PRIORITY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The Institute's 2005 Program Charter provides the most recent guidance for our Recreation Research Problem Selection and Justification.

Prior to the adoption of the Program Charter, researchers at the Leopold Institute engaged in a scoping effort to identify priority research questions for Recreation. This occurred in April of 1998 following the development of our 1996 strategic plan.

Recreation Research Problem Selection and Justification - extracted from the Leopold Institute's 2005 Program Charter

Problem 1. Inadequate understanding of recreation experiences and the impacts of recreation hamper efforts to preserve and protect wilderness resources and experiences. [printable version]

• Element 1a. Inadequate understanding of the basic dimensions of human experience in wilderness makes it difficult to establish appropriate management objectives and programs.
• Element 1b. Inadequate understanding of recreational impacts makes it difficult to protect wilderness resources.
• Element 1c. Site restoration programs in wilderness are often ineffective, due to inadequate information.
• Element 1d. Recreation planning and management is hampered by the lack of tools for assessing visitor distribution and flow in wilderness landscapes.

Management of recreation has historically been the foremost focus of wilderness stewardship. Collectively, wilderness managers probably spend more time on recreation issues than on any other. They are confronted with the challenge of defining an appropriate balance between (1) providing access by visitors for the unique recreation opportunities that wilderness provides and (2) protecting biophysical, experiential and other values of wilderness and then implementing management programs to maintain this balance. Wilderness recreation use is increasing in many places, forcing managers to choose between restricting access, changing behaviors, increasing regulation, or accepting increased degradation of biophysical and/or experiential conditions. Each of these courses of action has different implications for wilderness resources and visitor experiences. The challenge of this assignment is elevated by recognition that recreation management objectives and strategies vary greatly across the National Wilderness Preservation System, with environmental, access, and use characteristics. Managers must decide on recreation management strategies based on these characteristics. Some wilderness areas, however, remain extremely lightly used, though managers have little knowledge about the primary influences on recreation experiences there or how management should be implemented to protect those experiences. Intergenerational differences in knowledge of impacts, preferences or expectations for conditions encountered, and reaction to management strategies are relatively unexplored but of increasing importance.

Wilderness managers are encouraged to develop wilderness plans that clarify decisions about an appropriate balance between access, regulation and wilderness conditions. They are encouraged to develop specific management objectives (even indicators and standards), to monitor more systematically, and to develop comprehensive management programs that include education as well as regulation. Over the past few decades, wilderness recreation research has contributed substantially to the knowledge foundation for the development of recreation management objectives, monitoring programs, and effective management strategies. In particular, a substantial body of descriptive information about wilderness visitors and the biophysical and experiential impacts of visitors have been developed. But further work is needed. Basic, descriptive work must continue, as must research into relationships (e.g. between use levels, user behaviors, experiential and environmental variables and between experiential and resource impacts). Further research of an applied nature is also needed. We believe that we can make the most profound contribution by focusing our efforts on the following four topics.

Element 1a. Inadequate understanding of the basic dimensions of human experience in wilderness makes it difficult to establish appropriate management objectives and programs.

Wilderness managers are charged with the responsibility of managing wilderness such that opportunities for appropriate human experiences are protected. To effectively do this, we need to understand how wilderness management decisions (action and inaction) affect the nature of the human experience in wilderness. We need a better understanding of the basic dimensions of wilderness experiences, including opportunities for solitude, exhibition or development of primitive skills, unconfined travel and living, enjoyment of natural conditions, inspiration, challenge and reflection. The majority of past experiential research in wilderness has focused on crowding issues. We need to understand a broader array of human experiences in wilderness (particularly those that are relatively unique in wilderness) and the array of physical and social influences on these experiences. There has been a heavy reliance in the past on mail back surveys of wilderness visitors. This approach needs to be supplemented with other methods, both quantitative and qualitative, that provide greater insights into the nature of on-site wilderness experiences. Conflict between visitors with differing orientations detracts from the quality of experiences. To minimize this, we need a better understanding of conflict and ways it can be minimized. Wilderness planners and managers also need to consider the long-term and large-scale implications of their decisions. To do so, they need more information on displacement and substitutability. Displacement is the process whereby visitors change the location of their recreation in response to perceived adverse changes in condition or access. Substitutability refers to the ability to obtain similar benefits by recreating in different places.

