Factors affecting the wilderness experience

A separate, but complementary body of research on wilderness (also within the

behavioural/psychological research domain) has focused on how to protect and preserve wilderness values by identifying factors that can detrimentally affect it. This has typically involved asking recreationists to state things with which they were dissatisfied during their visit, or to indicate things that detracted from their overall enjoyment. A great deal of attention has been paid to the interactions that arise between different types of wilderness users, and between wilderness users and the surrounding environment. Findings from these studies have demonstrated that wilderness is a fragile resource, and that people’s experiences can be detrimentally affected by a range of factors, including: the presence of visitors other than those in their own group, evidence of human impact,non-natural noise, technology and commercialisation (see, for example, Borrie 1998; Crothers 1987; Fidell, Silvati, Tabachnick, Howe & Pearsons 1992; Gabites 1996; Schuster et al. 2004; Watson 2000). These factors are the focus of this section.

The presence of others has been found to detract from wilderness, primarily because it can compromise feelings of remoteness, solitude and isolation. The group size, group type (i.e. nationality, age, activity undertaken) and behaviour of other visitors has also been found to have a significant influence on whether encounters with others are perceived in a negative way. Research indicates that wilderness users prefer to encounter small groups (Stankey 1973) and that they dislike encountering visitors using modes of travel different from their own (Lucas 1964a). It also suggests that independent (or non-commercial) wilderness visitors often dislike encountering commercially guided groups (Cessford 1987; Fisher 1982; Harris 1983 and Wray, Harbrow & Kazmierow 2005) and that visitors may object to the use of certain technological equipment in wilderness (such as GPS units and cell phones) (Borrie 1998).

As noted in section 4.2.1, frequent users of a particular area of conservation land can develop deep attachments to it, and are likely to have specific ideas about what is (or is not)

appropriate in that setting. If other visitors are believed to be acting in a way which

undermines these behavioural norms, then this can also have a major impact on wilderness values. Specific forms of behaviour that have been found to be objectionable to wilderness users include: making noise, loud behaviour, littering, failure to respect the environmental care code and not complying with management regulations (Cole et al. 1987; Lynn & Brown 2003; Patterson & Hammitt 1990; Peterson & Lime 1979; West 1982). Several studies have indicated that the behaviour of other visitors is more objectionable when recreationists perceive themselves to be different to the other users (see, for example, Adelman, Heberlein & Bonnickson 1982; Basman, Manfredo, Barro, Vaske & Watson 1996; Jackson & Wong 1982; Knopp & Tyger 1973; Lee 1972; Watson, Roggenbuck & Williams 1991). In support of this theory, Watson et al. (2002) found that visitors to the Gates of the Arctic National Park were most satisfied when they encountered visitors who shared similar values to themselves, or who were undertaking similar activities. Similarly, Cheek & Burch (1976) suggested that perceptions of alikeness are extremely important in wilderness settings because of the absence of defined behavioural norms47 and social controls on visitor behaviour, which serves to heighten people’s awareness of others’ behaviour. A potential outcome of an encounter with others in wilderness is ‘recreational conflict’. This is a theoretical concept which has been utilised a great deal in outdoor recreation research, and it will be discussed in section 4.2.4.

47

This is not to suggest that behavioural norms do not exist in wilderness settings, more that they are not formalised like they would be in a more popular or urban setting. Indeed, as will be seen in chapters seven to ten, there are a number of well established (albeit unwritten) behavioural rules for appropriate conduct in wilderness.

As noted in section 4.2.1, wilderness is highly valued for its undeveloped and unmodified environment and its absence of human impact (Schuster, Tarrant & Watson 2005). People appreciate wilderness because it offers a chance to escape from signs of civilisation such as lights, sounds, other visitors, and man-made structures (such as huts, buildings, steps, signs and bridges) (Shultis 1999). As such, any evidence of human impact in wilderness has the potential to change its meaning for visitors. Examples of such impacts include litter, vegetation damage, multi-tracking, fire rings, noise and wildlife disturbance (Cole 1996; Martin, McCool & Lucas 1989). Research suggests that for the most ‘pure’ wilderness users, any evidence of physical development by humans changes their experience because it reduces feelings of remoteness and isolation and ‘brings them back to civilisation’ (Schuster et al. 2004). It can also reduce the sense of satisfaction felt at being alone in nature, and can diminish the sense of challenge and achievement felt when nature is ‘overcome’ through one’s own skills and abilities.

One of the defining (and most valued) features of wilderness areas has been found to be ‘natural quiet’ (DOC 1996). It can be defined as the natural ambient conditions or sounds of nature (ibid.), and can range from complete silence to thunder and lightning. It includes all sounds made by animals and plants. In contrast, non-natural noise can be defined as any sounds generated by humans – for example, people’s voices, movement, use of equipment, and motorised transport. Research indicates that when people visit wilderness areas, they not only seek a change of scenery, but also a refreshing auditory experience, with minimal sounds of civilisation (Tal 2004). In a study of wilderness visitors to the Rocky Mountain National Park, Schuster et al. (2004) found that most respondents described non-natural noise as being ‘out of place’ and ‘acting as an intrusion by bringing them back to civilisation’ (p. 45). The notion of ‘natural quiet’ has thus been a prominent objective for worldwide wilderness policy and legislation since the 1970s (ibid.).

