e d c a m p i n g e x p e r i e n c e .... B y way o f e n s u r i n g a q u a l i t y experience f o r you, your f a m i l y or f r i e n d s , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h v a c a t i o n f u n and new l e a r n i n g , ARTA h a s l i m i t e d r e g u l a r r i v e r t r i p s t o 3 0 p e r s o n s .... O u r c o m p a r a t i v e l y small groups a l l o w personal intimacy w i t h n a t u r e , w h i l e p r o v i d i n g a happy s o c i a l f r a m e w o r k .... ARTA b o a t m e n a r e s k i l l e d a n d i n f o r m a l l e a d e r s , and above a l l , they a r e g o o d c o m p a n y .... T h e b o a t m e n s e r v e a s camp c h e f s a n d s e l e c t a w i d e v a r i e t y o f menus t o s u i t every,taste, from beef stroganoff t o f r e s h baked apple p i e .  The annually, year  Sierra  who c o n d u c t o v e r 3 0 0 s u c h o u t i n g  Club,  were f r e q u e n t  visitors  when a maximum p a r t y  t o t h e Bowron Lakes u n t i l l a s  s i z e r u l e came i n t o  g r o u p o f t w e n t y met i n t h e p a r k h a d f l o w n of the chain portages. to  to avoid  A medical  ensure there  included  making t h e f i r s t doctor  leave the  ...."  One  the third  lake  arduous  accompanied  of troubles.  t h e group Also  " ... I s i n  He may r e q u i r e a t r i p  member t o  a t any time i f , i n h i s s o l e d i s c r e t i o n ,  member's f u r t h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n may b e d e t r i m e n t a l 13  trip  into  w e r e a c o o k a n d a "camp m a s t e r " who  the t r i p  effect.  two r a t h e r  and a lawyer  w e r e no p o s s i b i l i t i e s  complete charge o f the t r i p .  trip  he  feel  to the  215  Along the  w i t h members o f  mass o f w i l d e r n e s s u s e r s  • secondarily seeking basic  wilderness  with nature and  and  these  i n the p r o v i n c i a l  what has  solitude.  Because of  The  and  Impersonal  The  one  - i t does not  primitivism,  or being  and  away f r o m  as  evidenced  i s a convenient, involve reverting  alone  and  by  only of  as  communion experience  relatively however,  civilization  a s s o c i a t i o n with other  M o d e r n man's r e t u r n t o n a t u r e ,  free  thought  common d e n o m i n a t o r ,  d e s i r e to get  parks,  are  limited  condone b a s i c f a c i l i t i e s  remains unchanged: f r o m f o r c e d and  of  their  outings,  parks  been t r a d i t i o n a l l y  l a r g e numbers o f o t h e r u s e r s .  wilderness  effortless  values, i . e . contemplation  perception they  these  almost  the  people.  use  comfortable  of  and  to barbarism,  risk-  a l l out  f o r months i n v a s t p r i s t i n e  open  spaces. There continues  t o be  an  elite  u s e r s , h o w e v e r , w i t h a more a t a v i s t i c isolation  i n their  Boones" are themselves and  backcountry  "expert" wilderness and  of the  travellers.  restricting  shun the p a r k s  o u t l o o k , who  vacations.  among t h e m i n o r i t y ( 1 8 $ )  insulating  proportion of  These  To  travel  c r o s s - c o u n t r y away f r o m t h e b e a t e n t r a i l s ,  that  as  these  response, management  wilderness  their 14  The  the h i g h or  suggestion i n Chapter  "purists"  views should  "Daniel  escape  seem t o  areas.  seek out  seek  s a m p l e who  people  non-park wilderness  do  management p o l i c i e s , and  wilderness  consider crowds  these peaks, explore X  show a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s  was in  r e c e i v e added c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n  21 6  By  t h e same t o k e n t h a t  more d e m a n d i n g g r o u p  are of special  * o f t h e more u r b a n - i n c l i n e d spectrum.  the views  interest,  not  seeking the w i l d e r n e s s atmosphere,  and  preparedness,  should n o t be.  these people educated  evolving  their less their park  be g r e a t l y  i t .  backcountry  presence The  i s suggested  that  management  parks  seem t o b e  t h e n e e d s o f t h e mass o f  more l e i s u r e - o r i e n t e d  visitors  o f t h e above two g r o u p s . facilities  and c o m f o r t s ,  p e r m i t a wide  slightly  their and  I t i s one t h a t i s n o t  idealistic  retreat;  spectrum  With  m o t i v e s , a new m o d i f i e d f o r m o f  c a n be r e c o g n i s e d .  quasi-natural leisure  If  on the  I n t e n s i v e awareness o f the w i l d e r n e s s environment,  i n i t s original  who  elsewhere or  the load  the p r o v i n c i a l  modest demands f o r b a s i c  environment  -  reduced.  between the extremes  wilderness  to  not despoil  ability  a r e o b v i o u s b u t a r e as y e t u n e x p l o r e d .  i n a way t o s u i t  fall  of  The c o n d i t i o n t h a t  i n t h e ways o f w i l d e r n e s s t r a v e l ,  It  that  o r i n terms  c a n be I n t e r c e p t e d a n d d i v e r t e d  wilderness w i l l  there are  of motives, are  i n i s evidence of t h e i r  c a r e s f o r t h e w i l d e r n e s s would i m p l i c a t i o n s here  this  so t o o a r e t h o s e  observation that  i n t h e b a c k c o u n t r y who, i n t e r m s  campsites are often l e f t  of  n o v i c e s a t t h e o t h e r end o f t h e  I t i s obvious by f i e l d  many p e o p l e  and b a c k g r o u n d  sense, but a form o f  i t i s an environment  of urban  society  structured  to experience a  compromised and humanized v e r s i o n o f t h e p r i m a e v a l .  M o r e a n d more t h e P a r k s B r a n c h  i s responding  as a p e o p l e -  217  oriented  agency and t h e w i l d e r n e s s  i n t u r n i s more a n d m o r e  15 squeezed i n t o recently  a r e c r e a t i o n a l mold.  