These topics are important because wilderness planners have difficulty specifying objectives for human experiences in wilderness due to inadequate understanding of these experiences. In addition, wilderness managers find it difficult to develop management strategies related to visitor experiences because there is little agreement on the range of experiences to be provided in wilderness or which experiences should be given highest priority. Wilderness planners and managers will benefit from this research through an improved ability to specify desired experiences and to implement management programs that are effective in providing opportunities for desired experiences. This research should also contribute conceptually to the advancement of the leisure sciences, by expanding our vocabulary for describing human experience and by increasing our insight into influences on experiences.

We propose to:

• Describe what visitors are experiencing in wilderness and how their experience varies (1) during the wilderness visit and over multiple visits, (2) between different types of visitors, (3) with visit characteristics (such as the experiences they are seeking on any particular trip), and (4) with setting attributes, such as use density, environmental characteristics, and management regime. This research will be conducted in wildernesses that vary in both user characteristics and ecoregion.
  Outcome: help managers specify objectives for experiences and devise management actions that promote opportunities for those experiences.

• Better understand conflict between recreation visitors and how conflicting values among visitors impact the realization of desired experiences.
  Outcome: development of approaches for managing conflict.

• Describe how visitor's use and experience of wilderness changes over their lifetime and in response to management actions by studying how recreationists use a system of wilderness and related lands to realize certain benefits. These use patterns should provide insight into the phenomena of displacement and substitutability, as well as understanding of how generational differences affect response to wilderness conditions.
  Outcome: improve perspectives on the large-scale (spatial and temporal) implications of wilderness recreation management decisions.

Element 1b. Inadequate understanding of recreational impacts makes it difficult to protect wilderness resources.

Wilderness recreation inevitably impacts biophysical resources. Site impacts are locally severe in most wildernesses and in many are increasing, both in extent and severity. There is general agreement that wilderness managers should not attempt to avoid recreation impact entirely, because the benefits would not exceed the costs of minimal access for recreation. Rather, managers must decide how much impact is acceptable. They should monitor impacts and develop strategies for keeping impacts to acceptable levels. The science of recreation disturbance ecology has been developing over the past few decades to assist wilderness managers in confronting this challenge. Substantial progress has been made in understanding the impacts of recreation on vegetation and certain attributes of soils, at the site level, as well as the short-term impacts of recreation on wildlife. However, we need a better understanding of below ground impacts of recreation, impacts on water, longer-term impacts on wildlife, and recreation impacts at larger spatial scales. We need to complement extensive research in mountains with more research in other ecoregions, such as aridlands. The impacts of pack stock grazing on meadows are also poorly understood, given the prevalence of this use.

We need to increase our understanding of factors that influence the severity, extent and spatial pattern of impacts (primarily the amount, type, timing and location of use). We also need to translate this information into the curriculum presented in low-impact educational programs such as Leave-No-Trace. The primary beneficiaries of this research will be wilderness managers developing management programs to minimize recreation impacts or restore sites that have been damaged by recreation use. This research should also contribute conceptually to the advancement of the larger field of recreation ecology and its applications to recreation and tourism management outside wilderness. Given highly limited resources available for this work, our proposed program of work can only tackle a small portion of this research need.

We propose to:

• Further build fundamental ecological knowledge about the nature of recreation impacts, relationships between use and environmental attributes, and the severity, extent and spatial pattern of impact. Use this knowledge to develop potential management strategies and to predict the likely consequences of alternative strategies. Conduct this research in wildernesses that vary in both user characteristics and ecoregion. If possible, complement research on impacts to soil and vegetation with research on impacts to wildlife and water.
  Outcome: improved strategies for managing recreation use and resultant impacts.

• Identify trends in recreation impact by repeating surveys conducted in the past. Trends in places with substantially different environments, use patterns and management programs will be compared.
  Outcome: improved understanding of trends in wilderness conditions, as well as strategies for managing recreation use and resultant impacts.

