Exploring Backcountry Wilderness Design Through the User Experience in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park

Exploring Backcountry Wilderness Design through the User Experience in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park

Chad David Neufeld

A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph

In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture

Guelph, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT

EXPLORING BACKCOUNTRY WILDERNESS DESIGN THROUGH THE USER EXPERIENCE IN CHILLIWACK LAKE PROVINCIAL PARK

Chad David Neufeld Advisor: University of Guelph, 2014 Sean D. Kelly

This research explored the human relationship with wilderness through the recreational activities of hiking and backcountry camping in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park located in southwestern

British Columbia. A case study and questionnaire completed by 119 visitors was used to determine the ideal backcountry wilderness experience as identified by using the Recreation Experience

Preference (REP) scales. Results indicated that the highest priority wilderness design features included viewing scenery, having a sense of remoteness, and reduction of litter and waste.

Conclusions suggest that the user experience can be improved by designing for scenic views, protecting the remote feel of an environment, and ensuring an adequate mix of trail and backcountry facilities while reducing litter and waste. Findings are specific to Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park but may aid landscape architects in the design of similar wilderness parks through the further understanding of the user experience in wilderness areas.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my advisor, Sean Kelly for his direction and guidance in managing the thesis process. I was always thankful for the quick hallway chats and discussions we had. I would also like to thank Rob Corry who acted as my advisory committee member, who asked the right questions of me and who taught me the importance of remembering my research question. A special thanks to Bob Brown for acting as chair of my defence and offering his input in this thesis as well. Thank you to Mark Harrison whose 2012 thesis offered a working framework to emulate for this project.

I would also like to thank Jennie Aikman, Robert Wilson and Joanna Hirner of BC Parks who graciously supported this research in addition to providing time to answer my many questions. A big thank you to the Valley Outdoor Association especially Mike Stewart who helped distribute the questionnaire in addition to Sam Waddington of the Chilliwack Outdoor Club for distributing the questionnaire to their members. Thank you to Darren Susin, administrator for ClubTread, for allowing my questionnaire to be posted on ClubTread. A very grateful thanks to all the backcountry hikers who took the time to complete the questionnaire; your opinions make this thesis what it is.

On a personal note I would like to thank my wife, Christina for her constant support, for moving across the country and working to support us as I pursued my dream of becoming a landscape architect. Thank you for reading my drafts, for always being interested and encouraging me when I lost interest. Without you I wouldn’t have been able to do this.

Lastly I would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Landscape Architecture Canada Foundation (LACF) whose grant supported this research in addition to the financial support of the University of Guelph.

iii

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii List of Tables ...... vii List of Figures ...... viii Chapter One: Introduction ...... 1 Justification of Research ...... 1 Research Purpose ...... 2 Research Design ...... 3 Chapter Two: Literature Review ...... 4 Introduction ...... 4 Wilderness Parks ...... 4 What is Wilderness ...... 4 Romanticism of the Wild ...... 6 History of Wilderness Preservation ...... 7 Backcountry Hiking ...... 9 History of Hiking ...... 9 Hiking: the Bridge between Nature and Culture...... 10 Modern Recreational Hiking...... 11 Backcountry User Experience ...... 12 Recreation Experience Preferences Scales ...... 12 Backcountry Fear, Challenges and Flow ...... 14 Management of the User Experience ...... 16 Visitor Management Frameworks...... 17 Wilderness Park Design ...... 19 Designing Wilderness ...... 19 Current Management of Wilderness Parks ...... 20 Carrying Capacity in Wilderness Parks ...... 21 Wilderness Design in British Columbia ...... 23 Summary ...... 25

Chapter Three: Methodology ...... 26 Overview ...... 26 Case Study Approach ...... 27 Site Selection ...... 29 Selection of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park ...... 29 Site Analysis ...... 34 User Questionnaire ...... 35 Reasons for Access ...... 37 Backcountry Experience Scale ...... 37 Improvements and Wilderness ...... 38 Demographics ...... 39 Chapter Four: Case Study Results ...... 40 Context ...... 40 Background ...... 40 Goals and Objectives ...... 44 Current Design ...... 45 Maintenance ...... 46 General Conditions ...... 47 Site Visitation and Capacity...... 48 Site Analysis ...... 49 Elevation Analysis ...... 49 Slope Analysis ...... 51 Aspect Analysis ...... 53 Land Cover Analysis...... 54 Viewshed Analysis...... 55 Ecosystem/Biogeoclimatic Analysis ...... 56 Chapter Five: Questionnaire Results ...... 66 Response Rate ...... 66 Demographics...... 67 Wilderness Experience Factors ...... 70 Motivations for Backcountry Hiking ...... 70

Important Factors in a Wilderness Experience ...... 72 Wilderness Design Factors ...... 74 Definition of Wilderness ...... 75 Improvements to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park ...... 76 Additional Comment Responses ...... 78 Chapter Six: Discussion ...... 79 Demographics ...... 79 Wilderness Experience Factors ...... 79 Motivations for Backcountry Hiking ...... 79 Important Factors in a Wilderness Experience ...... 81 Wilderness Design Factors ...... 83 Wilderness Design and the Wilderness Definition ...... 83 Improvements to Benefit the Wilderness Experience ...... 84 Critical Discussion of Current Wilderness Design in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park ...... 86 Chapter Seven: Conclusion ...... 90 Summary of Research ...... 90 Backcountry Wilderness Design Considerations ...... 91 Wilderness Design Considerations for Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park ...... 91 General Wilderness Design Considerations...... 93 Limitations of the Research...... 94 Further Research ...... 95 Advice to Landscape Architects ...... 97 Closing Remarks ...... 97 References ...... 98 Appendix A: Direct Observations Checklist ...... 107 Appendix B: Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park User Experience Questionnaire ...... 108 Appendix C: Open Ended Questionnaire Responses ...... 115 Appendix D: ClubTread REP Results ...... 119 Appendix E: Chilliwack Outdoor Club REP Results ...... 125 Appendix F: Valley Outdoor Association REP Results...... 131 Appendix G: Combined REP Results ...... 137

List of Tables

Chapter Two: Literature Review Table 2-1 Domains of REP Scales Used by Different Researchers...... 14

Chapter Three: Methodology Table 3-1 Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park Zoning Classification ...... 31

Chapter Four: Case Study Results Table 4-1 Chilliwack Lake Case Study Summary...... 42-43 Table 4-2 Comparison of Peaks Surrounding Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park ...... 48 Table 4-3 Slope Percentages within Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park ...... 53

Chapter Five: Questionnaire Results Table 5-1 Gender Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents ……………………………..67 Table 5-2 Age Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents ………………………………...68 Table 5-3 Distance from Chilliwack Lake ………………………………………………….68 Table 5-4 Frequency of Use …………………………………………………………….....69 Table 5-5 Duration of Hiking Trip ………………………………………………………...69 Table 5-6 Membership in an Outdoor Recreation Organization …………………………...70 Table 5-7 Ranking of Reasons for Hiking and Camping in CLPP ………………………....71 Table 5-8 Ranking of Importance for Wilderness Experience Factors …………………….72 Table 5-9 Preference of a Protected Area for Hiking……………………………………….74 Table 5-10 Definition of a Wilderness Area …………………………………………………75 Table 5-11 Is Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park a Wilderness Area ………………………...76 Table 5-12 Improvements to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park ……………………………..77 Table 5-13 Classification of Improvements ………………………………………………...77 Table 5-14 Additional Comments …………………………………………………………...78

vii

List of Figures

Chapter Three: Methodology Figure 3-1 Methodological Outline ...... 26 Figure 3-2 Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park from Flora Peak...... 30 Figure 3-3 Mt Lindeman in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park...... 30 Figure 3-4 Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park Recreation Opportunities...... 33

Chapter Four: Case Study Results Figure 4-1 Area Context Map ...... 41 Figure 4-2 Visual Comparison of Hiking Trail Elevation Gains...... 50 Figure 4-3 Existing Facilities at Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park ...... 58 Figure 4-4 Elevation Analysis...... 59 Figure 4-5 Slope Analysis ...... 60 Figure 4-6 Aspect Analysis ...... 61 Figure 4-7 Land Cover Analysis ...... 62 Figure 4-8 Viewshed Analysis ...... 63 Figure 4-9 Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Analysis...... 64 Figure 4-10 Endangered Species and Ecosystem Analysis...... 65

Chapter Six: Discussion Figure 6-1 Visual Logging Impacts near Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park...... 87

viii

Chapter One: Introduction

Justification of Research Wilderness is a typology of landscape that is not often thought of as needing to be designed, especially by a landscape architect. With many differing and contradicting opinions of what wilderness, nature and the wilderness experience is and should be, landscape architects are needed to manage backcountry wilderness areas. Wilderness areas are becoming increasingly overused and ecologically degraded (Lynn & Brown, 2003) as populations continue to urbanize and more people seek “wilderness experiences” for their restorative capacity (Cole & Hall,

2010).

Wilderness users have many different reasons for seeking a wilderness experience that include exploratory, remoteness, simple living, natural environment, shared solitude, spirituality, self sufficiency, self discovery and adventure (Raadik, Cottrell, Fredman, Ritter, & Newman, 2010)

There are many negating factors to these experiential reasons including overcrowding, ecological degradation (Cole & Hall, 2010), conflict between user types (Watson, Niccolucci, & Williams,

1994), airplane noise, prolific camp spots and even outside lights and sounds (Cole & Hall,

2009). As populations continue to urbanize and expand there will be greater pressure on natural areas as more people seek wilderness experiences.

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park, located 150km east of Vancouver, British Columbia is one of these areas where this conflict of increased demand on a finite wilderness resource is being played out. The lower mainland area of BC which is made up of the regional districts of Metro

Vancouver and the Fraser Valley Regional District is home to approximately 2,590,000 residents

as of 2011 (Fraser Valley Regional District, n.d.; Metro Vancouver, 2011) and is expected to grow to 3.4 million residents by 2041(Metro Vancouver, 2009). Outdoor recreation and trail use appears to be growing (Lynn & Brown, 2003) but maintaining accurate visitation estimates and precise growth is difficult because government agencies have been slow to organize and record these data (Zarnoch, Bowker, & Cordell, 2011) especially in wilderness backcountry areas. Due to its close proximity to Canada’s third largest and growing urban center, Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park will need to manage for increased park usage in the near future.

BC Parks, the government organization that manages Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park, mandates the provisions of recreational opportunities as one of its main objectives for Crown parkland (BC

Parks, 2012). Landscape architects are well positioned to understand users’ needs and desired experiences and their fulfillment through the design and manipulation of various recreational opportunities, existing and new.

Research Purpose The aim of this research is to explore backcountry wilderness design by studying user experience indicators in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. This is simplified into three research questions;

What is the user experience in wilderness? What is the ideal wilderness experience? And what wilderness design factors influence this? Exploring the backcountry user experience and how it relates to wilderness design will lead to the development of user experience informed design considerations that will assist in the design and management of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park and other backcountry wilderness parks in BC.

Developing user experience informed design considerations for backcountry wilderness parks will contribute to the body of knowledge related to parks and wilderness planning as well as

recreational tourism in parks. The results of user experience informed design considerations will contribute to better management of wilderness areas, theoretically increasing the positive user experience of backcountry wilderness parks for a larger population.

Research Design This research is organized into the following chapters. Firstly a literature review is given to familiarize the reader with the topic of backcountry wilderness and the existing literature and research in this area. The literature review will cover the definition of wilderness parks, hiking, backcountry hikers user experience and current wilderness park design in North America and

British Columbia.

The methods that will be used to answer the research question are a descriptive case study which includes key informant interviews and a user questionnaire. These approaches are further discussed in the methods section. Results from the case study and the questionnaire were analyzed followed by a discussion of the results and how they relate to wilderness design considerations for wilderness parks. The conclusion of this research addresses the limitations of this study, areas for future research as well as presents the user experience informed design considerations for wilderness parks.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Introduction When European settlers arrived in North America they considered the natural landscape as a

landscape of riches and danger, one to be conquered and exploited (Marsh, 2003). As the riches

were developed and the wilderness explored, settlers began to cultivate the land and subdue it.

The 19th century gave way to increased concern over the conservation of natural areas with the

passing and enacting of laws to protect natural and forested resources (Marsh, 2003; Miles,

2009). In the creation of what became Parks Canada and The US National Park Service the conflict of use and preservation began (Shultis & More, 2011), which still permeates all park management decisions today. The very act of recreating and enjoying nature and wilderness poses one of the greatest threats to the continual preservation of parks (Marsh, 2003; Miles,

2009).

It is within this paradox that I present a comprehensive literature review divided into four main topic areas, wilderness parks, backcountry hiking, the backcountry user experience and wilderness park design.

Wilderness Parks

What is Wilderness Wilderness is a concept that has had multiple meanings and cultural baggage attached throughout its history (Marsh, 2003; McNamee, 2002) which contributes to its vagueness as a concept.

Merriam-Webster defines wilderness as “a tract or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings, (also) an area essentially undisturbed by human activity together with its naturally developed life community” (“Wilderness,” n.d.). 250 years ago there were very few people

choosing to explore remote areas of the world in search of wilderness because the definition of

what wilderness used to be has since changed dramatically (Olwig, 1996).

Wilderness is first mentioned in the Bible as a “place to which one came only against one’s will, and always in fear and trembling”(Cronon, 1996b p 71). The wilderness is where Moses wandered for 40 years, where Jesus was tempted by Satan, and where Adam and Eve were exiled to from the Garden of Eden (Olwig, 1996; Spirn, 1996). The new idolization of the wilderness, which is how modern wilderness is understood, emerged in the 19th century through philosopher

Henry David Thoreau, poet William Wordsworth and environmentalist and Sierra Club founder,

John Muir (Spirn, 1996). The fascination and protection of wilderness and the sublime landscape

was thought to be at the centre of the national parks movement by the general population when

in reality it is only one of many often competing values in park creation (Miles, 2009; Tuan,

2002).

Wilderness areas within national or provincial parks originally were set aside as areas without

road access and were zoned this way to limit car accessibility but to also provide areas for

backcountry hiking, camping and fire roads (Carr, 1998). In Canada the first solely designated

wilderness park was proposed in 1977 to “preserve wildlife, wildlife habitat, and natural

landscapes” (Peepre & Dearden, 2002, p 330) as well as to safeguard the renewable resource economy of the local aboriginal communities. This new type of wilderness park closely follows the 1964 US Wilderness Act which forced United States park managers to define wilderness areas into meaningful management terms (Payne & Nilsen, 2002). Wilderness according to the

1964 Wilderness Act is an area of land that is un-trampled by man, appears to be created by natural forces, offers solitude and is free of human habitation (Payne & Nilsen, 2002).

Romanticism of the Wild The notion of the sublime and picturesque wilderness is entirely a cultural invention from 250

years ago in European and American history (Spirn, 1996). According to Rebecca Solnit and

Ethan Carr, this movement of the romanticized wilderness began with the popularization of

scenic tourism by William Gilpin in the writing of his 1792 essay on picturesque travel

guidebooks ( Solnit, 2001; Carr, 1998). Kenneth Olwig points to the German landscape painter,

Caspar David Friedrich, whose painting “Wanderer above the Sea of Fog” encapsulates the new romantic wilderness movement of the early 1800’s (Olwig, 2002). The later writings of Henry

David Thoreau and William Wordsworth further solidified wilderness as romantic, picturesque

and even pastoral (Spirn, 1996). Writing about the influence of romanticism on landscape,

Rebecca Solnit eloquently summarizes:

“Such an influence is the Romantic taste for landscape, for wild places, for simplicity, for nature as an ideal, for walking in the landscape as the consummation of a relationship with such places and an expression of the desire for simplicity, purity, solitude. Which is to say, walking is natural, or rather part of natural history, but choosing to walk in the landscape as a contemplative, spiritual, or aesthetic experience has a specific cultural ancestry. This is the history that had already become naturalised for Thoreau and that took walkers farther and farther afield--- for the changing history of walking is inseparable from the changing taste in places in which to walk.” (Solnit, 2001 p85-86).

A problem with the romantic view of wilderness or even the congressional definition of

wilderness in the 1964 Wilderness Act is that it excludes human use or habitation from its area,

such as aboriginal peoples (Miles, 2009). This led the US National Park Service to re-create

wilderness in parks that had been modified by aboriginals and settlers such as Shenandoah

National Park (Reich, 2001). This often meant forcefully removing people from the land, leaving

places such as the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia un-inhabited for the first time in millennia

(Reich, 2001). The myth of pristine wilderness that remained un-trampled and un-affected by

human influence gradually deflated with continued research into aboriginal peoples land

management practices that included burning, farming and hunting certain species (Aplet & Cole,

2010).

The problem or trouble with the romantic people-free notion of wilderness is that it does not

exist, in that all eco-systems on earth have been affected by human impacts through direct or

indirect change such as global environmental change and pollution (Cole & Yung, 2010). The

idea of a romantic wilderness also separates the human from nature, viewing wilderness as

scenic beauty and distancing humans from the idea it seeks to place value on (Spirn, 1996).

In his paper on wilderness and national parks in Canada, John Marsh states that “wilderness is an outdated concept. It is being replaced by ideas of heritage, cultural landscapes, and ecological integrity. However, wilderness is a concept that many people will cling to or modify to suit their expectations” (Marsh, 2003 p:18). Marsh (2003) also asserts that many people are ignorant to humans’ generational impacts on wilderness and some still cling to the myth of a pristine un-touched wilderness that exists somewhere. It is this general cultural definition of wilderness that I am basing this project on, not the park management definition of what a scaled and zoned wilderness area is.