As t h e B r a n c h D i r e c t o r  affirmed: In a single sentence, the philosophy behind P r o v i n c i a l P a r k s i s t o g i v e p e o p l e , and t h i s now means p r e d o m i n a n t l y u r b a n d w e l l e r s , t h e opportunity t o enjoy h e a l t h f u l r e c r e a t i o n i n as c o m p l e t e as p o s s i b l e a change o f scene f r o m t h a t w h i c h t h e y spend t h e i r day t o day lives.  This of the parks  trend  to the "democratization"  seems c e r t a i n t o c o n t i n u e .  e x p e c t more e x t e n s i v e u s e o f t h e p a r k s  of the wilderness  A s i t d o e s , we c a n and  corresponding  changes i n t h e p a t t e r n s o f b a c k c o u n t r y u s e . Bowron Park o n l y  t e n years  numbers o f u n i n i t i a t e d vacations  people w i l l  when t h e y a r e a s s u r e d  wilderness  16  travel.  , a 565 m i l e  Trail  ago g i v e s  spaced p r i m i t i v e  The c r e a t i o n o f  evidence  take  that substantial  extended  backcountry  of c e r t a i n fundamentals of  The w h o l e c o n c e p t o f t h e G r e a t long distance  trail  complete w i t h  s h e l t e r s through t h e seven Rocky  parks, anticipates this  trend  Divide  and i s j u s t i f i e d  closely  Mountain  on t h i s  basis.  17 Similar other  trails  areas  have been suggested f o r G a r i b a l d i Park  as  well.  Such p o l i c i e s wilderness significant the  and  parks long  t h a t e n h a n c e and e n c o u r a g e u s e o f  by m i d d l e - r a n g e u s e r s term consequences.  p h y s i c a l environment a f f e c t  contain  subtle but  We k n o w t h a t c h a n g e s i n  changes i n the s o c i a l  218  e n v i r o n m e n t and by  determining  • a r e a , we user  can  vice versa. which values  should  be  principle  emphasised  in a  p l a n t o meet t h e v a r i e d n e e d s o f t h e  groups t h a t w i l l  o b s e r v a t i o n s on  come t o t h a t a r e a .  what v a l u e s  introduced  i s certain.  v a l u e s who  will  and  I t i s a planning  direction  be  are being  of t h e i r  and  development.  different  people  and  with  determining  city-bred the  Because of t h i s  seem d e s t i n e d t o p l a y a g r e a t e r r e c r e a t i o n r o l e  wider  segment o f  of and  t h e U.S., the  the danger.  the parks  simply into  response  has  been to  As  has  happened  wilderness  backcountry separate  quality  i s lost  the  the park  c u l m i n a t i o n of  come t o r e p l a c e In  the  movement a r e r e m o t e .  a limited  i n the sense  a  commonplace  this  " w i l d e r n e s s " as  The  movement f r o m Wilderness  distinction. the  the  a more r e a l i s t i c  prospects  of a separate  S u c h a movement w i l l  form of zoning  such  Act areas "wildland" description. resource  wilderness have to e x i s t  or development c o n t r o l .  a movement i n t h e  parks  the  In  term  a  American  C a n a d a , h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e o f more l o c a l i s e d  administration,  the p a r k s ,  and  recreation areas.  where r e c r e a t i o n i s a p r e d o m i n a n t l a n d u s e , has  the  for  c h a l l e n g e become m i n i m a l ,  movement f o r w i l d e r n e s s p r e s e r v a t i o n , t h e representing  fact  I n many p a r t s  become more a c c e s s i b l e a n d  e l e m e n t s o f d a n g e r and  certain irretrievable develop  degree  the p o p u l a t i o n i n the f u t u r e .  lies  as  these  changes  parks  Herein  given  outcome o f  emphasised  It i s city-bred  using the parks  Ihe  that  form of  ecological  within (In  219  reserves  i s being  committees.)  realized  through  I t i s possible  the e f f o r t s  o f the IBP  t h a t a s demand c o n t i n u e s t o g r o w  ' f o r wilderness-type r e c r e a t i o n , other backcountry wilderness  areas  outside designated  r e c r e a t i o n as t h e i r  primary  parks w i t h  objective  will  or  semi-  primitive  be r e q u i r e d .  Until  then, c a r e f u l planning r e c o g n i s i n g the p r i n c i p l e s  o f common  p r o p e r t y r e s o u r c e management must be u n d e r t a k e n .  If i t i s  not  and i f a s u i t a b l e  public  will  dissolve  this  c o u n t r y have t h e d u a l  recognise recreation  esthetic  into backcountry  that although  fails  playgrounds.  to a r i s e , the parks Park  planners i n  (but not Inconsistent) objective to  wilderness parks  have v a l u e s  beyond  t h e y m u s t , a t t h e same t i m e , p r o v i d e a more  f u n c t i o n a l and r e l e v a n t r e c r e a t i o n a l p h i l o s o p h y f o r o u r t i m e .  220  REFERENCES CHAPTER  XI  (1)  T h e h i s t o r i c a l r e c o r d i n t h e U.S. s h o w s t h e p e r c a p i t a use o f w i l d e r n e s s has b e e n g r o w i n g a t a r a t e o f a b o u t 1 0 p e r c e n t a n n u a l l y o v e r t h e p a s t two d e c a d e s . Similar use r e c o r d s f o r s i m i l a r a r e a s i n Canada a r e e i t h e r absent, s h o r t , i n a c c u r a t e or e r o t i c , w i t h changes from y e a r t o y e a r , d e p e n d i n g how and b y whom t h e e s t i m a t e s a r e made. F o r d a t a o n t r e n d s i n t h e U.S. see: Clawson, M a r i o n and K n e t s c h , J a c k L., E c o n o m i c s o f O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n . Johns Hopkins P r e s s , B a l t i m o r e , 1966.  (2)  W e s t r e d e I n s t i t u t e , S o c i a l F u t u r e s A l b e r t a 1970. 2005, Human R e s o u r c e s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f A l b e r t a , E d m o n t o n , 1970, p. 55.  (3)  Krutilla, Rev., 57,  (4)  L i m e , D a v i d W., of the Boundary  J.TJ., " C o n s e r v a t i o n R e c o n s i d e r e d " , 1967, p. 7 7 7 786.  Am.  Econ.  " R e s e a r c h F o r D e t e r m i n i n g Use C a p a c i t i e s W a t e r s C a n o e A r e a " , N a t u r a l i s t . 21 (4),  1970.  (5)  Sommer, R., "Man's P r o x i m a t e E n v i r o n m e n t " , J . o f I s s u e s . V o l . X X I I , No. 4 , O c t . , 1 9 6 6 , p. 6 7 .  (6)  C o n t a i n e d i n L a p a g e , W.F., "Some S o c i o l o g i c a l A s p e c t s of Forest R e c r e a t i o n " , J , of For., (61), 1 , January, 1963, p. 35.  (7)  W i n n , I r a J . , " P u b l i c P a r k s and H i s t o r y . O c t . , 1 9 6 9 , p. 2 3 .  (8)  Shepard, p. 260.  (9)  B o o r s t i n , D a n i e l , J . , The p. 97.  P a u l , Man  (10)  Eckbo, G a r r e t t , V o l . 1 8 , No. 2 ,  (11)  Wilderness The L i v i n g p. i .  Private  Lives",  i n t h e L a n d s c a p e . K n o p f , N.Y., I m a g e . A t h e n e u m , N.Y.,  "The L a n d s c a p e o f T o u r i s m " , S u m m e r - S p r i n g , 1 9 6 9 , p. 2 9 .  Social  Natural 1967, 1962,  Landscape.  Society, "Wilderness T r i p s 1971", i n s e r t i n W i l d e r n e s s , V. 3 4 , No. 1 1 2 , Winter, 1970-71,  221  (12)  American River Touring Assoc., B r o c h u r e , 20 p .  (13)  S i e r r a C l u b , "1971 W i l d e r n e s s O u t i n g s " , S i e r r a B u l l e t i n . V . 5 6 , N o . 1 A , J a n . , 1 9 7 1 , 3 5 - p.  (14)  F o r i n s t a n c e Hendee, J.C. e t . a l . , "Wilderness Users I n t h e P a c i f i c Northwest - Their C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , V a l u e s and Management P r e f e r e n c e s " , F o r e s t S e r v i c e R e s e a r c h P a p e r PNW-61, P o r t l a n d , 1 9 6 8 .  (15)  A h r e n s , R.H., "The P h i l o s o p h y o f R e g i o n a l a n d P r o v i n c i a l P a r k s " , Paper g i v e n t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Northwest Parks and R e c r e a t i o n A s s o c . C o n f e r e n c e , V i c t o r i a , O c t . 1, 1 9 7 0 , p. 1 .  (16)  Some o f t h e p h i l o s o p h y b e h i n d t h i s t r a i l i s g i v e n i n my " M o u n t a i n N a t i o n a l P a r k s - Some N o t e s o n W i l d e r n e s s U s e " , P a r k N e w s . J u n e , 1969-  (17)  Wood, G.A., "A P r o p o s e d T r a i l S y s t e m F o r t h e N o r t h e r n P o r t i o n o f G a r i b a l d i P a r k " , memorandum t o C h i e f , P l a n n i n g D i v i s i o n , P r o v . P a r k s B r a n c h , J a n u a r y 9, 1967.  "ARTA R i v e r T r i p s  1971",  Club  L I T E R A T U R E  C I T E D  222  LITERATURE CITED Ackerman, E.A., "Where i s a Research F r o n t i e r ? " , Annals of the American Assoc. of Geographers. V o l . 53, No. 4, December, 1963. Ahrens, R.H., "The Philosophy of Regional and P r o v i n c i a l Parks", Paper given to the International Northwest Parks and Recreation Assoc. Conference, V i c t o r i a , Oct. 1 , 1 970. Alpine Club of Canada, Avalanche Echos. Newsletter of the Vancouver Section, V o l . 43, No. 10, October, 1970. American River Touring Assoc., "ARTA River Trips 1971", Brochure, 20 p. Aschmann, Homer, "People, Recreation, Wild Lands, and Wilderness", Landscape, Winter, 1968-69, p. 40 - 44. Bertram, G.W., "The Contribution of Education to Economic Growth", Staff Study No. 12, Economic Council of Canada, 1966.  B i r t l e s , "The Lake Garibaldi - Black Tusk Region: A Recreation Resource Development Concept", unpublished Senior Honors Essay, U. of Waterloo, 1967. Blalock, H.M., J r . , An Introduction to Social Research, Prentice H a l l , N.Y., 1970. Boorstin, Daniel, J . , The Image. Atheneum, N.Y., 1962. Brandborg, S.M., "The Job Ahead Under the Wilderness Act", The Living Wilderness, Revised r e p r i n t , March, 1967. Brown, R.C., "The Doctrine of Usefulness: Natural Resource and National Park P o l i c y i n Canada, 1887 - 1914", i n Nelson, J.G. and 8cace, R., eds., The Canadian National Parks: Today and Tomorrow. University of Calgary, 1968, p. 94 - 110. Bultena, G.L., and K l e s s i g , L.L., " S a t i s f a c t i o n i n Camping: A Conceptualization and Guide to Social Research", J . of Leisure Res.. V. 1, No. 4, Autumn, 1969.  223  B u r c h , ¥m. R., J r . , " N a t u r e a s Symbol and E x p r e s s i o n American S o c i a l L i f e : A Sociological Exploration", u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , U. o f M i n n e s o t a , 1964. , " W i l d e r n e s s - The L i f e C y c l e and C h o i c e " , J . o f F o r . . 64, 1966, p . 606  Recreational  istics Forest  In  Forest 610.  and Wenger, W.D., "The S o c i a l C h a r a c t e r o f P a r t i c i p a n t s i n T h r e e S t y l e s o f F a m i l y Camping", S e r v i c e R e s e a r c h P a p e r PNW-48, 1967.  B u r t o n , T . L . and N o a d , P.A., R e c r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h Methods A R e v i e w o f R e c e n t S t u d i e s , C e n t e r f o r U r b a n and R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s , B i r m i n g h a m , O c c a s i o n a l P a p e r No. 3 , 1968. G a t e s , R., " R e c r e a t i o n and t h e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e : A Study o f O r g a n i s a t i o n a l R e s p o n s e t o C h a n g i n g Demands", u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , S t a n f o r d U., 1963. C a t t o n , W.R., Paper g i v e n Park, Oct.,  and  Paper  " P e o p l e Who H a t e C r o w d s D o n ' t H a t e P e o p l e " , t o t h e F o u r t h C o l o r a d o Open Space C o n f . , E s t e s 1967.  "Motivations of Wilderness Users", Magazine o f Canada, D e c , 19, 1969.  C h r i s t y , F.T., Resources For  J r . , " E f f i c i e n c y i n t h e Use o f M a r i n e t h e F u t u r e R e p r i n t No. 4 9 , September,  Clawson, Marion, Chicago, 1963.  Land  and  Water F o r  R e c r e a t i o n , Rand  Pulp  Resources", 1964. McNally,  Cowan, I . McT., " W i l d e r n e s s - C o n c e p t , F u n c t i o n and Management", H o r a c e M. A l b r i g h t C o n s e r v a t i o n L e c t u r e s h i p V I I , B e r k e l e y , April, 1968. C r a i n e , L . E . , " S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and P l a n n i n g E d u c a t i o n " , i n Hufschmidt, M.M., R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g - C h a l l e n g e and P r o s p e c t s , P r a i g e r , N.Y., 1969. C r o w e , S y l v i a , "The N e e d f o r L a n d s c a p e P l a n n i n g " , T o w a r d s New R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Man a n d N a t u r e i n T e m p e r a t e L a n d s . I.U.C.N. New S e r i e s P u b l i c a t i o n No. 8 , M o r g e s , 1967. C r u t c h f i e l d , J . A . a n d P o n t e c o r v o , • G., T h e P a c i f i c S a l m o n Fisheries: A Study o f I r r a t i o n a l C o n s e r v a t i o n , Resources F o r The F u t u r e , J o h n s H o p k i n s , B a l t i m o r e , 1969.  