• Close knowledge gaps related to low-impact practices, such as (1) the relative durability of different environments subjected to recreation use, (2) how to minimize harassment and disturbance of animals, (3) how to limit the adverse impacts of pack stock confinement and grazing, and (4) the nature and severity of recreation-related water pollution and how behaviors can reduce impacts.
  Outcome: development of practical techniques for reducing recreation impacts through behavioral change.

Element 1c. Site restoration programs in wilderness are often ineffective, due to inadequate information.

Recreation has caused locally severe site impacts in most wildernesses. In many places, severely impacted sites have been closed to further use, either because the location or the severity of impact is considered inappropriate. Often, sites are simply closed and allowed to recover naturally. However, many of the damaged sites are in environments in which natural recovery rates are constrained by factors such as short growing seasons (e.g. alpine environments) or unpredictable or inadequate soil moisture (e.g. arid environments). In such places, unassisted recovery is likely to require centuries, if it occurs at all. Increasingly, wilderness managers are expending substantial time and effort in attempts to accelerate natural recovery rates using assisted restoration techniques. Many of these restoration attempts have been unsuccessful and, in some cases, have exacerbated problems. Reasons for lack of success are poorly understood. Part of the problem is inadequate understanding of recreation impacts on belowground processes and on interactions between soil and plants (as discussed under element 1b). We lack a foundation of experimental work on alternative restoration techniques. Finally, we have no means of capturing the substantial experiential knowledge that exists among field practitioners. We need a better understanding of how impacts constrain recovery processes, as well as more assessments of the effectiveness of alternative restoration techniques. The primary beneficiaries of this research will be wilderness managers developing programs to restore sites that have been damaged by recreation use. This research should also contribute conceptually to the advancement of the larger field of restoration ecology and to applications outside wilderness.

We propose to:

• Identify the factors that limit natural recovery processes on damaged sites. Particular attention will be given to belowground conditions and processes and linkages between soil and vegetation. We will develop knowledge about the population biology, demography, and reproductive ecology of plant species used in restoration efforts.
  Outcome: suggest interventions that should increase the effectiveness of restorations.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of existing restoration techniques and adapt existing techniques to wilderness restoration. Existing restoration programs will be evaluated and experiments will be designed to isolate factors that influence success. These studies will be conducted in a variety of habitats.
  Outcome: our knowledge foundation about effective restoration techniques will be increased and made more accessible to practitioners.

Element 1d. Recreation planning and management is hampered by the lack of tools for assessing visitor distribution and flow in wilderness landscapes.

Understanding the spatio-temporal distribution of use is of fundamental importance to those who plan for and manage wilderness recreation use. The kind and amount of visitor use has profound effects on the quality of natural resources and visitor experiences in wilderness. Therefore, it is important to be able to monitor the flow of visitation, in space and over time, and predict how distributions are likely to change in response to both management actions and factors that are not subject to managerial control. Travel simulation models are useful tools for facilitating the planning and management of visitor use distribution in situations where monitoring and prediction of visitor flow is difficult. Simulation makes it possible to use easily collected measures (e.g., the number of people entering at particular trailheads) to monitor hard-to-measure indicators (e.g., number of encounters between groups on particular trails). Simulation modeling can help fine-tune existing management programs by allowing managers to experiment with different management actions (e.g. different entrance or trailhead quota schemes to identify a program of quotas that optimizes the tradeoff between amount of use and congestion). Work on wilderness travel simulation was conducted in the 1970s but, due to technical challenges, languished until recently. In the past few years, this work has been revived and now holds renewed potential. These efforts need to be coordinated and focused so that they bring maximum utility to the wilderness recreation manager. Development of travel simulation models, to the point where they are readily available tools, should benefit wilderness planners and managers. They should also be useful in the broader context of park and transportation planning.

We propose to:

• Work collaboratively with developers of travel simulation models to maximize their utility to wilderness recreation managers.
  Outcome: a state-of-knowledge report that describes the current status of travel simulation modeling, illustrates varied applications of this tool, and facilitates the improvement and availability of this tool.

RESEARCH SCOPING EFFORT   -  April 1998

The Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute has identified priority research topics and questions to guide future research that it conducts and supports. One of three priority research issues identified is recreation management. Within this high priority issue, we have identified three topics of particular interest. These three topics are

1. understanding basic dimensions of human experiences in wilderness;
2. improving and evaluating educational programs that promote low-impact behaviors; and
3. understanding, managing and restoring recreation impacts.