While there are problems with the cultural definition of wilderness, this definition is being used because this definition relates to the experience of wilderness while the park management definition does not.

History of Wilderness Preservation In 1864 Yosemite was the first tract of wilderness to be protected, set aside for the enjoyment,

recreation and use for the public by an act of the US Congress (Spirn, 1996). Yellowstone

National Park was created eight years later as the first national park in the world (Carr, 1998).

Canada soon followed the example of the United States, passing into law the Rocky Mountain

Park Act of 1887 which later became known as Banff National Park (McNamee, 2002).

However, these parks were not created for the protection of wilderness. The areas of first national parks were quickly developed with hotels, newly stretching railways, and hiking trails

(Carr, 1998; McNamee, 2002). The Canadian government and the Canadian Pacific Railway profited from the creation of luxury hotels and the extraction of resources from within the newly created national parks (McNamee, 2002). National parks eventually became a pocket of civilization surrounded by the wilderness that park boundary lines did little to protect (Woodley,

2002).

In Canada, management for wilderness began with simply drawing a boundary around an area and expecting the wilderness to regulate itself even though there was constant development pressure from tourism (Woodley, 2002). The 1988 amendment to the Canadian National Parks

Act introduced the term “ecological integrity” which has set the new standard in wilderness management, opening national and wilderness parks to active management for higher ecological value (Woodley, 2002). In the US, the 1964 Wilderness Act also vastly changed the way US national parks were managed by forcing the zoning of specific areas for wilderness management and protection (Miles, 2009). The definition of wilderness has continued to evolve as has the protection of wilderness. Currently, user’s concerns for wilderness and its preservation are being replaced with a new concern, for the ecological preservation of their park systems (Marsh, 2003).

Protected park areas, especially provincial parks and local parks have been deemed a necessary provision because of the increases in outdoor recreation activities in the population (Marsh,

2003). As a result of the increased popularity of outdoor recreation in the mid 1900s there was a steady increase in park visitors and a decrease in perceived quality of these natural spaces

(Clawson, 1966).

Current trends in national park attendance in both Canada and the US indicate a decline in visitation where visitation has peaked in the US in 1987 and in Canada in 2000 respectively

(Shultis & More, 2011). BC Parks also indicates a short term yearly decline of 1.7% in visitation over the period of 2009-2012 but attributes it to summer weather patterns and a large remaining snowpack (BC Parks, 2012).

Backcountry Hiking

History of Hiking Hiking is an appreciative leisure activity that is inherently non-competitive and based around traveling a distance on foot (Svarstad, 2010). It is only of recent time that hiking has become a recreational leisure activity. Hiking has evolved through history from a pure means of transporting oneself from one place to another into a recreational activity embodying even spiritual experiences for its most dedicated proponents. Through the movement of people from place to place, paths are created over time (Ingold, 2000) which eventually create trails. Kenneth

Olwig suggests that hiking has developed from the ancient liminal practice of a pilgrimage to the

Thing, where “landscape law” was discussed in medieval Scandinavian countries (Olwig, 2005).

“Activities such as hiking, or pilgrimage, due to the character of the mode of transportation (footsteps), put one in contact not only with the geographical terrain, but also with the season. The well seasoned hiker or pilgrim knows the landscape both as an individual, and as part of a community and, as such, knows it not just as a terrain, but as a landscape that is constantly undergoing a process of transformation through time, and through the process by which it is traversed, and used” (Olwig, 2005 p266).

Through the act of hiking or pilgrimage, trails developed from continuous use of the same path even though footprints and direct signs were often washed away (Legat, 2008). In Canada, First

Nations trails used for hunting and gathering became used by European trappers who carved new routes for trading and commerce from Canada’s wilderness (Discover Canadian Outdoors, n.d.)

Hiking: the Bridge between Nature and Culture Hiking has developed from a cultural history of travel by aboriginal peoples, early settlers and pilgrims but is now often seen as a way to experience nature while recreating outdoors, which makes the act of hiking a natural bridge between the concepts of nature and culture. Trails, or the routes taken when walking, represent passing through the landscape while simultaneously passing into and emerging out of the landscape (Wylie, 2005). This is experiencing nature in a holistic way, being part of nature, not just in nature or seeing nature but taking part in the process that is nature. For Henry David Thoreau who said “When we walk, we naturally go to the fields and woods” (quoted in Solnit, 2001 p84) walking in nature seemed natural, but by his time it was the cultural result of three centuries of romanticising nature through its cultural development

(Solnit, 2001).

The romantic idea of wilderness separates the viewer from nature (Cronon, 1996a), which leads to the disconnect between culture and nature. The respect and appreciation for nature is a culturally determined experience often enjoyed by the middle class (Solnit, 2001). Bringing the two concepts together is the hiking experience which is composed of three aspects according to

Hull and Stewart’s research (1995): the encountered landscape of scenic views and people, the sequence in which the encountered landscape is experienced, and the feelings and subjective thoughts experienced by the subject. The users self-referential thoughts, expectations and motivations are an important part of the experience (Hull & Stewart, 1995) which is where their ideas of nature are established.

Kenneth Olwig (2008) proposes another way in which people experience the landscape through

hiking which is through hefting or “doing landscape” as relating to the practise of sheep that bond themselves to the land through dwelling in and belonging to their landscape. Also similar to this way of experiencing the landscape is Tim Ingold’s “Dwelling Perspective” of which the landscape is experienced through “the enduring record of – and testimony to – the lives and works of past generations who have dwelt with it, and in so doing, have left there something of themselves”(2000, p189). In combining these perspectives, the hiking experience is a way of belonging to the landscape by moving through and being in the landscape while experiencing nature through feelings, making hiking the combination of nature and culture, bridging two often opposing concepts.

Modern Recreational Hiking Modern hiking for the enjoyment of nature and social interaction among its users began with the

first outdoor club of its kind, The Sierra Club, established in 1892 by John Muir (Carr, 1998) .

The first “High Trips” organized by the Sierra Club brought club members into the wilderness of

Yosemite on multi-day recreational hiking trips (Solnit, 2001) much in the same way modern

hiking clubs organize hiking trips to wilderness areas.

Wilderness recreational activities are usually considered to be hiking, camping, backcountry

skiing, rock climbing and mountaineering, but almost all outdoor activities taking place in a

natural setting that are non-motorized could be considered to be a part of wilderness recreation

(Hammitt & Cole, 1998). The key for these activities is that they are “dependent on the natural

resource of these areas” (Hammitt & Cole, 1998 p3). As outdoor recreation grows in popularity,

natural resources are put increasingly under strain (Lynn & Brown, 2003) because there is an

upper limit to sustainable use of natural areas (Manning, 2007).

“Individuals seek a wide range of personal and physical benefits from outdoor experiences,

including risk taking, being with others, learning, enjoying nature, introspection, creativity,

physical fitness, rest, escape from pressures, and privacy from others” (Lekies & Whitworth,

2011 p252). Present day hiking is organized around achieving these experiences through

management of the landscape, the camaraderie of hiking clubs and the outdoor equipment

industry. According to Hanne Svarstad’s research (2010) into the meaning constructs behind hiking there are three categories of reasons for hiking: recreation, the simple outdoors discourse,

and the belonging discourse. These categories of meaning are closely related to the Recreation

Experience Preference (REP) scales developed by B.L. Driver (1983) which are used to study outdoor recreationists’ motivations and experience. The REP scales similarly measure meaning and importance in the outdoor recreation visitor experience. The visitor experience is now becoming the benchmark in managing visitor satisfaction in wilderness and natural areas

(Chhetri, Arrowsmith, & Jackson, 2004).

Backcountry User Experience The backcountry user experience embodies the mood, feelings and emotions of hikers as they

experience a natural area. This experience is also referred to as the wilderness experience which

along with its management is a highly researched and written about topic.

Recreation Experience Preferences Scales The recreation experience preference (REP) scales were developed by B.L. Driver in 1983.

These scales measure the degree of satisfaction achieved in outdoor recreational experiences

(Driver, 1983). The REP scales were developed to understand the psychological experiential

concept of outdoor recreation (Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant, 1996) The REP scales are only

useable in instances where the respondents have had past experiences in the activity being

surveyed (Driver, 1983). The REP scales have been used many times in measuring satisfaction

with the user experience which has led to a narrowing of the domains explored (Rollins &

Robinson, 2002). Currently there is a degree of variation between researchers on the amount and

category of domains that relate to outdoor recreation in parks and wilderness. This stems from

the suggestions by Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant (1996) that only highly important REP scales be

included after a pre-test of all scales to determine which ones are highly important or

additionally offer a wide variance. Other researchers who have used and adapted the REP scales

include Rollins and Robinson (2002) who determined eight important REP scales, Dawson

(2006) who determined eight wilderness REP scales and four dimensions of area management

while (Raadik et al., 2010) determined nine important REP scales. Table 2-1 compares these researchers’s different REP scales to Driver’s (1983) original domain scales. The REP scales are generally adapted for unique settings or to determine certain factors. Researchers often combine or separate scales in order to measure specific attributes closer.

Using the REP scales to survey visitor experience preferences offers input for management to make decisions regarding the experience preference of specific park users (Dawson, 2006).

Understanding the user experience has other benefits to management including the proper allocation of resources and for marketing decisions to attract new visitors (Raadik et al., 2010).

Table 2-1: Domains of REP Scales Used by Different Researchers Driver Rollins & Robinson Dawson Raadik et al. 1983 2002 2006 2010 Exploration Exploration Exploration and Exploratory remoteness Nature Experience General nature Natural environment Natural environment experience Exercise-Physical Exercise Physical activity Fitness Skill Development Remote travel skills Wilderness travel skills Escape Role Escape role overload Simple living Overloads Spiritual Connection with Connectedness / nature Spiritual Introspection Introspection Self discovery Being with similar Being with similar Connection with other people people wilderness users Escape Physical Escape physical stressors Remoteness Stressors Being with similar Personal and social people experiences Risk Taking Seeking exhilaration Adventure Tranquility Solitude Shared solitude

Backcountry Fear, Challenges and Flow Solitude is one of the important user experiences to wilderness recreation which is a contributing

reason why many hikers attempt solo hikes in wilderness areas. While dangerous, solo hiking

can bring intense feelings of personal renewal and self reliance (Coble, Selin, & Erickson, 2003).

Men and women alike both experience certain amounts of fear while engaging in solo hiking, as

both genders employ different strategies in dealing with these fears (Coble et al., 2003). The

challenges of an activity are optimized for the user when the user has the required amount of

skills to meet the challenges of a hike or wilderness setting which is referred to as “flow” (Coble

et al., 2003; Rollins & Robinson, 2002). The flow experience is maximized when experience or skills meet the challenges or fears of a wilderness experience. Flow is a powerful emotional and psychological experience that when optimized produces feelings of being in control and opportunities for personal growth (Rollins & Robinson, 2002).

Types of fears exhibited in solo hiking were classified into five categories which are (i) fear of being hurt by another individual, (ii) fear of accidental injury or emergency, (iii) fear of getting lost, (iv) fear of wild animals or dogs and (v) fear of theft of one’s belongings in their vehicle

(Coble et al., 2003). Negotiation strategies in dealing with these fears were avoidance, modifying their participation in solo hiking, the use of aids or protective devices, expanding knowledge and skills and by employing a psychological approach to overcoming these fears (Coble et al., 2003).

Paul Heintzman (2009) suggests that hikers bring emotional baggage into their wilderness experiences that generate an innate fear of nature. Rationalizing and accepting this fear brings relaxation and self control which allows the hiker to have a greater positive experience

(Heintzman, 2009). Hikers who experienced a manageable level of fear when compared to their skills and abilities often experienced optimal flow in their hiking experiences (Coble et al., 2003;

Rollins & Robinson, 2002).

Koole & Van den Berg (2005) claim that wilderness has an innate dark side because of its association with death and uncontrollability. Because of this fear, many participants in wilderness programs report feeling anxiety and terror when alone (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989).

Fears in the wilderness are often associated with the lack of familiarity of the setting but can be overcome by increased visual access as well as by creating confidence in way-finding abilities

(Kaplan, Kaplan, & Ryan, 1998). Koole & Van den Berg (2005) also suggest that coming to

terms with one’s own finite existence as a human being may be necessary in order to enjoy positive experiences with nature.

Management of the User Experience The biggest challenge for park managers is to mitigate users’ impact in wilderness areas through design and management, which affects the ecological base upon which the users experience is based (Lynn & Brown, 2003). Understanding the concept of sense of place in natural settings is necessary for environmental management strategies to be proposed for wilderness areas in order to maintain positive user experiences (White, Virden, & Riper, 2008).

Proposed management strategies for dealing with degraded ecological effects caused by users of wilderness areas are generally to limit density and control use (White et al., 2008). This idea that parks can have an upper limit of use is commonly referred to as “carrying capacity” (Payne &

Nilsen, 2002) which is discussed in the “Carrying Capacity in Wilderness Parks” section of

Chapter 2. Other strategies may include modifying behaviour of users through design and increased education on behaviour in parks (White et al., 2008) such as “no trace” camping, education on species at risk and formalized trails.

A stress appraisal framework has been used to gauge visitors’ experiences as they relate to negative factors in wilderness parks that influence visitors’ experiences (Peden & Schuster,

2008). These factors include “the behavior of other people, enforcement of rules, number of other people, resource impacts, and proximity of campsites” (Peden & Schuster, 2008 p507).

These factors substantially relate to the amount of other users in a park which as Manning (2003) points out in his paper on the effects of crowding in parks, there is a trade-off between solitude and public access to parks. Use limits may be justified in wilderness parks as a way of meeting

the preferred wilderness experience of solitude if wilderness parks become overcrowded due to

their popularity (Manning, 2003).

In terms of managing the spiritual experience in parks, 69% of wilderness seekers in California’s

Desolation Wilderness Area, acknowledged the spiritual value of wilderness which is seen as one of the main reasons people seek wilderness experiences (Heintzman, 2003). In the 1930s, the US

National Park Service described the higher uses of national parks as being for inspiration and education (Carr, 1998). To enhance the user’s spiritual experience in wilderness areas, managers can provide places for solitude and personal reflection; encourage exploration of nature and encourage the use of tools such as journaling, readings and meditation in parks (Heintzman,

2003).

Visitor Management Frameworks Currently, parks agencies in Canada and the United States use a variety of developed visitor

management frameworks which are briefly discussed here.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Framework (ROS)

This framework focuses on social carrying capacity and the supply of different recreational

opportunities in a variety of settings (Hammitt & Cole, 1998). Human interaction, uses,

modifications and access are the main focus of this framework which puts it in contrast with

other approaches that deal with larger site and ecological issues (Payne & Nilsen, 2002).

Visitor Activity Management Process (VAMP)

This framework was developed by Parks Canada in the 1980’s and takes a market based

approach to activity planning, developing activity profiles of recreation options and determining

which ones are suitable for specific parks (Graham, Nilsen, & Payne, 1988). VAMP addresses

social carrying capacity but leaves the issues of ecological carrying capacity to other policies

(Payne & Nilsen, 2002)

Visitor Impact Management Framework (VIM)

As the name suggests, this framework focuses on managing visitors ecological impacts on

natural areas by setting ecological standards, monitoring and then adjusting management actions

to maintain or increase desired conditions (Payne & Nilsen, 2002). This framework needs to be

integrated into other frameworks or used as a tool for localized impact areas (Payne & Nilsen,

2002).

Limits of Acceptable Change Framework (LAC)

This framework was developed by the US Forest Service as a way to complement ROS by

adding the identification of standards to resources and social conditions (Payne & Nilsen, 2002).

This framework focuses on problems and change by involving stakeholders in determining

management actions (Manning, 2007).

Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP)

This framework uses a nine step iterative process with feedback and feed-forward designed into all steps that identify goals, management conditions, zoning and carrying capacities both ecological and social (US Department of the Interior, 1997). This framework represents a high degree of monitoring and constant feedback, but has been difficult to implement because of its demands on managers’ time to identify social and ecological conditions in park zones (Payne &

Nilsen, 2002).

Wilderness Park Design

Designing Wilderness Design in wilderness parks started in 1915 when Mark Daniels, the first landscape architect

involved in national parks design, put forward design guidelines for a new village in Yosemite

National Park (Carr, 1998). These design guidelines improved the scenery by removing unsightly

buildings and by master planning the village. Daniels also identified the need for a

“comprehensive plan for the road and trail development of all the national parks” (Carr, 1998

p76). Initially the US National Park Service and the Parks Canada Agency both aggressively

developed park systems to encourage visitors, assuming that political and financial support

would follow once there was significant public support (Shultis & More, 2011). “Visits were

designed to foster appreciation for the need to preserve wilderness, and therefore create the

conditions for a popular support base to maintain parks” (Shultis & More, 2011 p111). This

meant that landscape architects became influential in parks development in order to direct

growth in recreation opportunities (Carr, 2007). In Ethan Carr’s book Mission 66 (2007) he describes the role of landscape architects in the Mission 66 national parks modernization project as essentially managing a landscape architecture project to develop guiding principles in addition to the re-design and updating of existing national park facilities.