A  ; :.,\ion:;, r><s>»Y,o wn • h I i if. »u N M M D U . ' I V i r g i n i a Vo ! y l.<vhi i \ <• n) I n - l l U , Outdoor  '  — R & ' S f a r c h Act  l!i\:i'(\>it,lon;  AH  - A Thoor<-l,|e.;»J  K< •<  >i «  >HJ  I r . « i ' /  1 '*  I. n tro<[i|cJJ i?Ji  * o r e s t i o n and C o n s e r v a t i o n , "Conor.-ii fi L.it«trri';nl v. f P r o v i n c i a l Park:-? Brnr.eh :m<J K m i c L i o n B y i r j o l a r l e t t e r , V i c t o r i a . , J a n u a r y '/, 1 % V .. ' - - . a a r t i n g . Y a l e  University  Press,  Now  Havon,  , " i t y P l a n n i n g and t h e T r e a s u r y o f S c i e n c e " , .' . , E n v i r o n m e n t F o r Man, I n d i a n a P r e s s , 1 9 6 8 . i... ''The L a n d s c a p e o f T o u r i s m " , rrr..er-Spring, 1969. . U  o f Canada, A n n u a l R e p o r t .  Land scape, V o l . Ottawa,  A. r k , "The F u t u r e o f R e c r e a t i o n o n W i l d . r o n i e l e . J u n e , 1 9 6 8 , p . 2h - 2 9 .  1969. Lands",  The W i l d e r n e s s " , i n N a s h , R. e d . , T h e C a l l o f . , - i I l e r , N.Y., 1 9 7 0 , p . 75 - 7 8 . r _ , , „, " T y p e s o f R e c r e a t i o n S u r v e y s " , i n R e c r e a t i o n rt*.-.F>ai-- ;-h . Assoc. f o r H e a l t h , Phys. Ed. and R e c r e a t i o n , ~>* ~ 1 i " , 1966. ;  Fi:-.hftT-j  Jri'. su^i  L., "Regional P l a n n i n g : Determining The P u b l i c i n Huf s c h m i d t , M.M., R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g - C h a l l e n g e P r a i g e r , N.Y., 1 9 6 9 .  j--^ph  , <Hf.  }  uarmon, C o l i n A . , " T o w a r d s a S t r a t e g y f o r C o n s e r v a t i o n i n a W o r l d o f T e c h n o l o g i c a l C h a n g e " , S o e i o - B c o r u I ' l q n .£fcX g , V o l . 3, 1 9 6 9 , P . 159 - 1 7 8 . G i l l e s p i e , G.A., a n d B r e w e r , D., " E r r t i r n n U . n ^ Levels o f Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n i s t s " , J . o f V . 2 2 , No. 6 , N o v . , 1 9 6 7 , p . 2»f7 - 'JT'J. "  tin t, 1 MIA-H* 1.1 . o n  I /yni W:\tox ^ o t l L ' t * " " '  225  G i l l i g a n , J a m e s P . , "The D e v e l o p m e n t o f P o l i c y and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f F o r e s t S e r v i c e P r i m i t i v e and W i l d e r n e s s Areas i n the Western U n i t e d S t a t e s " , u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , U. o f M i c h i g a n , 1 9 5 3 G o d d a r d , M.K., "A New C o n s e r v a t i o n F o r a n U r b a n A m e r i c a " , i n the "Proceedings of the T h i r t i e t h North American W i l d l i f e C o n f e r e n c e " , 1 9 6 8 , p. 4 7 7 - 4 8 3 . G r e e n w o o d , N.H., "An O u t s i d e V i e w o f W i l d e r n e s s P r e s e r v a t i o n i n B.C.", L i v i n g W i l d e r n e s s , V o l . 3 2 , No. 1 0 3 , A u t u m n , 1 9 6 8 . H a r d i n , G., "The T r a g e d y o f t h e Commons", S c i e n c e . V o l . 1 6 2 , December 1 3 , 1 9 6 8 , p. 1 2 4 3 - 1 2 4 8 . ,"We M u s t E a r n A g a i n F o r O u r s e l v e s What we H a v e I n h e r i t e d " , i n M c C l o s k e y , M., e d . , W i l d e r n e s s - The E d g e o f K n o w l e d g e . S i e r r a C l u b , San F r a n c i s c o , 1 9 7 0 . H a r t , W.J., "A S y s t e m s A p p r o a c h t o P a r k P l a n n i n g " , I.U.C.N., New S e r i e s , P u b l i c a t i o n N o . 4 , M e r g e s , 1 9 6 6 . H a r v e y , D.,  E x p l a n a t i o n i n Geography, Awald, London,  1970.  H e n d e e , J . C . , " R e c r e a t i o n C l i e n t e l e - The A t t r i b u t e s o f R e c r e a t i o n i s t s P r e f e r r i n g D i f f e r e n t Management A g e n c i e s , Car Campgrounds or W i l d e r n e s s A r e a s I n the P a c i f i c Northwest", u n p u b l i s h e d P h . D . t h e s i s , U. o f W a s h i n g t o n , 1 9 6 7 . — i "Rural-Urban D i f f e r e n c e s R e f l e c t e d i n Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n P a r t i c i p a t i o n " , J . o f L e i s u r e R e s . . V. No. 4 , A u t u m n , 1 9 6 9 .  1,  e t . a l . , " W i l d e r n e s s Users I n the P a c i f i c N o r t h w e s t - T h e i r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , V a l u e s and M a n a g e m e n t P r e f e r e n c e s " , F o r e s t S e r v i c e R e s e a r c h P a p e r PNW-61, 1 9 6 8 . J a m e s , G.A. and H a r p e r , R.A., " R e c r e a t i o n Use National F o r e s t " , Forest Service Res. Paper,  i n the SE-18,  Ocala 1965.  J e f f r e y , W.W., "The E v o l u t i o n o f W i l d e r n e s s P r e s e r v a t i o n P o l i c y i n t h e U.S.", t e r m p a p e r f o r F S 2 0 0 , C o l o r a d o S t a t e , 1964, 58 p. 1  K a n e , J . , "Our L a n d , N o t Yours ,' I n t r o s p e c t , S p e c i a l R e p o r t o f t h e S o c i e t y f o r P o l l u t i o n and E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n t r o l , B u r n a b y , B.C., 1970.  226  K e s t e v a n , G.L., "A V o l . 1 6 0 , May 2 4 ,  Policy 1968,  For C o n s e r v a t i o n i s t s " , Science, p. 8 5 7 - 8 6 0 .  K i e r n a n , K . , D e p a r t m e n t o f R e c r e a t i o n a n d C o n s e r v a t i o n , Our N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e . B.C. G o v e r n m e n t P u b l i c a t i o n , V i c t o r i a , 1970.  K l a u s n e r , S.Z., " R e c r e a t i o n as S o c i a l A c t i o n " i n N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s , A P r o g r a m f o r Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h . Pub. 1 7 2 7 , N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y o f S c i e n c e s , Wash., 1969.  