We have proposed that a substantial proportion of future research be focused on these three topics. These topics were selected following extensive study of lists of research needs, as well as numerous exchanges with managers and researchers. Their importance was validated by commentary solicited from about 30 managers and researchers who concurred with our selections.

BASIC DIMENSIONS OF WILDERNESS EXPERIENCE

There is a need for increased understanding of the impacts of wilderness management actions in producing and protecting unique experiences arising from opportunities for solitude, exhibition or development of primitive skills, unconfined travel and living, enjoyment of natural conditions, inspiration, challenge and reflection. The majority of research aimed at understanding human response and preferences in wilderness has focused on crowding issues in the past. We need to expand this basic research to better understand the array of human experiences unique to wilderness visits and the array of physical resource and social influences on these experiences.

This research emphasis will focus on developing research and analysis methods to more accurately portray the principle dimensions of human experiences in wilderness and their relative importance to overall quality of visits. This topic is of high priority because:

1. the Wilderness Act and wilderness literature suggests an array of positive aspects of on-site wilderness visits, though past research has focused on understanding only a limited aspect of these experiences;
2. planning efforts are currently unable to specify objectives for human experiences in wilderness due to the lack of ability to describe the basic dimensions;
3. the need for incorporating human experience indicators into wilderness monitoring efforts is dependent upon more basic understanding of what we are trying to protect about the recreation visit; and
4. the development of management strategies to foster visitor experiences is dependent upon agreement on the range of experiences desirable to provide in wilderness.

Some of the most prominent lines of research include:

1. What types of innovative methodologies can be employed to more deeply understand wilderness experiences? There has been a dominant reliance in the past on mailback surveys of wilderness visitors for the wide variety of topics investigated. While this approach may be appropriate for studying general attitudes and learning about general characteristics of visitors or their trips, there is need to experiment with other methods, both quantitative and qualitative, that provide greater insight into matters of interest pertaining to the on-site wilderness experience.

2. What pre-trip events, circumstances or information influence achieved experiences? There are many things that could influence achievement of desired wilderness experiences, including the information that managers provide in preparation for the trip, charging of fees, and personal past use experiences. The role of each of these in forming both expectations and evaluations of current visits can be investigated.

3. How does the legislative intent of wilderness compare to what visitors are seeking? The Wilderness Act passed in 1964. Today there is great concern about changing values of society since that time. Currently, some visitors bring cellular phones into wilderness, though the majority object to musical radios. There is a dominance of day use in most wildernesses, with the perception that wilderness stays are becoming shorter at many places. How have changes in society and in our natural resources changed the ways we value our wilderness visits?

4. How do conflicting values or experiences among visitors impact realization of desired experiences? Of growing concern to many managers is the increased expression of conflict between various user groups. There is ongoing debate about how to incorporate disparate views about appropriate behaviors and uses of wilderness into management direction. In many wildernesses we have viewpoints being expressed by stock users, commercial interests, hiking organizations and sometimes backcountry aviators, local commercial enterprise, adjacent and in-holding landowners, tourism promoters, and long-term residents. These interest groups experience conflict in public meetings and on the land. How can this conflict be managed in such a way that the variety of orientations toward the wilderness can appropriately lead to a variety of different experiences and benefits?

5. What are the symbolic/educational/metaphorical values of wilderness that help us to understand human relationships with the natural world? In most past research there has been focus simply on the on-site experience and visitor expressions of quality or satisfaction with conditions encountered. In the last few years, however, we have become more interested in the contributions wilderness visits have to larger life issues, like intent to recycle or reduce consumptive behaviors, abilities to function more productively in social groups due to feelings of accomplishment, and benefits of isolation in creating an understanding of dependence on renewable resources. Further exploration of how wilderness visits contribute to these benefits is needed.