The key non-natural noise effect identified in the wilderness literature is that generated by motorised transport48. Motorised transport is often cited as an ‘unacceptable’ activity in a wilderness setting because it goes against the wilderness ideals of challenge and self- sufficiency, and because the noise that it generates can disrupt or detract from many of the goals that people seek to achieve in wilderness. The noise of another person or a motorised vehicle can, for example, serve to remind people that they are not alone in wilderness, or that they are closer to civilisation than they thought. This realisation can erode the positive

48

feelings of remoteness, solitude and isolation, and can totally change the overall experience (Booth, Jones & Devlin 1997).

There has been a significant amount of research in the past few decades into the effects of aircraft noise on the wilderness experience (for example see Booth et al. 1997; Fidell et al. 1992; Tal 2004; United States National Park Service [USNPS] 2004). Findings have indicated that natural quiet is likely to be much more important in wilderness than in other recreational settings because any non-natural noise represents undesirable sounds of civilisation and may therefore be evaluated negatively even at low levels (USNPS 1994). Studies have also found that wilderness users are more vulnerable to noise intrusions - partly because much lower levels of ambient noise exist in natural settings, but also because people who have made a greater physical effort to reach their destination are likely to be more sensitive to aircraft sounds (Fidell et al. 1992).

Aircraft landings in, or near, wilderness areas also have the potential to create lasting impacts on wilderness values by bringing more people into remote areas. Any increase in visitor numbers is likely to negate or compromise many of the traditional values associated with wilderness. The likelihood of encountering other people will be increased; perceptions of solitude and remoteness are likely to decrease; the element of challenge and risk may be reduced; and the sense of achievement at successfully travelling through wilderness could be destroyed through an encounter with someone who arrived by aircraft. In addition, there is a risk that aircraft access would encourage more unskilled people to venture into areas where they may not possess the necessary skills or knowledge to survive if they become stranded.

A number of authors have discussed the potential impacts of technology on wilderness (see Borrie 1998; Bryan 2000; Ewert & Shultis 1999; Hull 2000; Peterson & Harmon 1993; Shultis 2000; Weil & Rosen 1997). There is a general acknowledgement that technology has facilitated wilderness use, and in doing so, has increased public support for wilderness protection. Despite this, a variety of concerns have been voiced about its potential to change the very meaning of wilderness. According to Shultis (2001), there are four major areas of concern: the accelerating rate of technological innovations; the increasing amount and level of social and environmental impacts related to the use of new technologies; the impacts of technology on people’s recreation experiences, and the potential of technology to alter the whole concept of wilderness. Technological advancements are creating a world in which there are fewer knowledge barriers and fewer barriers to travel – where people from all over the world can visit previously inaccessible wilderness areas (Eagles et al. 2002). These people

may not have the same knowledge or experience as existing visitors and so may require additional infrastructure or facilities to facilitate their experience. If managers decide to cater for these ‘new’ types of visitors, the implications for traditional wilderness meanings and recreational use patterns can be significant (Bryan 2000).

Technology such as motorised transport, lightweight clothing and equipment, and navigation equipment can enable people to travel further, faster and more efficiently in wilderness. Recreationists now have access to highly advanced digital information and communication systems which enable them to find detailed information about wilderness areas, and to locate themselves precisely within a wilderness area, or to call for help if they find themselves in a difficult situation (Borrie 1998). Although some people argue that this is beneficial because it allows more people to experience wilderness, others believe that it is drastically altering traditional wilderness meanings. Schuster et al. (2004) noted, for example, that cell phone usage in wilderness areas has the potential to have a ‘profoundly negative effect on visitors’ wilderness experiences’ (p. 46). Many people believe that technology runs counter to the philosophy of wilderness; encouraging human domination of the environment, rather than surrendering to the forces of nature. Technology thus has the potential to destroy the sense of discovery, freedom and mystery that forms the essence of ‘traditional’ wilderness for many visitors.

An added complexity is the fact that recreationists, wilderness managers and the general public often display conflicting attitudes towards the use of technology in wilderness (Shultis 2001). While there are clearly advocates for technology in wilderness (for example pro- aircraft groups and companies marketing new clothing and equipment), there are also many people who wish to restrict the use of motorised transport and communication technologies in wilderness. Conflicting views on the issue are also evident within particular user groups (for example some New Zealand hunters want aircraft access to wilderness, while others would prefer it to be restricted in order to maintain the ‘traditional’ wilderness hunting experience). The issue has become a controversial, divisive issue amongst wilderness managers and recreationists alike.

4.2.4 Substantive theoretical approaches to understanding wilderness