K n e e s e , A.V., " P r o t e c t i n g Our E n v i r o n m e n t and N a t u r a l i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s " , R e s o u r c e s f o r t h e F u t u r e R e p r i n t No. August, - 1970.  Resources 88,  K n e t s c h , J . , D e s i g n f o r the Canadian Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Demand S t u d y , u n p u b l i s h e d r e p o r t , N a t i o n a l a n d H i s t o r i c Branch, Ottawa, 1967.  Parks  K o t , R . J . , "An A n a l y s i s o f A c r e a g e a n d C l a s s C h a n g e s i n P r o v i n c i a l P a r k s o f B.C. D u r i n g t h e P e r i o d 1 9 5 2 t o 1 9 6 7 " , u n p u b l i s h e d B . S c . t h e s i s , U.B.C., 1 9 6 9 . K o v a c s , T.J., " S e l f A d m i n i s t e r e d Park V i s i t o r Survey Technique", CORD S t u d y , N a t i o n a l P a r k s - P l a n n i n g , O t t a w a , 1970. Krutilla, 57,  1967,  J.V., " C o n s e r v a t i o n R e c o n s i d e r e d " , P. 7 7 7 786.  Am.  L a p a g e , W i l b u r F . , "Some S o c i o l o g i c a l A s p e c t s R e c r e a t i o n " , J . o f F o r . , 6 1 , 1, J a n . , 1963. Leopold,  A.,  A Sand C o u n t y A l m a n a c , O x f o r d ,  Rev..  Forest  London,  L i m e , D a v i d W., " R e s e a r c h F o r D e t e r m i n i n g Use t h e B o u n d a r y Waters Canoe A r e a " , N a t u r a l i s t . and  of  Econ.  194-9.  C a p a c i t i e s of 21,(4), 1970.  and C u s h w a , C h a r l e s T., " W i l d l i f e E s t h e t i c s Auto Campers", F o r e s t S e r v i c e Research Paper MC-32, 1969.  Lowenthal, David, Aug., 1968.  " D a n i e l Boone i s Dead", N a t u r a l H i s t o r y ,  Lucas, Robert C , "The Q u e t i c o S u p e r i o r A r e a : Recreational Use i n R e l a t i o n t o C a p a c i t y " , u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. thesis, U.of Minnesota, 1962. Superior Area", 1 964.  , " R e c r e a t i o n a l C a p a c i t y of the QueticoF o r e s t S e r v i c e Research Paper L S - 1 5 , Sept.,  227  , " W i l d e r n e s s P e r c e p t i o n and U s e : The E x a m p l e o f t h e B o u n d a r y W a t e r s C a n o e A r e a " , N a t u r a l R e s . J,« J a n . , 1964. , "The C o n t r i b u t i o n o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Research t o Wilderness P o l i c y Decisions", J . o f S o c i a l I s s u e s . V o l . 22, No. 4, 1966, p . 1 6 6 - 126. , " R e s e a r c h Needs f o r N a t i o n a l P a r k s " , i n N e l s o n , J . C . a n d S c a c e , R., T h e C a n a d i a n N a t i o n a l P a r k s : T o d a y a n d T o m o r r o w . U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l g a r y , 1968, p . 904~930. L u s t y , G o r d o n , "A S t u d y o f V i s i t o r A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d s Q u e t i c o Prov. Park", conducted f o rt h e Parks Branch, Ontario Dept. o f Lands and F o r e s t s , T o r o n t o , M a r c h , 1968. Marsh, John, " P e r c e p t i o n and A t t i t u d e G e o g r a p h y 580, U. o f C a l g a r y , N o v . ,  Studies'! Term Paper f o r 1969.  Marx, L e o , " A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t i o n s and E c o l o g i c a l S c i e n c e . V o l . 170, N o v . 27, 1970.  Ideals",  M e a n s , R . L . , "The New C o n s e r v a t i o n " , N a t u r a l H i s t o r y .  1969.  April,  M e r r i a m , L . C . , "The B o b M a r s h a l l W i l d e r n e s s A r e a o f M o n t a n a Some S o c i o - E c o n o m i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s " , J . o f F o r . . N o v . , 1964. and Ammons, R.B., "The W i l d e r n e s s U s e r i n T h r e e M o n t a n a A r e a s " , R e s e a r c h R e p o r t , U. o f M o n t a n a , n . d . M i l l e r , D . C , Handbook o f R e s e a r c h M e a s u r e m e n t , M c K a y , N.Y., 1964.  Design  and S o c i a l  N a s h , R., " W i l d e r n e s s a n d t h e A m e r i c a n M i n d " , Ph.D. t h e s i s , U. o f W i s c o n s i n , 1965, p u b l i s h e d u n d e r t h e same t i t l e b y Y a l e U. P r e s s , New H a v e n , 1967. , " W i l d e r n e s s a n d Man i n N o r t h A m e r i c a " , i n N e l s o n , J . G . a n d S c a c e , R. e d s . , T h e C a n a d i a n N a t i o n a l P a r k s : T o d a y a n d T o m o r r o w . V. 1 , P r o c e e d i n g s o f a c o n f e r e n c e h e l d a t t h e U. o f C a l g a r y , 1968. N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s , A P r o g r a m o f Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h , P u b l i c a t i o n 1727, N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y o f S c i e n c e s , Washington, 1969.  228  Neuraan, E . S . , " E v a l u a t i n g S u b j e c t i v e R e s p o n s e to t h e R e c r e a t i o n Environment - A Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s of D i s s i m i l a r P r e f e r e n c e s f o r the V i s u a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Beaches", unpublished Ph.D. t h e s i s , Northwestern U . ,  of 1969.  N i c h o l s o n , E . Max, " C o n s e r v a t i o n and t h e Next R e n a i s s a n c e " , A l b r i g h t C o n s e r v a t i o n L e c t u r e s h i p I V , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , M a r c h , 1964. N o b l e , 3 . H . , " F o r e s t R e c r e a t i o n Management i n B r i t i s h Columbia'*, u n p u b l i s h e d B . S . F . t h e s i s , U . B . C . , 1965. O ' R i o r d a n , T . , "Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h " , i n R e s o u r c e s , R e c r e a t i o n and R e s e a r c h , e d . F o s t e r , H . D . and Sewe11, W . R . D . , U . V i c t o r i a , 1970. Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Resources Review Commission, Wilderness and R e c r e a t i o n , S t u d y R e p o r t 3 , S u p ' t . o f Documents, W a s h . ,  1962.  