Visitor Use Management
The Visitor Use Management toolbox provides wilderness managers resources to help with the responsibility of providing "outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation" that preserves all qualities of wilderness character as a whole. This toolbox offers discussion about the meaning of solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation, provides guidance on capacity determination and monitoring, and compiles examples of plan direction and programs with reference sources and training materials for further study. To suggest new materials for inclusion, email Lisa Ronald at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Managing to protect "outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation" has been perhaps the most controversial aspect of wilderness management to date. Controversy typically emerges if managers propose any type of restriction on visitor access or behavior, such as use limits, to improve opportunities for solitude. Factors contributing to this controversy include:
- Lack of clarity over the meaning of solitude thus leading to lack of agreement over what the problem really is (e.g. visitors may view the concept holistically while managers may focus on the number of encounters in particular locations).
- Perception that solitude is too subjective and individualistic to manage for.
- Lack of standards or agreement on standards that define when there is a problem requiring corrective action.
- Managing for solitude without equal consideration of managing for primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities.
- The importance of access to visitors even when they support wilderness preservation.
- Tension between providing outstanding opportunities for solitude vs. primitive and unconfined recreation.
This toolbox is intended to provide resources for wilderness managers to use in addressing their responsibility under the Wilderness Act to provide "outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation". This toolbox offers discussion about the meaning of solitude, primitive and unconfined recreation. It also includes information to help managers understand their responsibility under the Wilderness Act and policy specifically in relation to the difference between managing for opportunities rather than managing for quality experiences. Finally, this toolbox compiles examples of plan direction and programs directed towards managing to protect opportunities for solitude, primitive and unconfined recreation and offers reference sources and training materials for further study.
|INDIRECT – Emphasis on influencing or modifying use and/or behavior. Individual retains freedom to choose. Control less complete. More variation in use possible||1. Physical design and alterations||
|2. Information and education programs||
|3. Entry and eligibility requirements||
|DIRECT – Emphasis on regulation of behavior. Individual choice restricted. High degree of control||1. Increased enforcement||
|3. Rationing use||
|4. Restrictions on activities||
Manning, R. E.; Lime, D.W. 2000. Defining and managing the quality of wilderness recreation experiences. In: Cole, D.N.: McCool, S.F.: Borrie, W.T.: O’Loughlin, J., comps. Proceedings: Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Vol.4: Wilderness Visitors, Experiences, and Visitor Management; May 23-27, 1999; Missoula, MT. RMRS—15. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Staion, pp. 13-52.
Table taken from: Dawson, Chad P. and Hendee, John C. 2009. Wilderness Management Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values, 4th Ed. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO. page 455.
Interagency Visitor Use Management Council
Examples of Management Plan Direction and Standards
Note - The information presented in the Capacity Determination section is suggested guidance based on existing law, regulation, and policy. It does not represent new agency policy.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System and requires that wilderness areas are to 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..." The law also mandates that the managing agency "...preserve its wilderness character...", "...preserve its natural conditions..." in areas that have "...outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation..." while allowing necessary commercial services and as part of "...the enduring resource of wilderness..." But nowhere in the law is determination of visitor use capacity specifically mentioned. The need to determine wilderness visitor use capacity comes from agency policy which is based on the intent of law but also the research based management principles which link desired conditions for the wilderness with human caused impacts.
The lack of an established methodology in agency policy for defining capacity, along with budget and staff constraints, has resulted in a variety of approaches. In many cases, little information is (or was) collected about baseline visitor use. And, except in wilderness where permits (or registration) are required, use levels are seldom monitored. Because of this lack of information about user trends, efforts to manage visitor use are usually not initiated until resource damage or other conflicts occur, at which point it may be difficult to reduce the number of visitors, or to minimize visitor impacts.
Meanwhile, use of wilderness is changing and continues to evolve with each new generation. Changes in demographics may result in increases in day use, visits by large groups, and requests for commercial services opportunities. In addition, some forests are being challenged, and the courts are ruling, on the management of outfitters and guides. There is a need to determine the "extent necessary" or how much commercial use is needed based on a desired condition and visitor use capacity before allocating use.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a tool for understanding and implementing the intent of the Wilderness Act, regulations, and agency policy related to determining visitor use capacity. The need for determining visitor use capacity for wilderness is unique and different than it may be for other lands because of the unique mandates in the Wilderness Act and because wilderness areas represent one side of the spectrum of multiple uses of the public lands. The science is not exact and even the need for a visitor use capacity can be misinterpreted. Successful managers will employ a thoughtful, collaborative process and plan to monitor the results and adapt management actions as needed.