Trails may have been the first marks on the landscapes of parks because they are worn into the vegetation through the passage of feet (Ingold & Vergunst, 2008). Historically, trails have not been designed but have instead evolved from animal trails to hunting trails used by aboriginal peoples. Built trails, while a very unnatural forest floor cover, offer some benefits because of reduced erosion when compared to poorly constructed trails as well as their guiding ability to keep hikers on the designated trails (Hammitt & Cole, 1998). In wilderness park design and

management, determining acceptable levels of impact and how changes affect all other ecological systems are two main principles to consider when designing (Hammitt & Cole, 1998).

The aesthetic value of a park or wilderness area should supersede the need to build infrastructure as the early designers of Yellowstone National Park did (Carr, 1998). This approach to wilderness park design has been carried through to many other parks in the idea of limiting the building of roads and the construction of buildings.

Current Management of Wilderness Parks In the US, wilderness management gained status in the 1988 issuing of Management Policies by the US National Park Service which stated that “each park containing wilderness was to develop and maintain a wilderness management plan to guide the preservation, management, and use of the wilderness” (Miles, 2009 p272). However, this has not greatly changed the way wilderness is managed in the US where the same controversy between recreational use and preservation continues to be the main issue in wilderness planning (Miles, 2009).

In the 1970s in Canada, park managers began developing management plans to guide development and management activities within national parks (Eagles, 2002). Parks Canada, as well as provincial park agencies, use a zoning system as a way of classifying areas for different levels of protection and management (Parks Canada Agency, 2008b). According to Parks

Canada’s Guide to Management Planning zone II wilderness areas are:

“areas that are good representations of a natural region and will be conserved in a wilderness state. Perpetuation of ecosystems with minimal management intervention is encouraged” (Parks

Canada Agency, 2008a p15).

Individual parks and provincial agencies set the allowed uses and recreational activities permitted in these wilderness areas. Activities and facilities allowed in wilderness zoned areas

can include trails, backcountry campgrounds, alpine huts, trail shelters, and warden patrol

facilities with all types of motorized activities being restricted (Parks Canada Agency, 2008b).

In British Columbia current management of provincial parks is outlined in the development of

management plans for each provincial park or protected area. Wilderness areas are not separately

managed, but included within these management plans. Management plans are developed every

10 years by BC Parks with support and involvement from aboriginal groups, the public and

stakeholders (BC Parks, 2012). Management Plans guide recreation development and implement

conservation strategies in accordance with other planning directives, taking into consideration

park goals, patterns of use, conflicts, and public expectations (BC Parks, 2000).

Wilderness and park management in Canada is in the midst of a change as agencies shift to a

long term park maintenance trend after a growth and creation period of more than 100 years in

Canada (Eagles, 2013). Park agencies in Canada are also concerned about political support as

visitation drops in some parks (Shultis & More, 2011), since this might affect park finances

which support management processes.

Carrying Capacity in Wilderness Parks Carrying capacity is the term often used by park managers to describe the number of visitors a

natural area can contain without adversely affecting the natural environment and visitor

experience (Prato, 2001). Payne and Nilsen (2002) describe three types of carrying capacity that relate to the protection of natural areas. The first type is design or physical capacity which is the limit of the amount of visitors an area is designed to handle from an architectural and engineering standpoint. The second type is ecological carrying capacity which describes the upper limit of human impacts that an environment can withstand. The third type is social carrying capacity which is the upper limit of visitors before the visitor experiences are negatively

affected. Ecological carrying capacity usually represents the lowest use level with design or

physical capacity usually allowing the highest level of use.

Hammitt & Cole (1998) discuss trailhead quotas, backcountry permits, rationed permits and

other use limiting devices common to managing carrying capacity in wilderness areas. These are

seen as necessary by users of wilderness areas if there is a need to limit use (Hammitt & Cole,

1998). Both solitude and free access to areas are desired experiences in wilderness which are

likely to be in opposing conflict (Manning, 2003). By limiting use, solitude increases, but fewer

people may enjoy the wilderness.

Conflict in recreation areas is related to crowding and carrying capacities because different

recreation activity groups have different carrying capacities (Hammitt & Cole, 1998). Conflict

can occur when two groups of users having different recreational goals visit the same natural area (Rollins & Robinson, 2002). Conflict also occurs within groups of similar recreational activities due to crowding, especially on wilderness trails when visitors are seeking solitude

(Cole & Hall, 2010).

Historically, strategies for managing carrying capacity have been to increase the supply of natural areas, reduce impacts of use, increase the durability of the resources and to limit use

(Manning, 2007). Newer applications of carrying capacity are focusing on the acceptability of impact levels on wilderness areas, taking into consideration soils, topography, vegetation; the acceptability of social factors such as group size, behaviour and traveling mode and the acceptability of management policies to limit use (Prato, 2001). This does not always consider total visitor numbers to be the measure of capacity. Alternate solutions to managing carrying capacity are those of substitution and peak load pricing which Loomis & Keske (2009) found to be effective in voluntarily limiting use of Colorado’s 14’er peaks. Substitution and peak load

pricing examined various entrance fee prices and determined that decreased usage would be

possible with increased options for substitutes and regulated entrance fees (Loomis & Keske,

2009).

Wilderness Design in British Columbia Currently in British Columbia there are several planning documents that guide the design and

management of provincial parks. Park Facility Standards (2005) was originally developed in

1998 in order to maintain a high level of quality in the visitor experience relating to facility

design but has been updated frequently since its original publication. The Park Design

Guidelines & Data was published in 1996, and covers a broad approach to provincial park design

mostly focusing on front-country facilities. The aim of the Park Design Guidelines & Data is to

help BC Parks staff make informed design decisions about park facilities while blending them

into the existing natural landscape of the parks (BC Parks, 1996).

The Park Design Guidelines & Data cover general guidelines for all provincial parks, while each

district of the BC Parks organization creates management plans for each park under their

jurisdiction, which further specify design requirements, goals and future planning objectives.

Management plans direct park planning for a 5 to 10 year term and look at specific goals for park

planning and how they relate to other identified park planning policies in nearby protected areas

(BC Parks, 1996). The current Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park Management Plan builds on other policy documents such as the approved 1973 initial park master plan, the 1990 management statement and the 1996 Lower Mainland Protected Area Strategy (BC Parks, 2000).

Landscape architecture concerns for provincial parks are based on natural components of the

park, human influences on the park, visual quality and an understanding of the natural process

that go on in the park (BC Parks, 1996). Design for the user experience is not currently part of the Parks Park Design Guidelines & Data document that guides BC’s park design. Guidelines were developed with two major approaches, one being the park landscape, which is the appearance of the park and two being the park environment, which refers to the ecological processes that go on in the park (BC Parks, 1996). Design principles for the park landscape are continuity, substance, a natural landscape architecture, sanctuary, building with vegetation, quality, building park architecture for the region, building a BC Parks heritage and balancing conservation and recreation (BC Parks, 1996). Design principles for the park environment consist of adding visitors to the park environment, using sustainable design and siting for the environment (BC Parks, 1996).

Specifically relating to the design of camping facilities in wilderness areas, there are minimal backcountry design guidelines put forward in the Park Design Guidelines & Data (1996). Of the specified design guidelines, there is a limit of 25 un-monitored backcountry camping sites per designated campground, campfire pits provided where allowed and food caches provided where appropriate (BC Parks, 1996).

Trail design guidelines are more developed and are also included in Park Facility Standards.

Relating to the park landscape, or appearance, trails should be sited to follow natural routes, offer variety in the landscape, should be clearly marked and avoid steep slopes (BC Parks, 1996).

When analyzing from a park environment perspective, trails should be constructed to suit seasonal use, avoid sensitive environments, reduce human and wildlife conflicts and anticipate short cut areas (BC Parks, 1996). Design principles for vegetation management include the use of native plants, limited clearing, design to reduce trampling, protection of existing vegetation

during construction and reducing erosion of cleared vegetation (BC Parks, 1996, 2005). The

Park Design Guidelines & Data (1996) document does not specify how exactly these guidelines

are to be implemented especially in backcountry areas.

Summary In summary there is a conflict of use and preservation (Shultis & More, 2011) in wilderness parks because people continue to seek wilderness experiences for their restorative capacity (Cole

& Hall, 2010). Backcountry hiking is one of the ways wilderness is experienced (Hammitt &

Cole, 1998). The Recreation Experience Preference scales developed by B.L. Driver (1983)

measure the experience and satisfaction of a wilderness experience (Manfredo et al., 1996). The

user experience is managed by parks organizations through the use of visitor management

frameworks (Payne & Nilsen, 2002) and by management plans in the case of BC Parks (BC

Parks, 2012). Further understanding of what indicators affect the user experience (Cole & Hall,

2008) may lead to considerations regarding how to design or manage the preferred user experience in wilderness parks. Currently there is little evidence of this type of user experience informed design of parks in British Columbia.

Chapter Three: Methodology

Overview In order to understand what indicators determine the user experience in wilderness parks the following methodology was followed. Firstly, understanding the park in which the research question and results are framed is essential. This is done by examining Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park using the case study method. Understanding the ideal wilderness experience as well as design factors that influence this are additional components of this research which are addressed by the use of a questionnaire targeted to users of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park.

Combining the case study and questionnaire results leads to the development of informed user experience design considerations for wilderness parks (See Figure 3-1)

Figure 3-1 Methodological Outline

Case Study Approach The case study method will be used to examine the holistic context of the Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park and examine what factors affect it in order to better understand the data generated by the questionnaire.

According to Deming & Swaffield (2011), a case study approach is appropriate in landscape architecture because of the complex phenomenon that is landscape, a mixture of social and biophysical relationships. A case study method is also appropriate for policy research according to Mitra & Lankford (1999). Case studies in landscape architecture are used to “describe and/or evaluate a project or process” (Francis, 1999, p9). The case study approach fits well into a descriptive research strategy as a way to fully explain and understand Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park.

This case study will use a descriptive approach by using maps, GIS analysis, document analysis, photographs, direct observations and key informant interviews as is commonly done in landscape architecture case study analysis (Deming & Swaffield, 2011; Francis, 1999). Using multiple sources of information will provide greater precision in the information being presented in the case study, allowing triangulation not only within the case study but also with the other methods being used (Deming & Swaffield, 2011; Yin, 2012). Using multiple sources of evidence is also a suggested approach to increasing construct validity for case studies (Yin, 1994).

Using a single case study that is typical of other projects is acceptable because of its ability to be compared to other projects as well as being easily replicated (Francis, 1999). This is important for the application of this research process and case study approach to be implemented in other similar BC parks with relatively small areas of backcountry wilderness. The initial data collection for this case study was kept flexible to allow for unforeseen opportunities for data collection that was deemed to be relevant to the case study (Yin, 2012).

Key informant interviews were conducted with two individuals at BC Parks in order to

understand management and planning issues from the manager’s perspective. Robert Wilson, BC

Parks Area Supervisor for the South Fraser area of BC was interviewed via email on December

20th, 2013 and Joanna Hirner, BC Parks Conservation Specialist for the South Coast of BC on

January 14th, 2014, also via email. A third key informant interview was also done with a

volunteer trail-builder who has volunteered within Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. The

volunteer trail builder interview was done by email on December 27th, 2013. Interviewees were sent a list of questions via email that were pre-developed but were also asked follow-up questions in an attempt to achieve a fixed and flexible conversation style interview which Robert

Yin (2012) suggests for case study research. Informants’ answers were then compiled and analyzed to complete any data missing in the case study description as well as used to begin to inform what indicators affect the user experience in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. Document analysis was used to further inform the case study as well as triangulate the results of the interviews. The document analysis shows what BC Parks thinks are needed changes to the design and management of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park as of July 2000.

Document analysis consisted of archival research, project files, web searches and public documents as suggested by Francis (1999). Secondary data used included the current Chilliwack

Lake Provincial Park management plan, maps, historical articles, web articles and other BC

Parks documents. These data were reviewed and used to inform the description of the case study.

According to Yin (2012), making direct observations is one of the distinct features of case study methodology and can be used to make observations on human actions, physical environments and real-world events. Direct observation can be used to “gain insight into the character, use and

performance of places already designed” (Deming & Swaffield, 2011, p. 66). Direct observations

were made with an overnight backpacking and hiking trip within Chilliwack Lake Provincial

Park on September 26 and 27th, 2013. In order to reduce bias a list of observable items was

developed prior to observations (Mitra & Lankford, 1999) which was adapted from Francis

(1999) and Harrison (2012). A copy of the direct observations checklist is available in Appendix

A. Observations were made to increase familiarity with the park, and to specifically observe park design elements and facilities or lack thereof.

Site Selection The case study park was chosen based on a set of four pre-developed criteria. (i) The case study

park needed to be near one of Canada’s growing urban centers in order to explore the conflicts of

use and preservation. (ii) The researcher needed access to previous users or user groups of the

park in order to survey them regarding their opinions of the design and management of the park.

(iii) The case study park needed to be managed by a provincial or federal parks organization.

This would ensure some level of management planning, park zoning and documents available

regarding the parks design. (iv) Lastly the case study park needed to contain some amount of

natural environment or wilderness area. The natural or wilderness area did not need to be large or

a substantial portion of the park but needed to include some amount of backcountry access and

facilities.

Selection of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park (Figure 3-2 and 3-3) was chosen as the case study park because

it met the case study criteria. Other parks that met the selection criteria were Skagit Valley

Provincial Park and Garibaldi Provincial Park, however Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park was

chosen for its smaller comparative size. Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park is located

Figure 3-2 Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park from Flora Peak (Photo Credit: Chad Neufeld)

Figure 3-3 Mt Lindeman in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park (Photo Credit: Chad Neufeld)

approximately 150km from Vancouver, British Columbia and sees most of its users coming from this growing urban center. Access to users and user groups was achieved through partnerships with ClubTread.com, The Chilliwack Outdoor Club and The Valley Outdoor Association.

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park is managed by BC Parks. BC Parks uses a zoning approach to designate certain areas for different activities. Zoning percentages for Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park are shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park Zoning Classification Zone Percentage at Chilliwack Facilities/Activities Lake Provincial Park Natural Environment 87% Hiking, trails, boat in sites Special Features 8% Limited, only non-motorized travel Wilderness Recreation 4% Hiking, trails, non-motorized activity Intensive Recreation 1% Front-country camping, roads, day use

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park does not contain a large amount of wilderness recreation zone but instead contains mostly natural environment zoned areas. Management objectives state that the natural environment zone of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park precludes any sense of wilderness isolation (BC Parks, 2000) even though there are limited facilities and access to this zone. The designation of a large percentage of the park as the natural environment zone met criteria IV for the site selection.

BC Parks outlines the management of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park through its management planning document last produced in 2000. Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park is undergoing a long term strategy to upgrade some of the backcountry facilities such as increasing and formalizing backcountry recreation which is shown in Figure 3-4. The objectives identified in Figure 3-4 are

a combination of upgrades to existing trails and a formalization of the backcountry camping facilities (BC Parks, 2000). The management plan assigns timelines to all management strategies outlined in the management plan, with major upgrades to park campsites and trails as well as a number of new management plans and policies that would affect future park management (BC

Parks, 2000).

Figure 3-4 Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park Recreation Opportunities (BC Parks, 2000)

Site Analysis Site analysis was completed using G.I.S. terrain mapping to analyze the topographical features of

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. Maps of existing park features, elevation, slope, aspect, land

cover, viewshed and ecosystems were completed to analyze the park features. Maps were

produced and analyzed at a 1:20,000 scale which has been found useful to BC Parks in the past

for analyzing development potential and ground survey mapping (BC Parks, 2005). Contour intervals were set at 20m which allowed a sufficient quality to analyze the terrain (Harrison,

2012). Maps in this document have been re-sized to 1:100,000 with contours at 50m and 200m to fit on an 8.5 x 11 page.

ESRI ArcGIS version 10.1 was used to create maps of sufficient quality for terrain assessment in order to analyze existing backcountry facility locations, routings and surroundings. Elevation data were used from the National Elevation Dataset, a U.S. Geological Survey product that includes Canada, in the format of DEM (Digital Elevation Model) data. The DEM data was current as of November 1, 2013 and has a precision of 1/3 arc-second (approx. 10 metres). Land uses and roadway data were drawn from Geobase, an online depository of Canadian geospatial data. A map of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park was overlaid, geo-referenced and traced to establish the locations of the trails, routes and wilderness campsites. Ecosystem, biogeoclimatic and endangered species data were accessed through the BC Data Distribution service, an online provincial government source for GIS data. The data from BC Data were produced on February

10, 2012.

The provided DEM data from the National Elevation Dataset used a co-ordinate system of

“geographic co-ordinate system (GCS) North American 1983”. All data were set to project to this co-ordinate system to reduce distortions. Elevation slope and aspect classifications were re-

sampled using the bi-linear technique as recommended by ESRI to smooth results despite some

generalization of data because of the initial blocky appearance of results. Land cover data were

not re-sampled because of the need to have distinct lines between land uses which left it in a

“blocky” state.

A context map and 3D imagery map were produced with Google Earth version 7.1.1 with an overlay of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. These maps show current imagery gathered on

November 3, 2011 which at the time was the most recent imagery for this area. The GIS analysis was used to further understand the existing conditions of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park for the purposes of the case study description in addition to providing insights into the siting of current backcountry facilities and whether these are in well suited locations that would theoretically benefit the user experience.