P e a r s e , P e t e r H . , "Non R e s i d e n t B i g Game H u n t i n g and G u i d i n g I n d u s t r y i n B . C . " , D e p t , o f R e c r e a t i o n and Conservation, V i c t o r i a , n . d . Fishery",  the  , "The V a l u e o f the K o o t e n a y Lake S p o r t D e p t . o f R e c r e a t i o n and C o n s e r v a t i o n , V i c t o r i a , n . d .  P e r l o f f , H . S . and Wingo, L . , " U r b a n G r o w t h and t h e P l a n n i n g o f Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n " , ORRRC Study R e p o r t 22, W a s h i n g t o n ,  1962.  P i m l o t t , D . H . , " W i l d e r n e s s i n C a n a d a " , The L i v i n g V o l . 3 2 , N o . 103, Autumn, 1968, p . 5-21.  Wilderness,  P r i d d l e , G.,"Wilderness Perception i n Algonquin P r o v i n c i a l Park*', u n p u b l i s h e d M . A . t h e s i s , C l a r k U . , 1966. Raup, H . M . , "American F o r e s t No. 11, November, 1967.  Biology", J.  of F o r . ,  R e s o u r c e s F o r t h e F u t u r e , "The Human Element Resource U s e " , Annual R e p o r t . 1966.  Vol.  65,  i n Natural  R o s e n b e r g , G . , " C i t y P l a n n i n g T h e o r y and t h e Q u a l i t y o f L i f e " , Am. B e h a v . S c . . V o l . 9, N o . 4, D e c , 1965.  229  R o s t o n , J . , "The C o n t r i b u t i o n , o f A t t i t u d e S t u d i e s t o O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n P l a n n i n g " , i n F o s t e r , H.D. a n d S e w e l l , W.R.D., R e s o u r c e s . R e c r e a t i o n a n d R e s e a r c h , W e s t e r n G e o g r a p h i c a l S e r i e s , V o l . 3 , U. o f V i c t o r i a , 1970, p . 31 - 4 0 . S c h e f e r , E . L . , J r . , " A e s t h e t i c and E m o t i o n a l E x p e r i e n c e s R a t e H i g h w i t h N o r t h e a s t W i l d e r n e s s H i k e r s " , E n v i r o n , and B e h a v i o r . V . 1 , N o . 2, D e c , 1969, p . 187 - 197. S e s s o m s , H . D o u g l a s , "An A n a l y s i s o f S e l e c t e d V a r i a b l e s A f f e c t i n g O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n P a t t e r n s " , 4-2, O c t o b e r , 1963, p . 112 - 115. Shepard,  P . , Man i n t h e L a n d s c a p e .  K n o p f , N.Y., 1967.  S i e r r a C l u b , "1971 W i l d e r n e s s O u t i n g s " , S i e r r a V . 56, N o . 1 A , J a n . , 1971, 35 p .  Club  Bulletin.  Simmons, T., " P o v e r t y o f P l e n t y - C o n s e r v a t i o n i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a " , T h e C o n i f e r . S p r i n g , 1970. S m i t h , P . J . , Back t o Nature: The A r c a d i a n M y t h i n U r b a n A m e r i c a , O x f o r d P r e s s , N.Y., 1969. S o m m a r s t r o m , A . R . , "The I m p a c t o f Human U s e o n R e c r e a t i o n a l Q u a l i t y " , u n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s , U. o f W a s h i n g t o n , 1966. Sommer, R., "Man's P r o x i m a t e E n v i r o n m e n t " , I s s u e s . V o l . X X I I , N o . 4, O c t . , 1966.  J . of Social  S t e i n h a r t , J . S . a n d C h e r n i a c k , S . , "The U n i v e r s i t i e s a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y - Commitment t o P r o b l e m F o c u s e d Education", A Report to the President's Environmental Quality C o u n c i l , S u p t . o f D o c u m e n t s , W a s h i n g t o n , S e p t e m b e r , 1969. S t e w a r t , D.K., " A h , W i l d e r n e s s 8, 1970, p . 6.  ( ? ) " , Vancouver  Sun, January  T a y l o r , G.D., " V i s i t o r s t o t h e B l a c k T u s k A r e a o f G a r i b a l d i P r o v i n c i a l Park", unpublished report, P r o v i n c i a l Parks B r a n c h , V i c t o r i a , F e b . , 1961. , " R e c r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h and Geography", Paper g i v e n t o The Canadian A s s o c o f Geographers, O t t a w a , M a y , 1967* a n d E d w a r d s , R.Y., "A- S u r v e y o f Summer V i s i t o r s t o W e l l s G r a y P a r k , B . C . " , F o r e s t r y C h r o n i c l e , V o l . 36, N o . 4, D e c e m b e r , 1960.  230  T a y l o r , L e e , "Sociology o f N a t u r a l Resources", Paper prepared f o r t h e Science C o u n c i l o f Canada, Conference on F o r e s t R e s o u r c e s P r o b l e m s , O t t a w a , J u n e 23? 1 9 6 9 . T h o r e a u , H e n r y D a v i d , W a l d e n and, O t h e r L i b r a r y , N.Y., 1 9 5 0 .  Writings,  T h o r s e l l , J a m e s W., "Open S p a c e f o r t h e U r b a n O n t a r i o Geography, V o l . 1, No. 1 ,1 9 6 7 .  Modern  Region",  , " R e c r e a t i o n a l Use i n Water t o n L a k e s N a t i o n a l P a r k " , u n p u b l i s h e d M.A. t h e s i s , U . o f W e s t e r n Ont a r i o , 1 9 6 7 . A l s o p u b l i s h e d as R e c r e a t i o n Research R e p o r t 24 b y t h e N a t i o n a l a n d H i s t o r i c P a r k s B r a n c h , O t t a w a , 1 9 6 8 . , "A T r a i l U s e S u r v e y - B a n f f a n d Y o h o N a t i o n a l P a r k s " , R e c r . R e s . R e p o r t 33» N a t i o n a l a n d H i s t o r i c Parks Branch, Ottawa, Feb., 1968. , " M o u n t a i n N a t i o n a l P a r k s - Some A s p e c t s o f W i n t e r U s e " , R e c r . R e s . R e p o r t 3 8 , N a t i o n a l and H i s t o r i c P a r k s B r a n c h , O t t a w a , May, 1 9 6 8 . on  _ , "The M o u n t a i n N a t i o n a l P a r k s : W i l d e r n e s s U s e " , P a r k News, J u n e , 1 9 6 9 .  Some N o t e s  _ , " N a t i o n a l Park Wilderness Planning C o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n Western Canada", Paper p r e s e n t e d t o t h e 8 t h B i e n n i a l Wilderness Conference, S e a t t l e , A p r i l , 1970. T o s c h e r , S.R., "The A p p l i c a t i o n o f T h e o r i e s o f S o c i a l B e h a v i o r to t h e E x p l a n a t i o n o f V a r i a b i l i t y o f Use P a t t e r n s W i t h i n a R e c r e a t i o n C o m p l e x " , u n p u b . Ph.D. t h e s i s , U. o f M i c h i g a n , 1969.  