6. To what extent do wilderness visitors experience the ends for which solitude is believed to serve as the means: contemplation, immersion with nature, timelessness, harmony? There are many human benefits from wilderness travel and living that are not listed in the Wilderness Act. We have mostly focused in the past on crowding with the assumption that crowding influences solitude. But the real need is to understand how opportunities for solitude influence these deeper values of experiencing nature. With increased pressure to more precisely determine how many users are the appropriate number of users to allow or encourage in wilderness, greater understanding of how numbers of people relate to experiences achieved would be welcome.

7. How do expectations change during a trip, what causes these changes, and how do these changes affect evaluations of trip experiences? Recent knowledge has suggested that the way visitors evaluate conditions on their trips changes during the trip. To this point we have investigated what happened on the trip and have begun to push for new methods to record these experiences as they unfold. However, a big gap to date has been any emphasis on understanding how the early phases of a trip affect daily or hourly expectations of what will be encountered. Most research has assumed that visitors arrive at the wilderness portal with an established set of expectations for the managerial, social, and physical setting and that they base evaluations of the trip against these expectations. More recent interest is in understanding how personal schema for evaluation are influenced by things that the visitor encounters during the trip.
   
   For more information on the Basic Dimensions of Wilderness Experience please contact: Alan Watson - Research Social Scientist    406-542-4197  awatson@fs.fed.us

LOW-IMPACT EDUCATION RESEARCH

We consider this topic to be a high priority because

1. extensive resources are being devoted to low-impact visitor education;
2. many scientists and managers consider education to be a key to solving recreation problems in wilderness;
3. little is known about the effectiveness of existing educational programs;
4. the need for improved wilderness education programs is always among the top priorities selected at national meetings of the wilderness community.

Further research is needed on both the content of educational messages and the media used to communicate with visitors. Theory needs to be developed, evaluated, and applied. Existing programs need to be evaluated and improved. Experiments need to be designed that isolate factors that influence success.

Some of the most prominent lines of needed research include:

1. What are the low-impact practices that should be recommended, either generally or in specific situations? Some of the more important research gaps are:
• evaluating the relative durability of different environments;
• describing more specifically how to avoid harassment and disturbance of animals;
• describing more specifically how to limit the adverse impacts of packstock confinement and grazing; and
• understanding the nature and severity of recreation-related water pollution and how behaviors can reduce impacts.

2. What are the factors that limit visitor compliance with low-impact recommendations? Wilderness visitors' ability to properly perform low-impact practices is dependent on much more than their knowledge. They must identify the need for such practices, requiring a wilderness ethic and a perception that their actions cause impacts. They must know the proper behavior in each situation in which they find themselves. They must be able to access this knowledge, and they must be capable of acting as they intend. Moreover, personal, social, and environmental constraints (e.g. ethics, peer pressure, and environmental perception) operate at each step in this process. We need a clearer conceptualization of the process that ultimately results in compliance or lack of compliance. We need to develop measurement instruments that enable us to evaluate which factors limit compliance as well as how limiting factors vary within and among wildernesses. Then we must target educational interventions that can overcome the most limiting factors.

3. How can we design comprehensive educational strategies and programs that will persuade visitors to perform low-impact behaviors? Numerous theoretical frameworks have been developed to better understand persuasive communication and a substantial body of empirical research has accumulated on the topic. Unfortunately, relatively little of this theory and research has been applied within recreational contexts. Moreover, there has been a tendency for most attention to focus on one or two popular, easy-to-operationalize theories. For example, most attention has been given to the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, Manfredo 1992), despite the conclusion of Eagly and Chaiken (1993, p. 216) that the Theory of Reasoned Action "... no longer appears viable except for relatively simple and easily executed behaviors that are under one's own control but are not strongly habitual". Behaviors in wilderness are certainly habitual and often only marginally under control. So alternative theories may be more insightful. We need to identify a broader range of potentially useful theories, adapt and modify these to the wilderness recreation situation, and use them to design experiments and other studies of persuasive communication.

4. How effective are existing low-impact educational programs? From the interagency, national Leave-No-Trace program to idiosyncratic programs undertaken by individual management units, countless educational efforts have been undertaken. Unfortunately, few evaluations of effectiveness have been undertaken. Consequently, we know little about what does and does not work. Assessments of the effectiveness of well-established programs and educational strategies (e.g. Leave-No-Trace masters courses, wilderness boxes, Impact Monster skits, etc.) would be very helpful in focusing programs on the most successful alternatives and in showing where and how programs need to be improved.
   