User Questionnaire The purpose of the user questionnaire was to understand the backcountry user’s ideal experience

in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park as well as which design elements contributed to their

experience and which did not. The user questionnaire therefore attempts to answer the research

questions of; What is the ideal wilderness experience? And what wilderness design factors

influence this?

Questionnaires are an appropriate research method to use because the information sought is best

gained from the users of the site and the data can be obtained by relatively brief questions (Vogt,

Gardner, & Haeffele, 2012). To gain understanding of perceived crowding and solitude levels,

Manning (2003) suggests that empirical research of current park users be used rather than

considered irrelevant as previous researchers have. Cluster sampling (among clusters of users

defined by hiking group or online group) was used to identify the specific user type needed for

the questionnaire because there are specific groupings of these user types found in hiking clubs

and on-line (Mitra & Lankford, 1999). Additionally, network sampling, or snowball sampling

(used to reach other potential questionnaire candidates that initial respondents might be aware of)

was also employed by adding a link and opportunity to forward the questionnaire on to other

users of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. Network sampling is appropriate when there is a small

population and they are likely to form communities due to their similar interests (Mitra &

Lankford, 1999).

The questionnaire was a self-administered web based questionnaire; a link and description of the

project was posted on Clubtread.com, a hiking forum website. Links and questionnaire

descriptions were also included in newsletter mail-outs of the Valley Outdoor Association (200

members) and the Chilliwack Outdoor Club (COC) (180 members). The Valley Outdoor

Association (VOA) is located in the general Fraser Valley area of Metro Vancouver

approximately 50-100km away from Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park, while the Chilliwack

Outdoor Club represents a more local hiking club located in the City of Chilliwack

approximately 30-40km from the park. Outdoor clubs were targeted because it was possible to

calculate a response rate based on the number of newsletter subscribers. The questionnaire link

and write up was included in the December 13th, 2013 newsletter to all VOA members with a

reminder direct email sent on January 14th, 2013. The questionnaire write up and link was posted on ClubTread’s British Columbia Mainland thread on January 2, 2014 and re-posted on January

10th, 2014. The questionnaire write up and link was emailed directly to all COC members on

January 9th, 2014. Because of the limited time, a follow up email was not sent to this respondent group. All respondents completed the questionnaire in the winter season when they were likely not engaging in many backcountry hiking activities.

The questionnaire was reviewed for clarity and accuracy by two University of Guelph professors,

Sean Kelly and Dr. Robert Corry of the School of Environmental Design and Rural

Development, and pretested for terminology and length on three backcountry hikers before being

administered.

A copy of the questionnaire and consent form is available in Appendix B

Reasons for Access Questions regarding the reasons for hiking and backcountry camping in Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park were first asked. These included general questions on frequency and duration of

visits to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. Nine Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scales were proposed as reasons for hiking or backcountry camping in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park which were adapted from Raadik et al (2010). In addition to these suggested reasons an “other” option was provided.

Backcountry Experience Scale The questionnaire asked users to rate 30 different preferences for their ideal wilderness

experience which were partially developed from the Recreation Experience Preference (REP)

scales which were developed by Driver (1983) and adapted for reliability by Raadik et al., (2010)

and Dawson (2006). Participants were asked to rate each domain on a five point Likert scale

rated from not important to very important as is consistent with other similar research (Dawson,

2006; Harrison, 2012; Raadik et al., 2010). The importance rating responses were given

numerical values as following: Not Important = 0, Slightly Not Important = 1, Neutral = 2,

Important = 3, and Very Important = 4. Only REP scales that included aspects relating to design

of parks were included which were the exploratory, remoteness, natural environment, shared

solitude, wilderness travel skills and physical activity domains. Four management condition

domains were included because they were found to affect wilderness experiences in previous 37

research (Dawson, 2006). The four management domains were information on wilderness areas,

management condition, litter and waste, and number of users. Five additional domains were

included which related to physical design elements common in provincial parks. These included

domains of facilities (general), cabins/huts, vegetation, routes and designated campsites.

Two questions were asked from each domain as is consistent with similar research (Dawson,

2006; Harrison, 2012; Raadik et al., 2010). Single question domain scales should be avoided in

order to increase construct reliability and reduce sampling error (Manfredo et al., 1996). A

reliability analysis, using the Cronbach Alpha formula, was completed on results of the REP

statements and the other nine domains to ensure internal consistency among scales (Raadik et al.,

2010). Scales with reliability factors above 0.60 were deemed to be internally reliable (Manfredo

et al., 1996; Raadik et al., 2010). Results were analyzed in Microsoft Excel 2010 with the Real-

Statistics add-in to compute Cronbach’s Alpha. Only the combined results were analyzed for

reliability and ranked by domain scale. Individual questions were ranked on their importance

score as was done by Dawson (2006) who ranked by ordinal scale sum. The importance score

was computed by averaging the total combined sum of the question and ranking them in

descending order. Domain scales were also ranked according to their total importance rating. The domain importance score was computed by adding the total importance scores of both questions in each domain and ranking them against the additional domains.

Improvements and Wilderness The questionnaire asked one question regarding improvements needed to Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park to benefit the user experience. This direct question was asked to gauge the level

of satisfaction with the current park and to aid in determining design improvements that may benefit the user experience.

Participants were also asked to define what “wilderness area” meant to them and whether

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park met this requirement. This was asked in order to compare actual park zoning designation to the perceived zoning by users of this area.

One open ended question was asked to allow participants to share anything else they felt was relevant to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park or its user experience.

Demographics This section dealt with questions relating to general demographics of the participants such as age range, gender, and the approximate distance they live from Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park.

Lastly, a link to the questionnaire was provided to send to other hikers or qualified users the participants may know. A voluntary box to include the participants email was included to be sent a copy of the abstracted results.

Chapter Four: Case Study Results This chapter is separated into two parts, context and site analysis. A summary table of the case

study data can be found in Table 4-1.

Context This section covers general information about Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park including its background, goals and objectives, current design, maintenance, site conditions and capacity.

Background This section describes the location and history of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park as well as a

summary table of all relevant case study data.

Location and Size Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park is located approximately 150km east of Vancouver, BC,

Canada in upper Chilliwack river valley. It is characterized by a large central lake (Chilliwack

Lake), old growth coniferous forests, alpine and sub-alpine areas with views of the North

Cascade mountains (BC Parks, 2013b). Figure 4-1 shows the approximately location of

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park in relation to Vancouver. Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park is

9,258 hectares which makes it one of the smaller provincial parks in BC. Of the 611 “Class A” provincial parks, which Chilliwack Lake is, the average size is 17,078 hectares. Class A parks are parks committed to the general preservation of the natural environment with limited development for recreational activities (BC Parks, 2012). The park has a frontcountry campground of 146 RV sites accessible by road as well as walk-in wilderness campsites.

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park contains the Chilliwack River Ecological Reserve which is a separate management initiative to protect unique vegetation at the south end of Chilliwack Lake.

Figure 4-1 Area Context Map

History The area encompassed by Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park was originally occupied by the

Ts'elxweyeqw Tribe who had settlements around Chilliwack Lake and the surrounding valleys of

the Chilliwack River (Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe, n.d.). The Ts'elxweyeqw tribe used the resource-rich

valley to establish 65 documented villages and traditional sites before European contact

(Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe, n.d.). The Hudson’s Bay Company cut the first recorded trail up the

Chilliwack River valley, connecting the First Nation’s villages in 1855 (BC Parks, 2013b). In the

early 1900’s logging began near present day Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park which resulted in

increased traffic up the valley including a rail line which was later abandoned due to a large fire

caused by the railway traffic (BC Parks, 2013b). In 1973 the original provincial park was

established which included 100 frontcountry camp spots, a day use area and boat launch,

summing to 160 hectares in size (BC Parks, 2000). In 1980, an additional 90 hectares were set

aside as the ecological reserve at the south end of Chilliwack Lake (BC Parks, 2000). Chilliwack

Lake Provincial Park was greatly expanded to its present size as part of the 1997 Lower

Mainland Protected Area Strategy plan as a way to expand recreational opportunities in the

Lower Mainland of BC as well as complement management objectives of the adjacent North

Cascades National Park in Washington(BC Parks, 2000). A campground expansion 10 years ago

added 46 sites onto the existing 100 original frontcountry campsites (Wilson, 2013). In October

2013 a new backcountry staging lot/parking lot was constructed at the base of the Lindeman

Lake and Flora Lake trailheads (Figure 4-3) to accommodate up to 60 vehicles and a bus

(Wilson, 2013).

Overview The following table is a combined summary of all relevant case data. Table 4-1: Chilliwack Lake Case Study Summary Project Name: Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park Location: 150km east of Vancouver, BC. 64km southeast of Chilliwack City. Date Established: 1973 Total Area: 9,258 hectares Area Expansions: 1980 expanded by 90 hectares, 1997 expanded by 9,008 hectares. Vehicular Accessible via Chilliwack Lake Road which terminates at Site Access: Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. Developed by: BC Parks a division of the British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Managed by: BC Parks and private Park Facility Operators Purpose: To conserve representative elements of the Eastern Pacific Ranges Ecosection. To provide recreational opportunities to residents and their visitors, especially backcountry recreation. To protect cultural heritage features of First Nations and early European use of the park.

Vision: “Into the future, Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park and Chilliwack River Ecological Reserve will conserve pristine natural values and special features as part of a trans-boundary protected area complex. A majority of the park will be dedicated to preservation. Important habitats will be protected for rare, endangered and representative species of the Eastern Pacific Ranges Ecosection.” (BC Parks, 2000) Funding: In fiscal year 2012/2013 the park generated $151,461 in revenue from camping permits. Capital projects above $50,000 are implemented on an as needed basis if provincial funding is available (Wilson, 2013) Land Ownership: Provincial Crown Land. Land Usage: Designated a “Class A” provincial park Land Cover Types: 66% open coniferous forest, 10% water, 7% exposed land, and 5% herbaceous communities. Typical Vegetation: Douglas-Fir, Western Hemlock, Mountain Hemlock, Sitka Spruce, Western Red-Cedar and alpine herbaceous plants Terrestrial Wildlife: Deer, Mountain Goat, Black Bears, 40 mammal species, 20 reptile/amphibian species, 130 bird species Aquatic Wildlife: Mountain Whitefish, Steelhead, Rainbow, Dolly Varden and Kokanee Trout. Kokanee, Sockeye, Coho, Pinks, and Chum Salmon. Total of 11 species of fish (recreational sport fishing) Biogeoclimatic Zones: Coastal Western Hemlock, Mountain Hemlock and Alpine Tundra Park Zones: 1% Intensive Recreation Zone 4% Wilderness Recreation Zone 8% Special Features Zone 87% Natural Environment Zone Frontcountry Facilities: 146 vehicle accessible campsites Backcountry Facilities: 40km of maintained trails, 4 backcountry campground areas User Statistics: 102,364 total accounted visitors in fiscal year 2012/2013 (BC Parks, 2013a) 10,136 Lindeman Lake trail users in a 15 month period, August 2012-October 2013. 3,263 Radium Lake trail users in same 15 month period (BC Parks, 2013c)

Goals and Objectives The Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park Management Plan (BC Parks, 2000) outlines the following

goals for the park which are interpreted from the Ministry of Environment’s conservation goals:

• To protect the park with its representative and unique natural environments, cultural and recreation resources • To permit only appropriate types and levels of recreation use • To monitor use and environmental impacts in order to establish resource guidelines • To complement resource management objectives of adjacent protected lands

The management plan explains that as an objective to these goals, park zoning will be used to define levels of use and recreation enhancements.

The management plan also defines objectives for 22 other dimensions which are categorized into

3 topics, Natural, Recreational and Cultural Values, and Outdoor Recreation and

Communications. The following are some of the relevant objectives for wilderness design and management in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park.

Vegetation – To preserve old growth and alpine/sub-alpine vegetation types; to maintain

naturally-occurring diversity and succession features (BC Parks, 2000).

Terrestrial Wildlife – To maintain the diversity of wildlife species with attention to rare and

endangered species in a trans-boundary protected area context (BC Parks, 2000).

Visual Landscape – To ensure high quality visual landscapes are preserved with minimal

impacts from logging operations in adjacent valleys (BC Parks, 2000).

Hiking and Backpacking – To provide non-motorized public access to park features on a

designated trail system, with appropriate facilities provided for backcountry

camping (BC Parks, 2000)

Park Information – To ensure information reflects the regional and backcountry role of the

park, as well as to portray the protected area as part of an international parks system

(BC Parks, 2000).

In-Park Information – To provide visitors with current on-site information that enhances their

outdoor experience (BC Parks, 2000).

When asked whether or not the current design of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park meets the outlined goals and objectives laid out in the management plan, BC Parks Area Supervisor Robert

Wilson responded with “Yes. There are some specific recommendations contained within the management plan that have yet to be actioned and will not likely be actioned in the near future however, generally the design of the park meets the goals, objectives and strategic direction that is outlined in the management plan” (Wilson, 2013). When asked the same question, Joanna

Hirner, BC Parks South Coast Conservation Specialist replied that there “are potential impacts to park environmental values as well as visual quality objectives from logging adjacent to the park.

These potential impacts would be prevented if these adjacent lands were also protected” (Hirner,

2014)

Current Design The current design of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park has not changed much since the initial development on the provincial park in 1973. It is not known when the current backcountry trails and routes within the park were developed into formal hiking trails.

The current design of backcountry facilities in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park includes four main hiking trails that are maintained and two backcountry routes that are not maintained according to the BC Parks park map. Additional facilities include hardened tent pads made out of gravel or timber at Lindeman, Greendrop, Flora and Radium Lakes and one outdoor toilet and

bear-proof food cache at Lindeman Lake (Figure 4-3). The current design of the trail system is

limited to one direction travel options, a factor that a volunteer trail builder says should be

expanded to include an entire park circumnavigating trail (Anonymous, 2013). See Figure 4-3

for a map of existing facilities within Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park.

Maintenance Maintenance activities within Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park are performed in the summer months by one full time seasonal BC Parks ranger and one part-time seasonal ranger (Wilson,

2013). These two rangers maintain 11 provincial parks and 6 ecological reserves in addition to

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park (Wilson, 2013) which means the rangers are quite busy in the summer months. The front country campsites, parking lots and facilities are generally maintained by contracted park facility operators who act on behalf of BC Parks.

BC Parks deals with limited resources for park maintenance which makes enforcement of park rules difficult (Hirner, 2014). Common maintenance issues in the backcountry include the maintenance of backcountry facilities (campsites, toilets), trail clearing, and waste disposal. The

Lindeman Lake campsite sees the highest non-compliance of park rules and highest maintenance issues in the park due to its relative close proximity (45 min hike) to the parking lot (Wilson,

2013). BC Parks Area Supervisor Rob Wilson identified that the issues of campfire bans, litter and human waste are the most typical in managing the backcountry at Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park while BC Parks Conservation Specialist Joanna Hirner included mushroom picking, illegal log harvesting, mountain biking and letting dogs off-leash as other management and maintenance issues (Hirner, 2014; Wilson, 2013).

The lack of trail maintenance and confusion of what a “route” constitutes on the BC Parks park map led the interviewed trail building volunteer to undertake major trail building activities

within Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park in order to “make what shows on the park map a reality

and not fiction (by) creating a better experience” (Anonymous, 2013).

General Conditions Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park is predominantly situated in the Chilliwack Lake valley and

includes the mountain ridges surrounding the lake in addition to the valleys around Lindeman,

Greendrop and Flora lakes (Figure 4-3). The park is accessed by paved road from the City of

Chilliwack 40km to the west. There is a gravel logging road that runs beside the east side of the

lake, which is used to access the Depot Creek and Paleface valleys. This gravel road forms part

of the Trans-Canada Trail. The Center Creek valley which is the closest to the west boundary has

a gravel logging road that comes within 1.5km of the park boundary. It has been previously

logged as well. There are current logging operations on-going in the Depot Creek valley,

adjacent to the park which were scheduled to be completed by late 2013 (BC Parks, 2013b).

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park is mostly covered with old growth hemlock, spruce, douglas-fir

and alpine fir (BC Parks, 2000) which forms an open coniferous forest along the valley slopes.

The alpine ridges are partially vegetated and often have large areas of exposed rock. The general

viewshed of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park depends largely on the location of the viewer.

Valley bottoms have few views, but ridgelines and mountain summits have views of the North

Cascade mountain range in the United States (Mt. Redoubt, 2733m and Mt. Spickard, 2736) as

well as Canadian peaks (Mt. Rexford, 2329m, Slesse Mountain, 2439m, and Williams Peak,

2123m) (Table 4-2). The peaks contained within the park boundary (Figure 4-3) also form a substantial part of the close proximity viewshed which include Mt Webb, 2164m, Mt

MacDonald, 2247m and Mt Lindeman, 2312m (Table 4-2).

Table 4-2: Comparison of Peaks Surrounding Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park Peaks Within Park Elevation Peaks Outside Park Elevation Boundary Boundary Mt. Lindeman 2312m Mt. Spickard (US) 2736m Mt. MacDonald 2247m Mt. Redoubt (US) 2733m Mt. Webb 2164m Mt. Rexford 2329m Flora Peak 1952m Middle Peak (US) 2275m

Site Visitation and Capacity For BC Parks reporting period of April 1, 2012 to March 31st, 2013 there were 69,251 day use visitors (frontcountry and backcountry) reported at Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park (BC Parks,

2013a). A new reporting system being implemented throughout all of British Columbia’s provincial parks may be responsible for a decline in usage from the previous reporting period of

2011/12 that saw 72,132 day use visitors, a decrease of 4.0%. There is little indication contained within the Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park Management Plan as to whether these day use attendance numbers represent an acceptable level of site usage. Both key informants interviewed at BC Parks did not know if a carrying capacity had ever been established at Chilliwack Lake.

