Download full PDF - International Journal of Wilderness

The following response rates were
obtained: 66% (n = 361) for the Cohutta,
68% (n = 343) for the Comanche Peak,
and 68% (n = 232) for the Okeefenokee.
However, since the Okeefenokee sample
was composed entirely of overnight users,
and in order to reduce variation
across users of the different areas, dayhikers
were excluded from the analysis.
This resulted in the following sample
sizes: Cohutta (n = 192), Comanche Peak
(n = 91), and Okeefenokee (n = 232).
Measurement of Variables
Visitor concern for conditions was measured
by asking respondents to rate how
concerned they were generally with
physical setting conditions in wilderness
on a six-point polar scale from “unconcerned”
to “extremely concerned.” A total
of 33 condition items representing
social (8 items), physical (14 items), and
managerial (11 items) domains were used
(see Table 1). Perceptions of setting conditions
were assessed by asking visitors
to indicate how they found the same 33
conditions to exist at the particular wilderness
area they visited (see Table 2).
Items were rated on a 6-point polar scale
from “very poor” to “excellent.” Differences
among the three wilderness areas
were made using the AN OVA procedure
in SPSS/PC+Version 2.1 (Norusis 1991).
Concern for
Wilderness Conditions
The results will be presented and discussed
in terms of rankings of items and
mean values of items. Rankings represent
relative values while means indicate absolute
levels of concern and perceptions.
Table 1 shows that rankings of concern
for wilderness conditions were generally
similar across the three areas. Consistent
with findings of Roggenbuck and others
(1993), litter (along the trail and in campsites),
vegetation/tree damage, and noise
were among the top five concerns of all
three user groups. Management activities
(amount of ranger contact, number of
rangers seen, number of signs and trail
markers) were among the conditions of
least concern for users of all three areas.
There were, however, some exceptions to
the similarity in rankings: two social issues
(“amount of noise heard from out-
side the wilderness” and “number of
groups that pass within sight of the
camp”) ranked a much lower level of concern
with eastern visitors who, on the
other hand, ranked “the amount of mature
forest” a much higher level of concern
than did visitors to Comanche Peak.
Looking at absolute rather than relative
differences among concern levels,
significant differences in mean concern
scores occurred for 23 of the 33 items.
This suggests that visitors to the three
areas differed in the amount of concern
they held for conditions in wilderness
generally Overall, Okeefenokee visitors
indicated the highest concern while
Comanche users expressed the lowest
concern. For example, Comanche Peak
visitors were significantly less concerned
than Okeefenokee visitors on 78% (18)
of the significant difference items and less
concerned than Cohutta visitors on 48%
(11) of these items. Cohutta visitors fell
in the middle, being less concerned with
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDERNESS Volume 3, Number 4 31