T u r n e r , R.D., "A C o m p a r i s o n o f N a t i o n a l P a r k P o l i c y i n C a n a d a a n d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s " , u n p u b l i s h e d M . S c . t h e s i s , U.B.C., 1971  .  T w i s s , R.H. and L i t t o n , B., " R e s o u r c e Use i n t h e R e g i o n a l Landscape", Nat. R e s . J . . V o l . 6 , January, 1 9 6 6 , p. 76 - 8 1 . Wagar, J . A l a n , " C a r r y i n g C a p a c i t y o f W i l d l a n d s F o r R e c r e a t i o n " , u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , U. o f M i c h i g a n , 1 9 6 4 . , "Management o f M u l t i p l e - U s e R e s o u r c e s F o r R e c r e a t i o n " , i n Western Resources Papers, Colorado U n i v e r s i t y , 1964.  231  Wagner, P h i l i p , T h e Human U s e Glencoe, London, 1964.  of  the E a r t h , F r e e  Press  of  Webb, E . J . e t . a l . , U n o b t r u s i v e M e a s u r e s : Nonreactive R e s e a r c h i n t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s . Rand M c N a l l y , Chicago,  1966.  Weber, M., Sciences,  Max ed.  'Weber o n t h e S h i l s , E.A.,  Methodology of the S o c i a l Free Press, Glencoe, 1949.  Wenger, W.D., "A T e s t o f Unmanned R e g i s t r a t i o n Wilderness T r a i l s " , F o r e s t S e r v i c e Res. Paper Westrede I n s t i t u t e , Resources Research  S t a t i o n s on PNW-1 6, 1964.  S o c i a l F u t u r e s A l b e r t a 1970, 2 0 0 5 . Human C o u n c i l o f A l b e r t a , Edmonton, 1970.  W i l d e r n e s s S o c i e t y , " W i l d e r n e s s T r i p s 1971", i n s e r t i n L i v i n g W i l d e r n e s s , V. 34, No. 1 1 2 , W i n t e r , 1970-71 .  The  W i l l a r d , B., " E f f e c t s o f V i s i t o r U s e o n A l p i n e T u n d r a Ecosystems i n Rocky Mountain N a t i o n a l Park", u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , U. o f C o l o r a d o , 1967. Winn, I r a J . , " P u b l i c P a r k s H i s t o r y . Oct., 1969.  and  Private  Lives",  Natural  Wood, G.A., "A P r o p o s e d T r a i l S y s t e m F o r t h e N o r t h e r n P o r t i o n o f G a r i b a l d i P a r k " , Memorandum t o C h i e f , P l a n n i n g D i v i s i o n , P r o v . P a r k s B r a n c h , J a n u a r y 9? 1967« Wood, R.S., 1971, P. 4  "Desolation Wilderness",  -  Sierra  Club  Bull.,  March,  7.  Y o e m a n s , W.C., " B r i t i s h Columbia W i l d e r n e s s " , The L i v i n g W i l d e r n e s s , V o l . 3 4 , No. 1 1 2 , W i n t e r , 1 9 7 0 - 7 1 , p. 4 0 - 4 j . Zimmerman, E.W., I n t r o d u c t i o n t o World II. L . , H a r p e r and Row, N.Y. , 1 964.  Resources,  ed.  Hunker,  A P P E N D I X  232 UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA School of Community and  DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION & CONSERVATION Parks Branch  DEAR VISITOR TO BOWRON LAKES PROVINCIAL PARK: This summer a survey on the human and s o c i a l aspects of wilderness parks i n B.C. was begun. On the basis of your experience i n v i s i t i n g t h i s park, we are requesting your assistance i n planning for i t s future use. You and your party have been randomly selected to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the survey by completing and returning the enclosed stamped and self-addressed questionnaire. Please note that a l l questionnaire returns w i l l be coded for computor processing and your anonymity i s assured. Since your opinions and evaluation of your wilderness t r i p are so important, we sincerely s o l i c i t your cooperation i n returning the questionnaire as soon as possible.  Yours very t r u l y ,  Jim Thorsell, Wilderness Recreation Project P.S.  I f you are interested i n receiving a summary of the survey r e s u l t s , please p r i n t your name and address i n the space below:  233 1.  WILDERNESS USER QUESTIONNAIRE Please place your answers In the boxes where provided i n the r i g h t hand column. Try to complete a l l questions.  1.  WHEN DID YOU TAKE YOUR TRIP THROUGH BOWRON PARK? 1. June 2. July 5. August 4. September  2.  Place one number i n . this box  HOW WERE YOU REFERRED TO THIS PARK? 1. 2. 3. 4.  Literature Friends Been there before Other  3. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY WAS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT REASON FOR YOUR TRIP? 4. HOW IMPORTANT TO YOU DURING THE TRIP WERE THE FOLLOWING REASONS AND ACTIVITIES? Mark box 1. I f very s i g n i f i c a n t 2. I f neutral 3. I f not s i g n i f i c a n t Wilderness camping Fishing Seeing natural landscape Viewing w i l d l i f e Exercise Doing something different Exploration of the area PhotographyBeing with family, friends Solitude Feeling close to nature Relaxing Escaping from c i v i l i z a t i o n  10 12 14 16 18 20 22  HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE PROVISION OF THE FOLLOWING FACILITIES IN THE BACKCOUNTRY OF THE PARK? Mark box 1. I f needed 2. I f neutral 3. I f not needed P r i m i t i v e shelters More campsites Better portages T r a i l s to alpine areas Fireplaces Pit toilets Interpretive signs Road over f i r s t portage DO YOU FEEL THAT IN TERMS OF BACKCOUNTRY FACILITIES THE PARK IS 1.  Overdeveloped  2.  Underdeveloped  3.  Just about r i g h t  WHAT WOULD BE YOUR REACTION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE FOLLOWING MANAGEMENT MEASURES? Mark box 1. I f agree 2. I f neutral 3. I f disagree Entrance fee Reservations system Controlled hunting Selective logging Rationing use Restricted campsites Bi-weekly motor boat patrols Restricting group size to s i x WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST AS A REASONABLE FEE FOR VISITORS DOING THE CIRCUIT? .  9. WHAT PERCENTAGE IMPORTANCE WOULD YOU ASSIGN TO DIFFERENT POSSIBLE USES OF BOWRON PARK? W i l d l i f e sanctuary Wilderness recreation area Road access recreation area S c i e n t i f i c research reserve Area f o r future resource development 10. WHAT PERCENT OF BOWRON LAKES PARK WOULD YOU CONSIDER AS "WILDERNESS"?  