The BC Provincial Park Design Guidelines & Data (1996) suggests that a visual or social carrying capacity measurement could be determined using 1200m as a distance guideline for identifying the presence of humans. However, there is no explanation how this visual carrying capacity of 1200m is to be used. The Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park Management Plan indicates that “opportunities will be developed to levels appropriate with documented demands in the regional market area” (BC Parks, 2000 p16), but no indication of what these levels are is given. Park zoning is suggested as another way of establishing various carrying capacities along

with varied uses, but once again there are no specific use levels given for Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park.

Site Analysis A site analysis was completed using a geographic information system to produce various

differing maps of the park. Mapping is a recommended first step along with landscape inventory

and environmental assessment in any parks facility project (BC Parks, 1996). BC Parks does not

specify which terrain conditions should be analysed, only factors that “develop a further

understanding of the park landscape and environment” (BC Parks, 1996, p19). Analysis was

done on six characteristics of the park landscape which are elevation, slope, aspect, land cover,

viewshed and ecosystem. The purpose of the site analysis is to firstly inform aspects of the case

study description and secondly to providing insights into the siting of current backcountry

facilities and whether this improves or negates user’s preferred experiences.

Elevation Analysis Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park is located at the north end of the North Cascade mountain range

which is predominantly in the United States. The park contains many mountain peaks which are

only slightly lower than some of the surrounding peaks in the US and Canada. See Table 4-2 for a description of peaks within the park compared to peaks outside the park. Figure 4-4 shows the

elevation of park features and their immediate surrounding context.

The trails and routes within Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park begin near the front-country campground, at an elevation of 630m and then proceed to climb up river valleys (Figure 4-4).

Chilliwack Lake is one of the lowest features in the park at an elevation of 625m. Only the

outflow river (Chilliwack River) is lower. The trail to Lindeman Lake (838m) represents a 208m

elevation gain in only 1.7km (BC Parks, 2013b) (Figure 4-2). The trail to Greendrop Lake

(1021m) also begins at the trailhead for Lindeman Lake making its elevation gain to be 391m over 5.2km (Figure 4-2). The Flora Lake trail also begins from the same trailhead but first climbs a ridge (1754m) and then descends to Flora Lake (1361m) with a total elevation gain of 1124m over 7km (Figure 4-2). The other maintained trail in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park is the

Radium Lake trail which starts from the frontcountry campground adjacent to Chilliwack Lake.

This trail begins at 625m and climbs to Radium Lake (1506m) for a total elevation gain of 881m over 8km (Figure 4-2). Figure 4-2 shows a visual comparison between the four existing maintained hiking trails within Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. The routes contained within the park largely rely on the maintained trails to access them but then take advantage of the low vegetation cover and moderate elevations gains of the mountain ridgelines to traverse along the ridges.

Figure 4-2 Visual Comparison of Hiking Trail Elevation Gains (Image: Google Earth 2014)

The elevation analysis (Figure 4-4) shows the wide variety in elevation that Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park exhibits. These variations in elevation contribute to the formation of ecosystems,

plant communities and natural features that give the park its unique characteristics. According to

the Park Design Guidelines & Data (BC Parks, 1996), topography or elevation is one of the

main features to be mapped in the landscape inventory. Special attention should be paid to

unique topographical features, the pattern of landforms and the amount of gentle slopes for

recreation (BC Parks, 1996). The variety in elevation difference in Chilliwack Lake Provincial

Park is adequate for backcountry hiking in addition to affording scenic views from many

ridgelines and mountain summits within the park. There are many unique landforms within the

park boundaries such as cliffs, ridges, summits and valleys.

Slope Analysis Slope is an important consideration in backcountry wilderness design at Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park due to its usefulness for physical exercise on hiking trails, but also for its hazard

limitations in areas where the slope is too steep for recreational opportunities. A slope analysis

for Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park is provided in Figure 4-5.

When designing trail systems, slopes may be negotiated using switchbacks and diagonal

crossings, which limit the overall gradient of a trail. As a general requirement, BC Parks suggests

that 20% should be the maximum gradient for a trail with goal of 0-10% (BC Parks, 2005),

which means that trails are able to climb terrain that is much steeper than this if switchbacking

and diagonal routings are used. As a way of classifying terrain slopes for hiking suitability, the

following classes were used for the analysis; 0-20% Easy, 20-35% Moderate, 35-50% Difficult and 50-80% Difficult to Traverse (Table 4-3). These classifications were informed by the Trail

Gradients Table, found in Parks Facility Standards (2005), p356.

Overall average trail slope percentages are as follows for the four maintained trails in Chilliwack

Lake Provincial Park; Lindeman Lake trail 12%, Greendrop Lake Trail 8%, Flora Lake trail (to ridge) 16% and Radium Lake trail 11%. Slopes within these trails vary significantly as the trails range from flat stretches to stair-like steep climbs. The the slope analysis map (Figure 4-5) shows that the Lindeman, Greendrop and Radium trails generally follow slopes in the 0-20% range as they gently climb valley bottoms to their respective lakes. The Flora Lake trail is the exception as it switchbacks up Flora Peak covering mostly 20-35% sloping terrain with some 35-50% sloping areas. The ridgeline routes experience a variety of all slope classes while generally avoiding the 50-80% slopes. The 50-80% slopes, classified as difficult to traverse are generally cliff faces, steep avalanche chutes and mountain peaks. This slope classification is generally avoided in trail design as they are seen as potential hazards to recreationists (BC Parks, 1996).

Slopes for wilderness camp spot areas should be between 2-8% for ideal grading of level tent spots. Direct observations indicated all wilderness camping locations within Chilliwack Lake

Park are within this threshold which is consistent with the 0-20% classification on the slope analysis map.

The slope analysis of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park shows typical mountain topography including many easily-accessible areas and some nearly-impossible areas to access because of their steep slopes. Overall the park landscape provides for many trail routing options within the

0-50% slope range which represents 98% of the park terrain (Table 4-3). There are additional low-sloping valley bottoms without trails through them in the park, specifically the Hanging

Lake valley. Other low slope areas include both prominent ridgelines within the park which are the ridgeline connecting Mt Webb, Mt Macdonald and Mt Lindeman as well as the ridgeline connecting Flora Peak, Paleface Mountain and Mt Meronuik (See Figure 4-5)

Table 4-3: Slope Percentages within Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park Slope Percentage in Park 0-20% Easy 25.97% 20-35% Moderate 53.55% 35-50% Difficult 18.31% 50-80% Difficult to Traverse 2.17%

Aspect Analysis An aspect analysis is provided in Figure 4-6. Aspect is an important consideration for campsite

layout and positioning. East, west, and south-facing sites are best for camping areas because they are generally drier and warmer than north-facing sites (BC Parks, 1996). Regarding hiking trails, aspect is not as important of a factor because the user is constantly moving and changing direction. Terrain aspect has an influence on solar radiation and thus air temperature (Guan,

Zhang, Makhnin, & Sun, 2013) generally meaning south facing slopes will be warmer. This is especially important for the microclimate of valley bottoms that the majority of trails within

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park follow. Visitors to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park are most frequent in the summer months with occasional visitation in the spring and fall seasons. Aspect therefore influences such factors as the melt of winter snowpack in the spring and the microclimate of valley bottom camp areas.

The aspect analysis map (Figure 4-6) shows that the locations of the wilderness campsites at

Lindeman Lake, Greendrop Lake and Flora Lake are in somewhat inappropriate locations based on terrain aspect. The campsite at Lindeman Lake is located on a northeast-facing hillside while the campsites at both Greendrop Lake and Flora Lake are located on north-facing hillsides. The campsite at Radium Lake is located on a southwest facing slope while the campsite at Hanging

Lake is located on a southeast slope. However because of the campsites low slopes, aspect is

generally not a major design influencer. Despite the aspect analysis, all wilderness campsites

have been directly observed to receive little sunlight until in the late morning due to their locations in valley bottoms. Generally the ridgelines offer south facing slopes on at least one side while the ridge may offer somewhat flat topography making these areas good candidates from an

aspect point of view for other wilderness campsites.

Land Cover Analysis A land cover analysis was produced to determine vegetation communities and groupings of

landscape features for Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. It is provided in Figure 4-7. Generally

speaking, the predominant land cover in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park is characterized by an

open coniferous forest which accounts for 66% of the area. Water also accounts for a large

percentage of the park (10%) because of the size of Chilliwack Lake (1182ha). Other significant

land cover types include exposed land, (rockslides, sandy deltas or exposed rock) which accounts

for 7%, herbaceous plant communities, 5% and sparse coniferous forests, also 5%. Forests in

British Columbia are ranked by dense, open or sparse according to the spaces between trees,

dense having the tightest spacing and sparse having the loosest spacing. An open forest

represents a forest that allows some penetration of light and understory plants to grow

(Government of British Columbia, 1997).

The four maintained trails in the park largely pass through open coniferous forest, the exception

being the upper portion of the Flora Lake trail which passes through a unique grassland and

herbaceous vegetation mix. The routes of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park pass through more

varied land covers including large sections of exposed land, herbaceous and grassland plant

communities and permanent snow and ice pockets. All wilderness campsites are located in open

coniferous forests which inherently limits sunlight penetration.

Viewshed Analysis Viewshed analysis (Figure 4-8) was completed to assess the scenic qualities of locations within

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. The analysis was completed by assigning arbitrary “scenic views” which were mostly large mountain summits, lakes and deltas surrounding and within the park. Viewpoints were used outside of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park to a maximum of 15km in addition to various locations within the park. Direct observations (September, 2013) of identifying surrounding mountain peaks determined that viewsheds of 15km can be seen on clear days from locations within the park boundary. A total of 28 scenic views were established, 18 of which were located within the park boundary.

The number of scenic views seen from a given location is shown in Figure 4-8. The viewshed analysis calculated a maximum number of 16 views possible from the most “scenic” locations within the study area which shows that mountains block the views from certain locations making it impossible to view all 28 scenic views at once. The analysis did not take into consideration vegetation which is not a factor in the sub-alpine and alpine areas due to the low growing characteristics of the alpine vegetation.

Three maintained trails within the park have few views because of their locations in valley bottoms with the Flora Lake trail being the most scenic, based on the shading of scenic views

(Figure 4-8) seen from along the trail with the amount of scenic views increasing as elevation increases. Flora Peak, which the Flora Lake trail passes just below, has one of the highest scenic view counts as shown by the bright red (Figure 3-2, 4-8), in the entire study area. The ridgeline to the east of Chilliwack Lake, and the route that follows this ridge, is also a very scenic location with upwards of 10 scenic views from these points. This route has views to the south, across the lake and into the adjacent valleys. The ridgeline to the west of Chilliwack Lake as well as the route that follows it is a good scenic location, but there is more obstruction here probably due to

Mt. Lindeman’s large size and shape. All wilderness campsites within the park are located in

non-scenic areas (0-2 scenic views) usually adjacent to lakes or rivers which happen to be in

valley bottoms. Other scenic areas within the park include the hillside to the northwest of

Lindeman Lake which has little accessibility but has potential for scenic views and the area

surrounding the summit of Mt. Corriveau which is also inaccessible due to the lack of a trail (see

Figure 4-8).

Ecosystem/Biogeoclimatic Analysis In BC there are five types of natural ecosystem disturbances which renew vegetation. Chilliwack

Lake Provincial Park exhibits three of these classifications as shown in Figure 4-9. Generally these biogeoclimatic ecosystem zones are characterised by elevation and vegetation. The terrestrial protected area analysis (Figure 4-9) shows the vegetation make-up of the three biogeoclimatic zones in addition to endangered species and ecosystems within Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park.

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park biogeoclimatic ecosystem is largely defined as an ecosystem with infrequent stand-initiating events which is predominately made up of coastal western hemlock forests. These ecosystems are usually even-aged and experience natural renewal, stand- initiating events approximately every 200 years (Government of British Columbia, 1995). The second biogeoclimatic ecosystem zone is an ecosystem with rare stand-initiating events which is predominantly mountain hemlock. This ecosystem is usually uneven storied vegetation with regeneration in small pockets as individual trees die out with major stand-initiating events occurring every 250-350 years (Government of British Columbia, 1995). The remaining biogeoclimatic zone is the alpine tundra and subalpine parkland ecosystem classification which is made up of coastal mountain heathers and other shrubby alpine trees. This ecosystem is

characterized by the extent of the alpine treeline and rarely experiences stand-initiating events due to their detrimental effects on the vegetation (Government of British Columbia, 1995).

Regeneration in this ecosystem is caused by herbivore-grazing species, which can cause major disturbances due to the typically infertile soils, limited growing seasons and harsh winter periods

(Government of British Columbia, 1995). Trails within Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park generally pass through varied biogeoclimatic ecosystem zones which adds variety to the travel experience.

The endangered species and ecosystem analysis (Figure 4-10) shows a number of locations within Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park that have been identified as habitat for endangered or blue-listed species in BC. These include the Pacific Water shrew, Olympic shrew and

Trowbridge’s shrew as animals, the Cascade Parsley fern and Cliff Paintbrush as plants, and the

Oldgrowth Specklebelly and Cryptic Paw funguses. Other endangered species habitats occur within the park boundary, but their identities are masked in accordance with BC conservation policies.

The trails and wilderness campsites generally avoid these sensitive habitat areas with the exception of the habitat of the Cascade Parsley fern and Cliff Paintbrush plants which the route to Mt. Lindeman passes directly across.

Figure 4-3 Existing Facilities at Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park (BC Parks, 2013 b)

58 Williams Peak Williams Peak Williams Peak Williams Peak Williams Peak Williams Peak

Chapter Five: Questionnaire Results The following section of questionnaire results is organized according to the group the

respondents accessed the questionnaire through, which was ClubTread, Valley Outdoor

Association (VOA) or Chilliwack Outdoor Club (COC) in addition to the combined analysis.

Response Rate With this type of questionnaire and user group, computing a fully accurate response rate is

difficult due to numerous factors. Qualified respondents were those users who had previously

hiked or backcountry camped within the boundaries of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park.

The Valley Outdoor Association is an outdoor club of approximately 200 adult members that

occasionally organizes hikes within Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. It is not known what

percentage of their members have previous experience hiking in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park

and therefore how many of their members were qualified to respond to the questionnaire. The

questionnaire was sent via newsletter and direct email reminder to 240 members of whom 13

members responded and 2 were disqualified leaving 11 useable questionnaires. This resulted in a

response rate of 4.6%. An additional 3 questionnaires were completed by VOA members after

the deadline of Jan 20th, 2014.

The Chilliwack Outdoor Club is a similar hiking club of 180 members situated more locally in

Chilliwack, BC. Similarly it is not known how many members were qualified for this

questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent by direct email only to 180 member emails which

resulted in 31 responses and 2 disqualifications leaving 29 useable questionnaires representing a

response rate of 16.1%. An additional 2 questionnaires were completed by COC members after

the deadline of Jan 20th, 2014.

The questionnaire link and an explanation was posted to the online hiking forum site,

ClubTread.com which received 21 reply posts and 1289 views which resulted in 88 questionnaire

responses of which 9 were disqualified due to incompleteness leaving 79 useable questionnaire responses. A response rate cannot be calculated based on post views alone due to multiple views being counted per forum user each time they check back on a post.

In total there were 119 useable questionnaires of the 132 attempted that were completed by the deadline for the purposes of this study.

Demographics The results of the questionnaire indicated that more males (60%) completed the questionnaire when compared to females (28%). Gender distribution was most equal in the hiking clubs and most skewed in the ClubTread results, see Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 Gender Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents

Gender ClubTread Chilliwack Valley Outdoor Combined % Outdoor Club Association Male 52 15 5 72 60.50% Female 15 14 4 33 27.73% No Data 12 0 2 14 11.76%

The age of respondents (Table 5-2) varied greatly with respondents identifying they belonged to all categories of the offered categories. 35% of respondents identified with the 50-64 age category which is largely characterised as the baby boomer generation. 26% of respondents identified with the 35-49 age category while 19% of respondents identified with the 25-34 age category. The lowest selected categories were the 18-24 range (2%) and the over 64 category

(6%).

Table 5-2 Age Distribution of Questionnaire Respondents

Age ClubTread Chilliwack Valley Outdoor Combined % Outdoor Club Association 18-24 1 1 0 2 1.68% 25-34 21 2 0 23 19.33% 35-49 24 7 0 31 26.05% 50-64 20 16 6 42 35.29% Over 64 1 3 3 7 5.88% No Data 12 0 2 14 11.76%

The distance respondents travel (Table 5-3) to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park showed that the largest group of respondents (35%) travel approximately 40-60 minutes by vehicle to access

Chilliwack Lake. Within a 40-60 minute drive are the urban centers of Abbotsford and Hope.

Close behind this group are users who travel over 60 minutes (Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby,

Surrey) at 30% of respondents. 21% travel 20-40 minutes (Chilliwack) and only 3% of respondents live within a 20 minute drive of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park which is mostly rural and sparsely populated.