The Wilderness Act implies, but does not directly state, the need for determining visitor use capacity based on the social, biological, and physical components of the wilderness resource. Clearly human influences are to be minimized so that the wilderness character is preserved, natural conditions are protected, and the benefits of the wilderness resource are available in an unimpaired condition for future generations. The wilderness resource includes all the values of wilderness that are defined by the terms social, biological, and physical. Decisions about management of visitor use must consider the potential benefits and effects to wilderness character as defined by the four statutory qualities of: undeveloped, natural, untrammeled, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Visitor use of wilderness is part of what wilderness is all about and is compatible with all the other mandates of the Wilderness Act to the point where use and effects degrade the natural conditions or impair the character of the area. Visitor use capacity should therefore, be based on the capability of the wilderness to accommodate use consistent with the established desired condition.
Basis in LawThe Wilderness Act of 1964 defines wilderness as a place that:
- provides "...for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness." Section 2(a)
- "...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, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character..." Section 2(a)
- "...is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions..." Section 2(c)
- "...has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation..." Section 2(c)
- "...shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use." Section 4(b)
- "...each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area..." Section 4(b)
Basis in Policy
Wilderness Stewardship Framework
- Wilderness Stewardship Performance Guidebook (pages 76 and 81)
- Wilderness Stewardship Performance sharepoint site
- Numerical Visitor Capacity: A Guide to Its Use in Wilderness
This guide presents an analysis of the purpose and need for estimating numerical visitor capacity for wilderness areas and describes methodologies. This guide is not agency policy but the approach and processes included in this guide comply with requirements of the Wilderness Act and are consistent with agency wilderness policy for planning and stewardship.
- Pitfalls, Hints, Suggestions
- Guidance for Managing Informal Trails
This paper presents basic management guidance for responding to the proliferation of visitor-created trails.
- Overview of Use Estimation Systems
- Summary of Visitor Use Est. Techniques
- Use Characteristics Checklist
- Use Estimation Techniques Checklist
- Trail Encounters and Occupied Campsites Monitoring
- Guide to Monitoring Encounters in Wilderness
- Trail Encounters and Occupied Campsites Monitoring booklets
- Recreation Site Monitoring Toolbox
- Wilderness Solitude Monitoring in the Cascade Crest
- Gros Ventre Wilderness Monitoring Form
- Bob Marshall Monitoring Guidebook
- Monitoring Plan from High Uintas Wilderness
Management Practices - Forest Service (Agency Resources)
- Poop in the woods: Why managing human waste in wilderness matters (webinar recording)
- Backcountry Sanitation Manual
- Remote Waste Management (Forest Service publication 1995)
- Managing Human Waste in the Wild (google group)
- Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute Publications Search
- National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE)
- Computer Simulation Modeling of Recreation Use - Current Status, Case Studies and Future Directions
- Indicators and Standards by Wilderness (FS)
- Basic Statistics Vocabulary
- Climbing Management: A Guide to Climbing Issues and the Development of a Climbing Management Plan, The Access Fund, 2008
- Developing a Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring Program for Visitor Impacts on Recreation Sites: A procedural Manual, Marion, Jeffrey, Natural resources Report NPS/NRVT/NRR-91/06, October 1991
- Wilderness Character Toolbox
- Recreation Management in Wilderness
- Indicators and Standards
- Campsite Monitoring Process
- Campsite Management
- Monitoring Visitor Use-Experiences
- Use Estimation
- Recreation Management Strategies
- Managing Visitor Use
- Registration and Permits
- Wilderness Accessibility (webinar)
- Trail Management Practices
- Trail Skills Training, Pacific Crest Trail Association
- Risk Management
Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center Online Courses
- Wilderness Visitor Use Management: Fundamentals
- Wilderness Visitor Use Management: Strategies
- Wilderness Visitor Use Management: Monitoring Impacts and Uses
University of Montana, Wilderness Institute Distance Education Program
- PTRM 407 Management of Recreation Resources/PTRM 562 Managing Recreation Resources in Wilderness Settings
- NRSM 406 Wilderness Management Planning/NRSM 563 Wilderness Planning Theory, Management Frameworks and Application
Indiana University, Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands
- Anderson, D. H., Lime, D. L., Wang, T. L. 1998; Maintaining the Quality of Park Resources and Visitor Experiences, A Handbook for Managers , University of Minnesota, 135 p.
- Aust, M. W., Marion, J. L., Kyle, K. 2005. Research for the Development of Best Management Practices for Minimizing Horse Trail Impacts on the Hoosier National Forest. Management Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Final Report, Bedford, IN 77 p.