11. AT WHICH POINT ON YOUR TRIP DID YOU FEEL YOU LEFT CIVILIZATION BEHIND AND ENTERED THE "WILDERNESS"?  12. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF WILDERNESS LAND IN B.C. IN GENERAL? 1. Don't r e a l l y know 2. Should have much more 3. Need just a l i t t l e more 4. Enough exists at present 5. Too much exists at present 13. DID YOU HAVE ANY TROUBLE FINDING UNOCCUPIED CAMPSITES? 1. Yes - often 2. Sometimes 3. No 14. WHERE YOU BOTHERED BY CROWDING ON ANY LAKES OR CAMPSITES? 1. Yes - often 2. Sometimes 3. No 15. HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU THINK BOWRON PARK COULD HOLD? 1. 2. 3. 4.  Just about the same as now Just a few more Room for at least twice as many Too many already  236 4.  16. WHAT IS AN AVERAGE NUMBER OF GROUFS COULD YOU MEET A DAY BEFORE YOU BEGAN TO FEEL CROWDED?  1. 2. 3. 4.  One Two Six Ten  only- five - nine or more  52  17. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE OPTIMAL GROUP SIZE IS WILDERNESS TRAVEL? 1. 2. "3. 4. 5.  FOR  One person Two people Three or f o u r Five - eight Nine or more  53  18. WHEN CHOOSING BACK COUNTRY CAMPSITES WHICH DO MOST PREFER? . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  YOU  One f a r away from other campers One a s h o r t d i s t a n c e from other campers One w i t h a few others around Large o r g a n i z e d campgrounds No s p e c i f i c preference  54  19. WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT PARTICULARLY BOTHERED YOU ABOUT THE TRIP? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  Behaviour of other campers Evidence of garbage Lack of i n f o r m a t i o n Lack of f a c i l i t i e s Other  20. IN WHAT PARTICULAR WAYS DO YOU BENEFITED YOU?  55  THINK YOUR TRIP  Mark box 1. I f very important 2. I f n e u t r a l 3.  I f not  important  56  Improve p h y s i c a l h e a l t h Refreshing mentally  58  Gave o p p o r t u n i t y to r e f l e c t and t h i n k Increased a p p r e c i a t i o n of nature Was  60  socially entertaining  Learned more about camping  62  Learned more about s e l f , others Found s o l i t u d e , p r i v a c y Other  64  237 5.  21. ON THE WHOLE HOW SATISFIED WERE YOU WITH YOUR TRIP THROUGH THE PARK? 1. 2. 3. 4.  Very s a t i s f i e d Mildly satisfied S l i g h t l y disappointed Very d i s a p p o i n t e d  65  22. DO YOU THINK THAT YOU WILL RETURN TO DO IT AGAIN? 1. 2. 3.  D e f i n i t e l y yes Possibly Unlikely  66  23. WHAT ONE EXPERIENCE OF YOUR TRIP THROUGH BOWRON PARK DO YOU RECALL MOST VIVIDLY TODAY? 24. WHAT "DANGER RATING" WOULD YOU GIVE TO SOME OF THE POSSIBLE PHYSICAL DANGERS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE FACED ON YOUR BACKCOUNTRY TRIP? Mark box 1. I f no danger 2. I f minor danger 3. I f moderate danger 4.  I f v e r y dangerous  Getting l o s t Storms, weather Bears, cougars  68 70  Starvation Pollution  72  Exposure Insects  74  Forest f i r e s Physical  injury  25. WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL RATING OF THE AMOUNT OF "DANGER" INVOLVED ON THIS PARTICULAR WILDERNESS TRIP? 1. 2. 3. 4.  None Minor Moderate Very dangerous  26. HOW DO YOU RATE YOURSELF AS A WILDERNESS TRAVELLER? 1. 2. 3.  Expert Intermediate Novice  176  233 6.  27. WHAT IS YOUR AGE? 28. SEX?  1. Male  29. MARITAL  STATUS?  1. '2. 3. 4. 5.  2. Female  10  Single Married Widowed Divorced Separated  11  30. PLEASE FILL IN THE COMPOSITION OF YOUR GROUP Males  Females  0-10 11-20 AGE  21-30 31-40  .  41-50 50 + 31. WAS YOUR GROUP MADE UP OF 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  One person Group o f men Group o f women Organised group Couples Family group Family and f r i e n d s Other  24  32. HOW LONG WAS YOUR BACKCOUNTRY TRIP?  DAYS  MILES TRAVELLED  33. HOW FAR AHEAD WERE YOU PLANNING THE TRIP? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.  Less than a week One week to a month One t o three months Three t o s i x months S i x to twelve months Twelve months p l u s  27  34. ON THE AVERAGE, HOW MANY WILDERNESS TRIPS DO YOU MAKE IN A YEAR? 1. 2. 3. 4.  One o r two t r i p s Three to f i v e S i x to nine Ten or more t r i p s  35. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF A TYPICAL TRIP? 1. 2. 3. 4.  Two days o r l e s s Three or four days F i v e t o n i n e days Ten or more days  36. HOW MANY YEARS WILDERNESS TRAVEL EXPERIENCE DO YOU HAVE? 1. 2. . 3. 4. 5. 6.  None - j u s t beginning One o r two years Three to f i v e years F i v e to t e n years Ten to twenty years More than twenty years  37. WHO.OR WHAT INTRODUCED YOU TO WILDERNESS TRAVEL? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.  Parents School Organised group Friends Literature Other  38. WHERE WERE YOU MOSTLY BROUGHT UP? 1. 2. 3.  City Town Rural area  39. APPROXIMATELY WHAT WAS THE TOTAL COST OF YOUR TRIP TO THE PARK?  PER PERSON  $  40. WHAT PERSONAL INVESTMENT IN BACKCOUNTRY EQUIPMENT DID YOU HAVE FOR THE TRIP? g $  p  E  P  E  R  S  0  N  41.  HOW MANY YEARS OF FORMAL EDUCATION HAVE YOU COMPLETED? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.  42.  PLEASE INDICATE YOUR TOTAL FAMILY INCOME PER ANNUM: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  43.  Less than s i x S i x to ten Eleven to t h i r t e e n Fourteen to s i x t e e n Seventeen to twenty More than twenty  0-$3,000 $3,000 - 6,000 $6,000 - 9,000 $9,000 - 12,000 $12,000- 15,000 $15,000- 20,000 $20,000 +  PLEASE INDICATE YOUR APPROPRIATE OCCUPATION GROUPING: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  Managerial p r o f e s s i o n a l Sales, c l e r i c a l C o n s t r u c t i o n , manufacturing F i s h i n g , lumbering, mining, farming Housewife Student Retired Other  THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLEASE USE THE SPACE ON THE REVERSE FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS YOU CARE TO MAKE.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106732/manifest

Comment

Related Items