Table 5-3 Distance from Chilliwack Lake

Distance ClubTread Chilliwack Valley Outdoor Combined % Outdoor Club Association 0-20 min 2 1 0 3 2.52% drive 20-40 min 11 13 1 25 21.01% drive 40-60 min 23 15 3 41 34.45% drive Over 60 31 0 5 36 30.25% min drive No Data 12 0 2 14 11.76%

The number of trips respondents had taken (see Table 5-4) in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park represented a somewhat even distribution showing approximately 88% of respondents selecting one of the 4 most popular categories. Very few (4%) respondents identified as only hiking in the park once. 21% of respondents indicated that they had visited the park upwards of 30 times showing these users would be very familiar with the park.

Table 5-4 Frequency of Use

# of Trips ClubTread Chilliwack Valley Outdoor Combined % Outdoor Club Association 1 4 0 1 5 4.20% 2-5 18 4 4 26 21.85% 6-10 14 11 1 26 21.85% 10-20 18 5 4 27 22.69% 20-30 6 3 1 10 8.40% Over 30 19 6 0 25 21.01%

The most often cited duration of hiking trip (Table 5-5) taken in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park is 1 day with 65% of respondents indicating this. 27% go on trips lasting 2 days and only 8% attempt trips that last 3-5 days. No respondents indicated that they go on trips lasting more than 5

days within Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park.

Table 5-5 Duration of Hiking Trip

Days ClubTread Chilliwack Valley Outdoor Combined % Outdoor Club Association 1 day 46 22 9 77 64.71% 2 days 26 4 2 32 26.89% 3-5 days 7 3 0 10 8.40% More than 0 0 0 0 0% 5 days

When asked about their inclusion in an outdoor recreation (see Table 5-6) organization, most respondents indicated that they belonged to the organization they had accessed the questionnaire through. In the ClubTread respondent group 20 respondents identified that they did not belong to any of these groups, the highest of any respondent group. Fully 19% of respondents did not identify with any of these groups while ClubTread members accounted for nearly half (48%).

Chilliwack Outdoor Club members accounted for 25% while Valley Outdoor Association members accounted for 8%.

Table 5-6 Membership in an Outdoor Recreation Organization

Club ClubTread Chilliwack Valley Outdoor Combined % Outdoor Club Association VOA 0 0 9 9 7.56% COC 3 26 1 30 25.21% ClubTread 56 1 0 57 47.90% None 20 2 1 23 19.33%

Wilderness Experience Factors Wilderness experience factors were assessed in two questions, one which asked about motivations for pursuing backcountry hiking that directly used the recreation experience preference scale categories and the other which used a matrix to identify importance of factors to the wilderness experience.

Motivations for Backcountry Hiking Motivations for pursuing hiking and backcountry camping were assessed by asking respondents to select all factors that were reasons for going hiking or backcountry camping in Chilliwack

Lake Provincial Park. Respondents indicated that they felt physical activity was the most common reason for going hiking followed closely by experiencing the natural environment.

Results are shown in Table 5-7. There were 20 respondents whose selections included the

“other” category. These ranged from “live nearby”, which was the most common “other”

category at 6 respondents (30%) to many unique reasons including, hunting, fishing,

photography and combating nature deficit disorder. A full breakdown of the “other” category is

found in Appendix C. These results are similar to the ranking of study done by Dawson (2006) which ranked Natural Environment first, Personal and Social Experiences (not used here) second, Physical Activity third and Exploratory and Remoteness fourth. In the study done by

Dawson (2006), Exploratory and Remoteness were combined while in this study they were kept separate.

Table 5-7 Ranking of Reasons for Hiking and Camping in CLPP (# of responses)

Reason ClubTread Chilliwack Valley Outdoor Combined % Outdoor Club Association Indicating Physical Activity 1 (70) 1 (29) 1 (10) 1 (109) 91.60% Experience the 2 (67) 1 (29) 2 (9) 2 (105) 88.24% Natural Environment Adventure 3 (61) 3 (19) 4 (5) 3 (85) 71.43% Exploratory 4 (60) 5 (15) 7 (3) 4 (78) 65.55% Experience 5 (52) 4 (16) 3 (6) 5 (74) 62.18% Remoteness Shared Solitude 6 (32) 6 (13) 5 (4) 6 (49) 41.18% Connectedness / 8 (29) 8 (6) 5 (4) 7 (39) 32.77% Spiritual Use Wilderness 7 (30) 7 (7) 10 (1) 8 (38) 31.93% Travel Skills Self Discovery 9 (27) 11 (4) 8 (2) 9 (33) 27.73% To Live Simply 10 (18) 9 (5) 8 (2) 10 (25) 21.01% Other (please 11 (14) 9 (5) 10 (1) 11 (20) 16.81% indicate)

Important Factors in a Wilderness Experience This question asked respondents to rate on a five point semantic difference scale how important the following factors are to their ideal wilderness experience. The top five most important domain scales overall were Natural Environment, Litter and Waste, Physical Activity,

Exploratory, and Remoteness (see Table 5-8).

Table 5-8 Ranking of Importance for Wilderness Experience Factors

Domain Scale ClubTread Chilliwack Valley Outdoor Combined Dawson* Outdoor Club Association Natural 1 1 1 1 1 Environment Litter and Waste 2 2 2 2 2 Physical Activity 3 7 3 3 4 Exploratory 5 3 4 4 5** Remoteness 4 5 8 5 5** Wilderness 6 8 7 6 9 Travel Skills Facilities 11 4 5 7 Shared Solitude 8 6 9 8 6 Vegetation 7 9 6 9 Number of Users 10 11 10 10 11 Routes 9 12 15 11 Management 12 10 11 12 10 Conditions Cabins/Buildings 13 15 12 13 Information on 14 13 14 14 7 Wilderness Area Designated 15 14 13 15 Campsites *Dawson’s 2nd ranking tied which included “Litter and Waste” and “Personal/Social Experiences” (not included)

** Dawson’s 5th ranking was “Exploration and Remoteness” which was separated here

Importance was ranked based on the overall combined score of the domain being analyzed. The

full analysis and data from this question is presented in Appendix D, E, F and G.

The rankings among the different respondent groups varied only slightly. Some noticeable

difference in rankings is in the Facilities domain where ClubTread respondents ranked it 11th

place, while Chilliwack Outdoor Club and Valley Outdoor Association respondents gave

substantially more importance to it placing it 4th and 5th in their rankings. Another difference in important is the Remoteness scale in which ClubTread respondents ranked it 4th while

respondents from Chilliwack Outdoor Club ranked it 5th and Valley Outdoor Association members ranked it 8th. This could be due to the “club” atmosphere of the hiking clubs as opposed to the individual atmosphere of ClubTread.

Another noticeable difference was the Routes domain in which ClubTread respondents ranked it

9th while Chilliwack Outdoor Club and Valley Outdoor Association respondents ranked it 12th

and 15th. The difference could show a preference for “on trail only” type of hiking within the

hiking clubs while ClubTread members may occasionally try some off trail hiking. The rankings

among the different respondent groups varied only slightly.

Least important domains included Cabins/Buildings, Information on Wilderness Area and

Designated Campsites all of which were previously untested domains.

The domains tested loosely mirrored Dawson's (2006) rankings of the REP scales. Similar

rankings were seen among the top 5 scales, Natural Environment, Litter and Waste, Physical

Activity, Exploratory, and Remoteness. One noticeable difference was that Dawson included

Personal and Social Experiences as a domain which was not tested because it did not relate

directly to wilderness design.

Of the domains tested some did not have acceptable levels of internal reliability within the scale

suggesting that the two statements posed were not always as related as previously thought. This

could also be because some of the scales being administered here had not been previously tested

in a similar situation. Internal reliability scores (Cronbach’s Alpha) for each domain in the

combined results can be seen in the full data (Appendix G). Because of the inconsistencies in

some domain scales, the importance score (total score divided by responses) for each question was also ranked by individual statement, not by domain category. These data are available at the end of each data set in Appendix D, E, F and G depending on the respondent group.

Wilderness Design Factors Questionnaire respondents placed preference (66%) on the protected area of Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park as opposed to similar non-protected areas, though not overwhelmingly (See

Table 5-9). The respondents from the Valley Outdoor Association showed the most disagreement

with almost equal support for either answer. Chilliwack Outdoor Club members however solidly

supported (83%) Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park as opposed to other natural areas for hiking or

backcountry camping. ClubTread respondents were somewhat split at approximately 60% in

favor of the protected area of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park to 40% opposed to the protected

area offering better hiking and backcountry camping opportunities.

Table 5-9 Preference of a Protected Area for Hiking

Response ClubTread Chilliwack Valley Outdoor Combined % Outdoor Club Association Yes 48 24 6 78 65.55% No 31 5 5 41 34.45%

Definition of Wilderness The open-ended question relating to the respondent’s definition of a wilderness area received

varied responses which were coded and grouped. Table 5-10 shows a selection of the most popular responses from the 105 total responses. A full listing of all responses can be found in

Appendix C. Some definitions included multiple categories and were recorded multiple times in their respective categories which resulted in 165 total wilderness definition points. The most- popular definitions included the lack of human occupation or development (29% of respondents indicating), seeing the original state of natural features (24%) and seeing no signs of humans

(16%). Some definitions were very strict stating no human signs (16%), few people encountered

(10%) and lack of camping/ trail facilities (6%), while other definitions were more relaxed to human involvement stating areas without car access (12%), restricted motorised vehicles (11%) and areas with trails and backcountry camping (8%). The purpose of this question was to set up the following question which asked respondents to decide if Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park met their definition of a wilderness area.

Table 5-10 Definition of a Wilderness Area Category Value % No human occupation/dwellings/development 30 28.57% See original state of natural features 25 23.81% No human signs 17 16.19% Areas without car access 13 12.38% Restricted off road motorised vehicles (ATVs dirt bike) 12 11.43% A protected area with limited development 10 9.52% Limited people encountered 10 9.52% A peaceful natural area 9 8.57% An area with trails and backcountry camping 8 7.62% Area without facilities (trails/campsites) 6 5.71% Remoteness 6 5.71% Did not answer 5 4.76% Intact wildlife habitat 4 3.81%

Respondents noticeably declared Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park as a wilderness area by their own definition with 71% stating that it met their definition of a wilderness area (see Table 5-11).

Responses varied only slightly among the respondent groups with 76% of Chilliwack Outdoor

Club respondents stating the park met their definition of a wilderness area while 24% said it did not. The other respondent groups were closer to the combined distribution. This shows that while

BC Parks may not classify the majority of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park as a wilderness area, most of the parks users surveyed thought otherwise. Some of the disagreement in this question may have come from some respondents stricter definitions of what a wilderness area constitutes such as no human signs (16%), few people encountered (10%) and lack of camping/trail facilities

(6%).

Table 5-11 Is Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park a Wilderness Area

Response ClubTread Chilliwack Valley Outdoor Combined % Outdoor Club Association Yes 55 22 7 84 70.58% No 12 7 2 21 17.65% No Data 12 0 2 14 11.76%

Improvements to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park The open-ended question relating improvements that would benefit the user experience received varied responses which were coded and grouped. Table 5-12 shows a selection of the most popular responses from the 105 total responses. A full listing of all responses can be found in

Appendix C. Some suggested improvements included multiple categories and were recorded multiple times in their respective categories which resulted in 145 total improvement suggestions. The most popular improvements suggested were trail improvement/new trails (17%

of respondents indicating), secure parking (14%), increased maintenance to existing trails (14%) and improved signage (10%). Approximately 9% of respondents indicated there was nothing that needed improving in the park.

Table 5-12 Improvements to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park

Category Value % Trail improvements (new trails) 18 17.14% Secure Parking 15 14.29% Regular maintenance to trails 15 14.29% Improved Signage 11 10.48% Add pit toilets 9 8.57% Increased enforcement of rules 9 8.57% Nothing 9 8.57% Bridge maintenance/replacement 8 7.62% Road upgrading 8 7.62% Expansion of park size 6 5.71%

Improvements were further classified into more general categories as shown in Table 5-13. 71% of respondents indicated that adding facilities would benefit the user experience which 49% indicated that some sort of improvement in management conditions would benefit the user experience. Interestingly 18% of respondents included improvements that were located outside of park boundary such as road upgrading, expansion in park size, limiting nearby logging and limiting nearby development.

Table 5-13 Classification of Improvements Category Value % Adding Facilities 75 71.43% Management Conditions 51 48.57% External Improvement Factors 19 18.10% Nothing 9 8.57%

Additional Comment Responses The last open ended question (which was optional) asked for respondents to add anything they wanted to express relating to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park or the park’s user experience. As this question was optional only 57 responses were recorded of the 105 respondents. Responses were coded and organized which led to 62 additional comments, accounting for multiple issues expressed. Table 5-14 shows some of the most popular responses while a full listing of all responses is found in Appendix C. The highest response category related to the previous two questions about the respondents definition of wilderness and whether or not Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park met this definition. 11% of respondents in this question identified that a portion of the park is wilderness, while some parts are not wilderness, such as the front country areas.

7% of responses included additional mention that improvements to the security of parking needs improvement, similar to the question asking about improvements to the park. 7% of responses also indicated that they notice an increase in usage of the backcountry.

Table 5-14 Additional Comments Category Value % The park is not supposed to be all wilderness, some parts are 6 10.53% Catch the car thieves/more secure parking 4 7.02% There is increased use of the backcountry (crowding) 4 7.02% It’s a nice area 3 5.26% Road beside lake needs to be improved 3 5.26% Need increase in backcountry camp facilities to accommodate demand 3 5.26% Park and campground gate should be open in winter 3 5.26% More signage and education about camping practises needed 3 5.26% No valid response 3 5.26% Needs more enforcement and ranger presence 2 3.51% Do something about rowdies at Lindeman Lake camp spots 2 3.51% There is a good mix of trails already 2 3.51% Limit motorised vehicles better 2 3.51%

Chapter Six: Discussion

This chapter explores the results of the user questionnaire, key informant interviews and the case study as they pertain to the wilderness experience and wilderness design.

Demographics The demographics of the questionnaire respondents indicate that the majority of respondents were middle age males who live over 40 minutes drive away from Chilliwack Lake Provincial

Park. Respondents were most likely to have been to the park over 6 times but usually only stayed for the day and occasionally one overnight. Most respondents were associated with a hiking organization. The age distribution shows the popularity of hiking as age increases; however this may be a function of the types of respondent groups surveyed suggesting that younger users do not associate with these types of organized hiking groups or online hiking forums.

Wilderness Experience Factors Wilderness experience factors are separated into motivations and important factors in the wilderness experience.

Motivations for Backcountry Hiking The results from the question asking the reasons for engaging in hiking or backcountry camping in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park indicated that Physical Activity, Experience of the Natural

Environment, Adventure, Exploratory and to Experience Remoteness were the top five reasons for going hiking. These answers are the direct domains found in the Recreation Experience

Preference (REP) Scales which have been tested in numerous related applications. These findings relate closely to the rankings found in Dawson’s (2006) research. Dawson found that

Natural Environment, Personal/Social Experiences, Physical Activity, Exploration and

Remoteness were the top five “experience domains” in his study

Comparing the motivations to engage in hiking at Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park to the results

that Raadik (2010) found in Fulufjället National Park, Sweden there are few similarities. Raadik

(2010) found that Self Discovery, Exploratory, Seeking Solitude and Challenging Self were the

top reasons for visiting Fulufjället National Park. Of these top four reasons, only Exploratory

(ranked fourth overall) was in this study’s top four reasons. The Challenging Self domain Raadik

(2010) used contained questions relating to Physical Activity and Adventure which were rated 1st and 3rd in this study though it is unclear if that was the intent of testing the Challenging Self domain.

Comparing the top four reasons of this study for going hiking (Physical Activity, Experience of the Natural Environment, Adventure, and Exploratory) to Harrison’s (2012) reasons for engaging in backcountry skiing at the Hankin-Evelyn Backcountry Ski Area, also in British Columbia, which were Physical Fitness, Scenery, Being with Friends, and Tranquility some similarities are noticed in the top two motivators. This suggests that while the activities and user groups vary there are similarities in motivations for pursuing a recreational activity in a natural area.

The two BC Parks key informants were asked the same question in which they answered with similar motivations that were presented in the questionnaire though they were not given these suggestions. Joanna Hirner answered Physical Activity, Natural Environment, Scenery, View

Ecological Values and Shared Solitude (Hirner, 2014). Robert Wilson answered Natural

Environment, Physical Activity, Wildlife Viewing, Fishing, Hunting, and Shared Solitude (Wilson,

2013). This shows that BC Parks management is aware of the motivations of users of Chilliwack

Lake Provincial Park.

Of the lowest motivations for recreating in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park were the domains of

Live Simply, Self Discovery, Use Wilderness Travel Skills, and Connectedness/Spiritual. The low

rankings of these domains suggest that users of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park are less likely to be

looking for introspective experiences while recreating in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park.

Introspective experiences relate to the Connectedness/Spiritual and Self Discovery domains (Driver,

1983). The domain of Live Simply, the lowest ranked domain, is found in the REP category “Escape

Personal-Social Pressures” (Driver, 1983) suggesting that users are not using recreation in Chilliwack

Lake Provincial Park as a means of escape from role overloads in their private lives. The domain of

Use Wilderness Travel Skills may have had some confusion around what the term “wilderness travel

skills” means because this domain falls in the category of “Achievement/Stimulation” which includes

other highly ranked similar domains such as Adventure and Exploratory (Driver, 1983).

