The influence of wilderness restoration programs on visitor experience and visitor opinions of managers.

Wilderness campsites heavily damaged by recreational use pose a significant management challenge that threatens the integrity of the wilderness resource and the quality of the visitors' experience. This study, conducted in the Mission Mountains Wilder- ness of northwestern Montana, surveyed 293 visitors to determine what influence heavily damaged campsites and site restoration activities have on the quality of the visitors' experience, and to assess visitor opinions of the managers who implement or do not implement restoration. Visitors noticed campsite damage that re- duced the quality of their experience as well as their opinions of managers. However, the quality of the visitors' experience and their opinions of managers improved significantly after they observed restoration activities. The rationale for wilderness recreation management is to protect natural conditions and to provide opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation experiences (Hendee and others 1990). When people visit a wilderness area today, they commonly see damage to campsites caused by recreation use and evidence of management actions to address impacts. For example, when vegetation is severely trampled at a campsite and the soil begins to erode, it can influence the quality of the wilderness visitor's expe- rience. A standard management action is to restore vegeta- tion in heavily damaged campsites in Recre- ational impacts at campsites in wilderness and how they influence the visitor experience is a concern to managers responsible for maintaining natural conditions. Little is known however, about the perceptions of visitors regarding restoration, the appropriate levels of restoration or the role that managing agencies should play. The purpose of this study is to, (1) use visitor surveys to determine what influence site restoration programs have on the experience of wilderness users, and (2) to assess visitor opinions of the management agencies who implement site restoration. Although many management actions are implemented to address social and ecological problems in wilderness, management solutions to problems and how they influence the quality of the visitors' experience have not been consistent or well documented. Reasons include the size of the wilderness preservation system and the fact that the federal agencies responsible for areas often use different management approaches. There are approximately one hundred and four million acres (42,105,263 hectares) of congressionally designated wilderness in the United States. The four federal agencies responsible for managing wilderness are the U.S.D.A. For- est Service, U.S.D.I. National Park Service, U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.D.I. U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service. The following excerpt from the 1964 Wilderness Act illustrates the challenges faced by the agency managers these lands shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. When areas were first being designated as wilderness, managers believed that the best way to build a political constituency for wilderness was to increase the number of people who visited areas. By the late 1960s, backpack- ing gained popularity, and many wilderness campsites were beginning to be severely damaged by an increasing number of visitors. At the same time, different types of wilderness visitors (horse users and hikers are one example) were beginning to experience conflicts. Managers began hearing more complaints from hikers about the damage to trails and campsites caused by horses, mules and other hikers. The federal agencies responsible for managing wilderness have typically reacted to changes, such as damage to vegeta- tion and crowding, rather than developing a proactive set of solutions that would prevent unacceptable levels of damage at campsites (Flood 1993). Throughout the 1970s, managers struggled with the in- tent of the Wilderness Act and cautiously began to develop methods to better understand people's motives for entering Because motives are often different for different visitors, managers began to realize they would have to implement measures to protect the resource from further impacts caused by the increasing numbers of people visiting The need for comprehensive planning frame- works to improve wilderness management was apparent. During the early 1980s, the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) planning framework was developed to address changes in wilderness conditions and to better involve the public in the wilderness management planning process. The LAC process begins with the premise that change is inevitable, then moves on to determine how change will be inventoried, assessed and managed through indicators and standards (Stankey and others 1985; Stokes 1990).