- Cole, D. N. 2001. Visitor use density and wilderness experiences: a historical review of research. Pages 11-20 in Visitor Use Density and Wilderness Experience: Proceedings (W.A. Freimund and D.N. Cole, compilers). USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-P-20, Fort Collins, CO.
- Cole, D. N., Petersen, M. E., Lucas, R. C. 1987. Managing wilderness recreation use: common problems and potential solutions. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-230.
- Daniels, M. L., Marion, J. L. 2006. Visitor evaluations of management actions at a highly impacted Appalachian Trail camping area. Environmental Management 38(6):1006-1019.
- Dawson, C. P. and Hendee, J. C. 2009. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values, Fulcrum Publishing; 4 edition.
- See the following select sections:
- The wilderness planning process including establishing a desired condition, identifying indicators, and selecting standards: Chapter 8, pages 209-229.
- Managing using the Limits of Acceptable Change process, Chapter 9, page 231-261.
- Wilderness Use and User Trends, Chapter 14, pages 373-411.
- Ecological Impacts of Wilderness Recreation and their Management, Chapter 15, pages 413-459.
- Wilderness Visitor Management: Stewardship for Quality Experiences, pages 461-503.
- See the following select sections:
- Glaspell, B., Puttkammer, A. 2001. Linking wilderness research and management-volume 2. Defining, managing, and monitoring wilderness visitor experiences: an annotated reading list. (Wright, V., series ed.) Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-79-VOL 2. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 29 p.
- Johnson, B., Hall, T., Cole, D. 2005. Naturalness, Primitiveness, Remoteness, and Wilderness Visitors' Understanding and Experience of Wilderness Qualities, University of Idaho
- Landres, P., Boutcher, S., Merigliano, L., Barns, C., Davis, D., Hall, T., Henry, S. Hunter, B., Janiga, P., Laker, M., McPherson, A., Powell, D., Rowan, M., Sater, S. 2005. Monitoring selected conditions related to wilderness character: a national framework. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
- Leung, Y, Marion, J.. 2000. Recreation Impacts and Management in Wilderness: A State of Knowledge Review, USDA-FS Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol.-5
- Manning, R. E., Jacoby, C., Marion, J. L. 2006. Acadia National Park visitor use and impact monitoring programs for carrying capacity decision making. George Wright Forum 23(2): 59-72.
- Manning, R. E., Lime, D. W.. 2000. Defining and managing the quality of wilderness recreation experiences. Pages 13-52 in Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management (S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, and J.O'Loughlin, compilers). USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.
- Marion, J. L. 2003. Camping Impact Management on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail: Appendix 2 - Camping Management Practices. Appalachian Trail Conference, Harpers Ferry, WV.
- Marion, J. L., Farrell, T. 2002. Management practices that concentrate visitor activities: Camping impact management at Isle Royale National Park, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 66(2): 201-212.
- Marion, J. L., Reid, S. E. 2007. Minimizing visitor impacts to protected areas: The efficacy of low impact education programmes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(1): 5-27.
- Monz, C., Roggenbuck, J., Cole, D., Brame, R., Yoder, A. 2000. Wilderness Party Size Regulations: Implications for Management and a Decisionmaking Framework. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O'Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference-Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management; 2000 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 265-273.
- Pettebone, D., Newman, P., Lawson, S. R. 2010. Estimating visitor use at attraction sites and trailheads in Yosemite National Park using automated visitor counters. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97, 229-238.
- Reid, S. E., Marion, J. L. 2004. Effectiveness of a confinement strategy for reducing campsite impacts in Shenandoah National Park. Environmental Conservation 31(4): 274-282.
- Reid, S. E., Marion, J. L. 2005. A comparison of campfire impacts and policies in seven protected areas. Environmental Management 36(1): 48-58.
- Watson, A. E., Cole, D. N., Turner, D. L., Reynolds, P. S. 2000. Wilderness recreation use estimation: a handbook of methods and systems. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-56.
- Watson, A. E., Cronn, R., Christensen, N. A. 1998. Monitoring inter-group encounters in wilderness. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RMRS-RP-14.
- Washington Trails Association. 1997. Comments on wilderness solitude. Special reprint from Signpost for Northwest Trails. Seattle, WA.
International Journal of Wilderness. 2004. Volume 10, Number 3.
- Landres, P. L., Developing Indicators to Monitor the "Outstanding Opportunities" Quality of Wilderness Character
- Dawson, C. P., Monitoring Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude
- Roggenbuck, J. W., Managing for Primitive Recreation in Wilderness
- Cole, D. N., Wilderness Experiences What Should We Be Managing For?
- Norden, K., Monitoring Wilderness Conditions in the Green Mountain National Forest