Important Factors in a Wilderness Experience In the matrix question asking the importance of wilderness experience factors to the ideal

wilderness experience the top five domains were Natural Environment, Litter and Waste,

Physical Activity, Exploratory and Remoteness. The findings of this question closely resemble the results of the motivations question in that four of the top five domains are in seen in both top five lists. These findings are also similar to the findings of Dawson (2006) who found that

Natural Environment, Litter and Waste, Personal/Social Experiences, Physical Activity, and

Exploration/ Remoteness were the top five domains when combining experience and

management domains and asking about the importance to a wilderness experience of the factors

surveyed. When ranking the individual questions aside from the domain categories, the

importance of Amount of litter along trails and at campsites is the highest ranked overall factor

suggesting that the reduction of litter along trails and at campsites is the most important factor in

the ideal wilderness experience. Other highly-ranked negative factors include the second

question from the Litter and Waste domain, Signs of human waste as well as Seeing no signs of

human impact on vegetation which falls under the Vegetation domain. The most positive ideal

wilderness experience factors were View the scenic quality of Nature (Natural Environment),

Experience the natural environment (Natural Environment), Physical exercise and health

(Physical Activity) and To have a sense of remoteness from development (Remoteness). When the top five important factors in the ideal wilderness experience are critically examined it can be suggested that the ideal wilderness experience is multifaceted and primarily constructed of recreating physically in a perceived remote natural environment with the amount of litter visible having significant negative effects on this experience.

Of the least important factors to the ideal wilderness experience the bottom five factors were To have a reserved campsite, The opportunity to camp on a tent pad, Lack of cabins or huts, The number of visible places where others have camped and Availability of pit toilets. These represent the domains of Cabins/Building, Management Conditions, Designated Campsites and

Information on Wilderness Area. Of these low importance factors four of the bottom five relate

to camping in the park which is not surprising given that 65% of the respondents indicated they

were most often day hikers, not spending the night. The lowest ranked five factors may also

show that users think the formalization of camping facilities is not important to their wilderness

experience. The individual importance of Availability of Pit Toilets which ranked 26th overall

represents somewhat of a design solution to the higher ranked individual importance of Signs of

Human Waste, which was ranked 7th overall.

The most important wilderness experience preferences can be additionally interpreted as positive

wilderness design elements. These would therefore include designing for scenic views (Natural

Environment), maintaining natural surroundings (Natural Environment), litter and waste reduction (Litter and Waste), designing physically challenging facilities (Physical Activity) and the preservation of a remote feel (Remoteness).

Wilderness Design Factors Results from the user questionnaire and key informant interviews suggest that certain wilderness

design factors influence the user experience. These are discussed here in sections relating to the

wilderness definition and improvements to aid the wilderness experience. The final section of the

discussion chapter deals with a critical look at the current wilderness design of Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park which uses the determined positive wilderness design factors and compares them to the case study park.

Wilderness Design and the Wilderness Definition Firstly, respondents indicated that they prefer a protected area (66%) such as Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park over similar non-protected areas (34%) suggesting that they are in favour of

certain wilderness design factors that often accompany parks such as this. Similar non-protected

areas would likely have few facilities such as well-defined trails, campsites, parking areas or

park maps. Exactly what wilderness design features users see as appropriate or adding to the

wilderness experience relates closely to how users define a wilderness area.

The domain of Natural Environment ranked the highest across each respondent group in

importance to the ideal wilderness experience suggesting that users place the most importance on

their physical surroundings in their ideal wilderness experience. In this study the physical

surroundings being examined are often referred to as wilderness or the wilderness area. When

asked for their definition of a wilderness area respondents indicated a variety of responses.

Wilderness definitions ranged from higher levels of human activity to purist ideals of an

uncontaminated wilderness. The most common theme was a lack of human development and

seeing the original state of natural features (52%) with a stricter definition of “No human signs”

with 16% of responses. Because respondents indicated that Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park did

meet their definition of a wilderness area (71%), these wilderness definitions can be viewed as positive wilderness design elements.

Respondents substantially indicated that Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park meets their definition of a wilderness area which is contrary to the BC Parks zoning of the park. BC Parks classifies

87% of the park as a Natural Environment Zone, which the Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park

Management Plan says “precludes any sense of wilderness isolation” (BC Parks, 2000 p8). All three key informants suggested that Chilliwack Lake Park offers a wilderness experience referencing experiencing solitude (Wilson, 2013), experiencing the wilderness (Hirner, 2014) and the lack of commercial development nearby (Anonymous, 2013). These results suggest that the zoning of “Natural Environment” may not be the most appropriate for the majority of the park. BC Parks “Wilderness Recreation Zone” currently only 4% of the park, might be a more appropriate zoning classification because it “preserves the undisturbed natural landscape” (BC

Parks, 2000 p10) and allows backpacking support facilities.

This research suggests that wilderness design features that enhance the user experience might include legislated protection of an area, the visual limiting of surrounding development and development within the protected area, maintaining the original state of natural features and limiting or reducing human signs within the protected area.

Improvements to Benefit the Wilderness Experience When asked what improvements would benefit the user experience in Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park, respondents answered with a variety of suggestions mostly centered on the addition of new facilities (71% of respondents indicating) and certain management conditions

(49%). Surprisingly 18% of the suggestions included factors that were considered external to the park such as park boundary expansion and limits to nearby development and resource extraction.

Of the suggested new facilities to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park, improvement of existing

trails and the addition of new trails was most often (17%) expressed. Increased maintenance to

existing trails (14%) was a close secondary suggestion, tied with the addition of secure parking.

These results suggest that users of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park’s backcountry area think that

new trail improvements and maintenance would benefit their experience in the park. This is

consistent with all key informants interviewed. When the two BC Parks informants were asked

how the backcountry user experience could be improved their first answers related to the

improvement, maintenance and addition of new trail features to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park.

Joanna Hirner (2014) suggested “improvements to facilities to support backcountry use (trails

and backcountry camping areas)” while Robert Wilson (2013) suggested improved trail treads, improved trail facilities (boardwalks and bridges) and increased connectivity of trails to other drainages as improvements. Additionally, the volunteer trail builder interviewed referenced additional trail improvements, a new alpine multi-day trail and new formalized trailheads at the

south end of the lake (Anonymous, 2013). It was not clear if the new trail improvements

suggested by questionnaire respondents referred to day use trails or multi-day hiking trails.

Secure parking was the next most often suggested improvement (14%). In November of 2013

BC Parks constructed a new overnight parking area at the trailhead of the Lindeman, Greendrop and Flora Lake trailheads. Most respondents would likely have not seen or been aware of this new improvement before completing the questionnaire. However, it is not clear if this will satisfy users due to the frequent mention of vehicle vandalism and theft which may not be alleviated with the installation of this formal parking lot.

Other relatively highly suggested improvements were improved signage (10%), additional pit toilets (9%) and increased enforcement (9%). BC Parks Area Supervisor Robert Wilson also

suggested improved backcountry signage while both Joanna Hirner and Robert Wilson suggested

increased patrols and enforcement would improve the user experience (Hirner, 2014; Wilson,

2013). The suggestion of additional pit toilets relates directly to the high importance of the litter

and waste domain. However the individual importance score of Availability of pit toilets was

relatively low suggesting that users may not think of pit toilets as being important to their

wilderness experience but see them as a necessary component to eliminate visible signs of

human waste in the park.

9% of respondent’s answers indicated that there were no improvements that would benefit their

experience in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. This suggests that these respondents feel they are

satisfied with the mix of facilities and management at Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park.

Some positive wilderness design features determined from the suggested improvements to

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park include new trail facilities, well maintained trails, secure

parking options and improved backcountry signage.

Critical Discussion of Current Wilderness Design in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park The preservation of the natural environment is a major positive design consideration for

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park which also ranked highly important to the wilderness

experience. Currently only 1% of the park is managed as frontcountry, which despite this zoning

still exhibits mostly native vegetation. The natural environment is however compromised outside

of the park boundary with impacts to adjacent drainages contained within the natural viewshed of

Chilliwack Lake primarily caused by logging (Hirner, 2014) (see Figure 6-1). By including adjacent lands in the protected area of the park, visual impacts to users could be mitigated

(Hirner, 2014). For this to happen, BC Parks would need to work co-operatively with the

Ministry of Forests to identify the most important visual areas to protect.

Designing for remoteness and scenic views was another positive wilderness design aspect that

was found to improve the user experience. Current formal trails within Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park are not located in highly scenic areas (see Figure 4-8) with the exception of the

Flora Lake trail. Trails could be designed to take advantage of the more scenic areas within

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park, specifically the high alpine “routes” (Figure 4-8). Remoteness

is somewhat hard to achieve given the relative proximity to Vancouver. A remote “feel” may be

achieved through management of the viewshed in addition to management of the vehicle

approach to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. Direct observations confirmed the increase of

logging activity along the main access road has negatively impacted views of the forest and surrounding vegetation when approaching Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park.

The reduction of human signs including litter, waste and impacts on vegetation was also highly ranked in importance to the wilderness experience. Currently litter and human waste is commonly found at popular campsites and near popular sections of trails within Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park. These are issues BC Parks is aware of as both Joanna Hirner and Robert Wilson identified these as issues BC Parks is dealing with. The addition of pit toilets and trash receptacles may reduce litter and waste especially around campsite areas. Designing such facilities would need to be done in such a way that these unsightly structures would blend into their natural surroundings. Managing human impacts to vegetation (trampling, fire pits and cut logs) is more difficult especially in sensitive alpine areas. It is possible that restoration of native plantings around campsites could mitigate the negative visual effects of previous human impacts in addition to spacing campsites apart from each other.

The high ranking of the Physical Activity domain in addition to the frequent suggestion of additional and upgraded trail facilities leads to the suggestion of designing a comprehensive mix of trails and campsites for all physical abilities that can be properly maintained. In Chilliwack

Lake Provincial Park, there has been little done to build new trail facilities since the last management plan was developed in 2000. Current trail facilities seem to offer various degrees of physical challenge given the variety of slopes they cross (see Figure 4-5). The variety in length of trails is however limited with the longest trail being only 8km which is suitable for a day hike.

There is opportunity to expand the trail facilities within Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park, especially in the south portion of the park, to meet growing demand as well as offer more challenging multi-day wilderness trips (Anonymous, 2013). Users identified that better

maintenance is needed on existing trails. Volunteers could be further engaged and organized to

provide trail maintenance to the existing trails. BC Parks Area Supervisor Robert Wilson says

this is already happening, but questionnaire respondents indicated they would like to volunteer

but did not know how to get involved. The volunteer trail builder interviewed could also be

supported in his trail building activities with guidance, additional volunteers and small scale

financial support.

To summarize, Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park appears to be well designed and managed when

analyzing it from the BC Parks Park Design Guidelines & Data and Park Facility Standards documents. When considering the protection of the natural environment within the park

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park is well designed, but could benefit the user experience by improvements in showcasing its scenery and views, the reduction of human signs through litter, waste and vegetation impacts and expansion of backcountry trail facilities.

Chapter Seven: Conclusion

The conclusion chapter summarizes the research and discusses wilderness design considerations both generally and relating to the case study park. Limitations of the research, further research opportunities, and advice to landscape architects are discussed concluding with some closing remarks.

Summary of Research The purpose of this research was to explore backcountry wilderness design through the user experience by using the case study park of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. The research questions investigated were, What is the user experience in wilderness? What is the ideal wilderness experience? And what wilderness design factors influence this? These questions were examined by determining what indicators determine the user experience in wilderness parks. A literature review was completed of relevant wilderness topics including the preservation of wilderness, backcountry hiking, the backcountry user experience, and its management as well as current design and management of wilderness areas. This information was used to inform the background of this research. A case study analysis of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park was then completed to understand the context of the results. The user experience questionnaire was administered to three respondent groups who were users of the case study park.

Results showed that indicators that affect the user experience were the amount of litter and waste, the natural environment, physical activity, exploration, and remoteness. Motivations for engaging in hiking and backcountry camping included physical activity, experience of the natural environment, adventure, exploratory, and to experience remoteness.

Findings indicated that trail facilities fail to meet the expectations of users with respect to the appearance of human signs for preservation of the wilderness experience. Designing for the

maximization of scenic views and the protection of the natural environment might further positively impact the user experience in wilderness areas.

To answer the research questions, the user experience in wilderness is composed of varying factors both psychological and physiological including fear and challenge. The ideal wilderness is The ideal wilderness experience in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park is composed of recreating physically in a perceived remote natural environment with the amount of litter visible having significant negative effects on this experience. Lastly the wilderness design factors that influence the user experience the most are the natural environment, litter and waste, the degree of physical activity, exploration and remoteness.

Findings in this research can specifically aid in the future design and management of Chilliwack

Lake Provincial Park in addition to contributing to the body of knowledge surrounding wilderness design.

Backcountry Wilderness Design Considerations This research shows the desired wilderness experiences of users of Chilliwack Lake Provincial

Park and what design features users thought would improve this experience. Therefore wilderness design considerations are presented specifically relating to Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park as well as general wilderness design considerations.

Wilderness Design Considerations for Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park The following design considerations relate directly to the design and management of Chilliwack

Lake Provincial Park.

This research suggests that a park boundary expansion might help preserve additional areas of the natural environment, specifically areas that still retain a natural appearance. This could preserve future options for expansion of backcountry facilities in addition to benefitting the user

experience through the increase of remoteness, protected area and preservation of natural

environment which were all highly ranked factors.

Designers and managers could provide toilet and concealed trash receptacles to popular hiking and camping spots where users’ numbers are likely to be concentrated as a way to mitigate litter and waste in these areas. These facilities would need to be designed in such a way that they would blend in with the natural surroundings but be accessible for maintenance and seasonal removal of contents.

Designers of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park could create new trails and hiking opportunities within the park to add a greater variety and number to the current mix of trails. Trails can be designed to maximize scenic views and provide a variety of physical challenges. Multi-day trails with various entry and exit spurs could be a useful addition to current mix of trail facilities.

Further engagement with volunteer groups for trail building and trail maintenance would increase the resources available to BC Parks in these areas. BC Parks could provide support in maintenance guidelines, organization, and trail building design as well as small scale financial support. This might increase user stewardship of the park and the quality of existing trails.

Increasing patrols, visibility and security of parking areas in order to reduce theft and vandalism to users’ vehicles would help alleviate stress and worry while users are in the park. This type of fear negatively impacts users experience while engaging in recreational hiking and backcountry camping at Chilliwack Lake.

Lastly, managers might consider re-zoning the majority of the park a “Wilderness Recreation

Zone” as opposed to the current “Natural Environment Zone”. Users feel that Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park is a wilderness area and should therefore be managed in such as way as to provide for wilderness experiences including remoteness, scenery and a lack of human signs.

General Wilderness Design Considerations Despite the research being undertaken within the context of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park,

general wilderness design considerations are presented as an interpretation and application of the

specific results found in this research. These design considerations may only be applicable and

useful in parks similar to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park in size, popularity, relative location to

urban areas, environment, and management jurisdiction and would likely include additional

design considerations not presented here. By using the case study outline table (Table 4-1),

comparisons could be made to established suitable similar parks where these design

considerations might be applicable.

Wilderness parks could be designed to maximize scenic views to benefit the user experience.

Scenic views of a protected natural environment represent the single most important factor in the

wilderness experience. Facilities could be sited in locations that maximize scenic views, while

the protected area could include the entire visible viewshed as to protect against future resource

extraction impacts that damage the wilderness experience.

Designers of wilderness parks could design to protect the remote “feel” in the placing of

backcountry facilities and the managing of viewshed within and surrounding the protected area.

Separation of facilities such as tent pads, trails and access roads can greatly impact the feeling of

remoteness at a site even if the site is not geographically remote. Viewsheds specifically on the

approach to a protected area and viewed from within the protected area could be managed to

achieve a remote feel which is a lack of development and resource extraction activities.

Designers could ensure an adequate mix of trail and backcountry camping facilities for users with varied skills and abilities. Demand could be matched with the types of facilities provided to ensure facilities are not overcrowded. Large trail systems using the satellite loop configuration

present good opportunities to vary the degree of difficulty and length while providing access to remote areas.

Designers should be aware of how to effectively manage backcountry litter and waste. This has the highest ability to negatively impact the users’ wilderness experience. Efforts could be focused on backcountry areas that are popular for hiking rest stops and camping areas due to higher concentrations of users in these locations. Pit toilets could be utilized and volunteers could be engaged to assist in park maintenance specifically litter removal.

Wilderness park designers might want to consider designing secure formalized parking and access areas to wilderness sites. Providing secure and safe parking mitigates one of the negative fears associated with backcountry experiences. Formalized parking offers defined points of access which can be used to limit users, manage their activities, and direct their use of these areas.

Limitations of the Research Results of this research were based on a single case study park which implies that the results and design considerations expressed here are inherently site-specific to Chilliwack Lake Provincial

Park. Because this research only used a single unique case study, the results have not been directly compared to similar case studies. Findings are meant to inform the design of wilderness areas and should not be taken as guidelines until similar further research is completed on wilderness design.