   For more information on Low-Impact Education Research please contact: David Cole - Research Biologist    406-542-4199    dcole@fs.fed.us

RECREATION IMPACT AND RESTORATION RESEARCH

We consider this topic to be a high priority because:

1. recreation impacts are a critical management concern;
2. the effectiveness of alternative management strategies is still poorly understood;
3. substantial resources are being devoted to restoration attempts;
4. few of these attempts are successful and reasons for lack of success are poorly understood;
5. the environmental consequences of failed restoration are substantial and long-lasting.

Restoration training materials are being developed jointly by the Leopold Institute, the Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, and the Missoula Technology Development Center.

Further research is needed on understanding the nature of recreation impacts, factors that influence the magnitude of impacts, and management strategies effective in minimizing disturbance. Further research is needed on basic site disturbance ecology and restoration techniques capable of repairing disturbed systems. Research from restoration projects outside wilderness needs to be scrutinized for potential applicability within wilderness. Existing restoration programs need to be evaluated and improved. Experiments need to be designed that isolate factors that influence success.

Some of the most prominent lines of needed research include:

1. What are the biophysical impacts resulting from recreation use, and how can they best be managed? Although much work has been done on this subject, many questions remain. We know little about impacts on belowground systems, animals and aquatic systems, or about the significance of impacts at large spatial scales. Certain ecosystem types have been little studied and few long-term studies have been conducted. Further work is needed on factors that influence the magnitude of impact. The efficacy of alternative management strategies needs further attention.

2. What factors limit natural recovery processes on damaged sites. We need an improved understanding of how recreational activities disrupt the conditions, function, and, therefore, the natural recuperative abilities of ecosystems. Particular attention must be given to belowground conditions and processes (e.g. soil biota, nutrient cycling, and food webs) and linkages between soil and vegetation (e.g. mycorrhizal relations) because they are both critical and poorly understood. The nature and severity of disturbance undoubtedly varies with perturbation type and between ecosystem types. Consequently, research is needed on trails, campsites, old roads, and other localized disturbance types. It must be conducted in ecoregions from Alaska to Florida and from desert to the alpine zones. Disturbed sites must be compared with undisturbed sites to identify the nature of disturbance. Experimental disturbance of previously-undisturbed ecosystems can provide insight into natural recuperative processes and capabilities. We need to learn more about the population biology, demography, and reproductive ecology of plant species used in restoration efforts.

3. How effective are existing restoration techniques? Countless restoration efforts are being implemented in wilderness. Generally, their effectiveness is not being evaluated. Consequently, little is learned from mistakes and successes are not shared. Research should help document existing techniques and, through monitoring, evaluate success. Appropriate descriptors of success should include effects on soil conditions and biotic diversity, as well as the extent of vegetative cover. Research should be conducted in various ecoregions and on different disturbance types.

4. How can techniques be improved? Many existing horticultural techniques can be adapted to wilderness restoration (e.g. watering, fertilizing, other soil amendments, mulching, plant propagation, etc.). Other potential techniques can be suggested from the basic ecological research on limiting factors discussed in (1) above (e.g. the need for mycorrhizal inoculation). These suggest techniques with which we can experiment. Those techniques that do and do not accelerate restoration can be identified and potential modifications to techniques can be identified. Much of this research should be experimental in nature and can be conducted along with the evaluation of existing techniques described in (2) above.
   
   For more information on Recreation Impact and Restoration Research please contact: David Cole - Research Biologist   406-542-4199    dcole@fs.fed.us

REFERENCES

Eagly, A. H. and S. Chaiken. 1993. The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace College Publishers: Orlando, FL.

Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

Manfredo, M. J., Ed. 1992. Influencing human behavior: theory and applications in recreation, tourism, and natural resources management. Sagamore Publishing Inc.: Champaign, IL.

Recreation Main

HOME | ABOUT US | RESEARCH PROGRAM | RESEARCH APPLICATION PROGRAM | STAFF
HOT TOPICS | CONFERENCES & WORKSHOPS | PUBLICATIONS | PROJECTS
DATABASES & LINKS | SITEMAP