Further limitations include the relatively small sample size of respondents and the unknown population size of site users. Given the limited time frame and the online means of data collection, the results may not be a representative sample of all site users. A longer period of data collection, coupled with onsite administration of the questionnaire in the summer hiking months

would likely have increased the sample size. A possible bias exists in that the respondents sampled were the users that had primarily joined hiking groups and online forums, with users who were not inclined to join these groups being underrepresented (19% of respondents indicated no affiliation with a hiking group). Onsite administration of the questionnaire would have reduced this bias, but due to the timing of this research, it was not feasible in the winter months when data collection took place.

The use and adaption of the REP scales represents another limitation of this research because the

REP scales were intended to measure psychological experiences (Driver, 1983) and not design elements. Comments in the open ended questions alluded to confusion in the wording of some domain statements which may have affected the responses and consequently the rankings of the domains. The interpretation of highly ranked domains and individual questions into design considerations is somewhat subjective. However without testing these design considerations there are limited ways in which to measure their effectiveness. Testing design considerations does not necessarily need to be done in-situ; this could be done with a similar user questionnaire as is outlined in this methodology.

The low reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) scores of some of the domains tested points to inconsistencies in the ability of the individual questions to test the same domain scale. This affects the rankings of the domains which is why questions were separated and ranked individually in addition to by domain.

Further Research Further research areas were identified throughout the duration due to the exploratory nature of this research and are presented here.

More research is needed into defining a carrying capacity for Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. A

determination of carrying capacity should be a priority as the population of the lower mainland

of BC expands and pressures increase on protected areas. Determining the carrying capacity

would involve reviewing current definitions and likely an element of primary research involving

users due to the lack of a definition from BC Parks. Carrying capacity could inform decisions

regarding park expansion by area and in facilities.

Future research could be undertaken in a similar framework using similar case study parks in

order to complete a comparative case study analysis. Other parks suggested by BC Parks

included Skagit Valley Provincial Park and Garibaldi Provincial Park which are similarly

accessible from Vancouver. This type of research would be instrumental in the future

development of the management plans that guide the future design and management of BC’s

provincial parks.

This research only considered the human use portion of the parks movement dual mandate. The

ecological preservation portion is largely unaddressed by this research because of its focus on the

user experience. Further research could be done into the management for ecological integrity in

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park in a similar way that Parks Canada manages their protected

areas.

A similar research project could be undertaken using the same case study park using methods

such as direct hiker interviewing, in park questionnaire gathering or focus groups as ways of corroborating these results. Focusing a similar research project on select user groups such as multi-day hikers, or overnight hikers would be another area of future research to explore.

Advice to Landscape Architects Currently, landscape architects have little to no role in the design and management of Chilliwack

Lake Provincial Park (Hirner, 2014) as well as other provincial and national parks. However, landscape architects have played a key role in the initial development of the national parks movement and early design of protected areas. Landscape architect’s training, as generalists that understand human use of the environment as well as use and development of landscapes, uniquely position them to engage in the design and management of protected areas.

Landscape architects could push the boundaries of their profession by seeking this type of work and looking for ways to become involved in the design and management of wilderness areas.

While not ignoring the recent trends in design and management for ecological integrity, landscape architects can highlight the “recreation and use” side of the dual mandate for protected areas by optimizing both interests in future designs.

It is hoped that this research re-inspires the profession of landscape architecture to become involved in the design and improvement of protected areas for the enjoyment of future generations of park users.

Closing Remarks This research adds to the body of knowledge of wilderness design and management specifically relating to the user experience in protected areas. It is the researcher’s hope that these design considerations and the important factors to the user experience exhibited in this research will be considered by park managers as they make future decisions regarding Chilliwack Lake

Provincial Park and other similar wilderness areas.

References Anonymous. (2013, December 27). Key Informant Interview Questions : Volunteer Trail Builder.

Aplet, G. H., & Cole, D. N. (2010). The Trouble with Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness Goals. In Beyond naturalness : rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. Washington, DC: Island Press.

BC Parks. (1996). Park Design Guidelines & Data: A Natural Landscape Architecture for British Columbia’s Provincial Parks. Province of British Columbia Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks.

BC Parks. (2000). Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park & Chilliwack River Ecological Reserve management plan. British Columbia Ministry of Environment.

BC Parks. (2005, September 15). Park Facility Standards. Province of British Columbia Ministry of Lands and Parks.

BC Parks. (2012). BC Parks 2011/12 Annual Report. British Columbia Ministry of Environment.

BC Parks. (2013a). BC Parks 2012/13 Statistics Report. British Columbia Ministry of Environment.

BC Parks. (2013b). Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park - BC Parks. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/chilliwack_lk/

BC Parks. (2013c, October 31). TRAFX Trail Counter Data. British Columbia Ministry of Environment.

Carr, E. (1998). Wilderness by Design : Landscape Architecture and the National Park Service. Lincoln, NE ; London: University of Nebraska Press.

Carr, E. (2007). Mission 66 : Modernism and the National Park dilemma. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Chhetri, P., Arrowsmith, C., & Jackson, M. (2004). Determining hiking experiences in nature- based tourist destinations. Tourism Management, 25(1), : 31–43.

Clawson, M. (1966). Economics of Outdoor Recreation, By Marion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch. Baltimore, Published for Resources for the Future by Johns Hopkins Press.

Coble, T. G., Selin, S. W., & Erickson, B. B. (2003). Hiking alone: Understanding fear, negotiation strategies and leisure experience. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(1), 1– 22.

Cole, D. N., & Hall, T. E. (2008, July). Wilderness Visitors, Experiences, and Management Preferences: How They Vary With Use Level and Length of Stay. United States Department of Agriculture / Forest Service.

Cole, D. N., & Hall, T. E. (2009). Perceived Effects of Setting Attributes on Visitor Experiences in Wilderness: Variation with Situational Context and Visitor Characteristics. Environmental Management, 44(1), 24–36. doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9286-8

Cole, D. N., & Hall, T. E. (2010). Experiencing the Restorative Components of Wilderness Environments: Does Congestion Interfere and Does Length of Exposure Matter? Environment and Behavior, 42(6), 806–823. doi:10.1177/0013916509347248

Cole, D. N., & Yung, L. (2010). Beyond naturalness : rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Cronon, W. (1996a). The Trouble with Wilderness: A Response. Environmental History, 1(1), 47–55. doi:10.2307/3985063

Cronon, W. (1996b). Uncommon Ground : Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: WWNorton.

Dawson, C. P. (2006). Wilderness as a place: human dimensions of the wilderness experience. In Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (p. 57). Retrieved from http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs-P-14.pdf#page=66

Deming, M. E., & Swaffield, S. R. (2011). Landscape architecture research inquiry, strategy, design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Discover Canadian Outdoors. (n.d.). Hiking in Canada. Discover Canadian Outdoors. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://outdoors.ca/en-CA/Articles/HikingInCanada.aspx

Driver, B. L. (1983). RECREATION EXPERIENCE PREFERENCE DOMAINS, SCALES AND CORE STATEMENTS. Unpublished Document USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Eagles, P. F. J. (2002). Environmental Management. In Parks and protected areas in Canada : planning and management (2nd ed.). Don Mills, Ont: Oxford University Press.

Eagles, P. F. J. (2013). Research priorities in park tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 0(0), 1–22. doi:10.1080/09669582.2013.785554

Francis, M. (1999). Case Study Method for Landscape Architecture. Landscape Architecture Foundation.

Fraser Valley Regional District. (n.d.). District Statistics. Fraser Valley Regional District. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.fvrd.bc.ca/AboutUs/Pages/DistrictStatistics.aspx

Government of British Columbia. (1995). Biodiversity Guidebook - Chapter 2a. Forest Practices Code Guidebook. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/biodiv/chap2a.htm#ntv

Government of British Columbia. (1997, June). Species and Plant Community Accounts for Identified Wildlife. Forest Practices Code Guidebook. Retrieved March 26, 2014, from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/other/species/species-59.htm

100

Graham, R., Nilsen, P., & Payne, R. J. (1988). Visitor management in Canadian national parks. Tourism Management, 9(1), 44–61.

Guan, H., Zhang, X., Makhnin, O., & Sun, Z. (2013). Mapping Mean Monthly Temperatures over a Coastal Hilly Area Incorporating Terrain Aspect Effects. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 14(1), 233–250. doi:10.1175/JHM-D-12-014.1

Hammitt, W. E., & Cole, D. N. (1998). Wildland Recreation : Ecology and Management (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Harrison, M. (2012, April 30). Powder to the People: Exploring the User Experience and Ski Area Design Elements of the Hankin-Evelyn Backcountry Ski Area (Master of Landscape Architecture Thesis). Retrieved from http://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca:8080/xmlui/handle/10214/3539

Heintzman, P. (2003). The Wilderness Experience and Spirituality What Recent Research Tells Us. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 74(6), 27–32.

Heintzman, P. (2009). Nature-Based Recreation and Spirituality: A Complex Relationship. Leisure Sciences, 32(1), 72–89. doi:10.1080/01490400903430897

Hirner, J. (2014, January 14). Key Informant Interview Questions : Joanna Hirner.

Hull, R., & Stewart, W. P. (1995). The Landscape Encountered and Experienced While Hiking. Environment and Behavior, 27(3), 404–426.

Ingold, T. (2000). The Temporality of the Landscape. In The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood Dwelling and Skill (pp. 189–218). Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/124811

Ingold, T., & Vergunst, J. L. (2008). Ways of Walking : Ethnography and Practice on Foot. Aldershot, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

101

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature : a Psychological Perspective. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With People in Mind : Design and Management of Everyday Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Koole, S. L., & Van den Berg, A. E. (2005). Lost in the Wilderness: Terror Management, Action Orientation, and Nature Evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 1014–1028. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.1014

Legat, A. (2008). Walking Stories; Leaving Footprints. In Ways of walking : ethnography and practice on foot (pp. 35–49). Aldershot, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Lekies, K., & Whitworth, B. (2011). Constructing the Nature Experience: A Semiotic Examination of Signs on the Trail. The American Sociologist, 42(2-3), 249–260.

Loomis, J. B., & Keske, C. M. (2009). Mountain substitutability and peak load pricing of high alpine peaks as a management tool to reduce environmental damage: A contingent valuation study. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1751–1760. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.024

Lynn, N. A., & Brown, R. D. (2003). Effects of recreational use impacts on hiking experiences in natural areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(1), 77–87.

Manfredo, M. J., Driver, B. L., & Tarrant, M. A. (1996). Measuring leisure motivation: A meta- analysis of the recreation experience preference scales. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(3), 188–213.

Manning, R. E. (2003). What to do about crowding and solitude in parks and wilderness? A reply to Stewart and Cole. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(1), 107–118.

Manning, R. E. (2007). Parks and Carrying Capacity : Commons Without Tragedy. Washington, DC: Island Press.

102

Marsh, J. (2003). Wilderness and National Parks in Canada: Evolving Perceptions & Management. Department of Geography, University of Reading. Retrieved from http://www.reading.ac.uk/web/FILES/geographyandenvironmentalscience/GP173.pdf

McNamee, K. (2002). Protected Areas In Canada: The Endangered Spaces Campaign. In Parks and protected areas in Canada : planning and management (2nd ed.). Don Mills, Ont: Oxford University Press.

Metro Vancouver. (2009, November). Metro 2040 Residential Growth Projections. Metro Vancouver.

Metro Vancouver. (2011). 2011 Census Bulletin #1. Metro Vancouver.

Miles, J. C. (2009). Wilderness in National Parks : Playground or Preserve. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Mitra, A., & Lankford, S. (1999). Research Methods in Park, Recreation, and Leisure Services. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Olwig, K. R. (1996). Reinventing Common Nature: Yosemite and Mount Rushmore - A Meandering Tale of a Double Nature. In Uncommon Ground : Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: WWNorton.

Olwig, K. R. (2002). Landscape, nature, and the body politic : from Britain’s renaissance to America’s new world. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Olwig, K. R. (2005). Liminality, Seasonality and Landscape. Landscape Research, 30(2), 259– 271.

Parks Canada Agency, Government of Canada. (2008a). Parks Canada: Guide to Management Planning. Parks Canada.

103

Parks Canada Agency, Government of Canada. (2008b, September 18). Parks Canada - Mount Revelstoke, Glacier, and Rogers Pass Management Plan - Mount Revelstoke National Park of Canada, Glacier National Park of Canada and Rogers Pass National Historic Site of Canada Management Plan. Retrieved November 8, 2013, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/v-g/bc/glacier/pd-mp/sec13.aspx

Payne, R. J., & Nilsen, P. W. (2002). Visitor Planning and Management. In Parks and Protected Areas in Canada : Planning and Management (2nd ed.). Don Mills, Ont: Oxford University Press.

Peden, J. G., & Schuster, R. M. (2008). Assessing the Transactional Nature of Wilderness Experiences: Construct Validation of the Wilderness-Hassles Appraisal Scale. Environmental Management, 42(3), 497–510. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9124-4

Peepre, J., & Dearden, P. (2002). The Role of Aboriginal Peoples. In Parks and Protected Areas in Canada : Planning and Management (2nd ed.). Don Mills, Ont: Oxford University Press.

Prato, T. (2001). Modeling carrying capacity for national parks. Ecological Economics, 39(3), 321–331.

Raadik, J., Cottrell, S. P., Fredman, P., Ritter, P., & Newman, P. (2010). Understanding Recreational Experience Preferences: Application at Fulufjället National Park, Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(3), 231–247. doi:10.1080/15022250.2010.486264

Reich, J. (2001). Re-Creating the Wilderness: Shaping Narratives and Landscapes in Shenandoah National Park. Environmental History, 6(1), 95–117. doi:10.2307/3985233

Rollins, R., & Robinson, D. (2002). Social Science, Conservation, and Protected Areas. In Parks and Protected Areas in Canada : Planning and Management (2nd ed.). Don Mills, Ont: Oxford University Press.

Shultis, J., & More, T. (2011). American and Canadian National Park Agency Responses to Declining Visitation. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(1), 110–132. 104

Solnit, R. (2001). Wanderlust : a History of Walking. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Spirn, A., Whiston. (1996). Constructing Nature: The Legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted. In Uncommon Ground : Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: WWNorton.

Svarstad, H. (2010). Why Hiking? Rationality and Reflexivity Within Three Categories of Meaning Construction. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(1), 91–110.

Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe. (n.d.). Our Land’s History | Ts’elxweyeqw Tribe. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from http://tselxweyeqw.ca/page.php?id=57&p=46

Tuan, Y.-F. (2002). Foreword. In Landscape, nature, and the body politic : from Britain’s renaissance to America’s new world. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

US Department of the Interior. (1997). The Visitor Experience & Resource Protection (VERP) Framework | DestiNet. Retrieved October 11, 2013, from http://destinet.eu/resources/...-various-target-groups/VERP.pdf

Vogt, W. P., Gardner, D. C., & Haeffele, L. M. (2012). When to use what research design. New York: Guilford Press.

Watson, A. E., Niccolucci, M. J., & Williams, D. R. (1994). The nature of conflict between hikers and recreational stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 372–372.

White, D. D., Virden, R. J., & Riper, C. J. (2008). Effects of Place Identity, Place Dependence, and Experience-Use History on Perceptions of Recreation Impacts in a Natural Setting. Environmental Management, 42(4), 647–657. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9143- 1

Wilderness. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2013, from http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/wilderness

105

Wilson, R. (2013, December 20). Key Informant Interview Questions: Robert Wilson.

Woodley, S. (2002). Planning and Managing for Ecological Integrity in Canada’s National Parks. In Parks and Protected Areas in Canada : Planning and Management (2nd ed.). Don Mills, Ont: Oxford University Press.

Wylie, J. (2005). A single day’s walking: narrating self and landscape on the South West Coast Path. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(2), 234–247.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research : Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of Case Study Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE. Zarnoch, S. J., Bowker, J. M., & Cordell, H. K. (2011). A mixed-modes approach for estimating hiking on trails through diverse forest landscapes: the case of the Appalachian Trail. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 41(12), 2346–2358. doi:10.1139/x11-147

106

Appendix A: Direct Observations Checklist

Backcountry Hiking Observational Checklist (Adapted from Harrison 2012 and Francis 1999) Date: Time of arrival: Time of departure: Location: Sky conditions: Precipitation: Other:

1. Form - Physical and Geographic Layout - What does the project look like? (Terrain, circulation, road access, parking, etc.) - consider natural resources, cultural resources, design elements, program elements, interpretive elements.

2. Function - Environmental and Human systems - How does it work? - who is using it/not using it, activities being done (including specific actions seen) - consider ecological systems (water, soil, vegetation, wildlife), energy systems, waste management, overall management, natural hazards.

3. Sense of place - How does it feel? - consider site access (sense of arrival), views, human scale, quality of wilderness, overall experience.

4. Theoretical

Why was it done? - what purpose does it serve, questions it is trying to answer, problems it is trying to solve.

107

Appendix B: Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park User Experience

Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION This brief questionnaire has been written to gather information about Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park as part of my Master of Landscape Architecture thesis. Information gathered from this questionnaire is meant to help understand what experiences are important to the users of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. The questionnaire should take 10 minutes to complete. Results from the questionnaire will be made available in aggregate form to BC Parks, Valley Outdoor Association, Chilliwack Outdoor Club and posted on ClubTread.com

PARTICIPATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you are free to refuse to answer any questions. A condition of participation is that the participant must have experienced Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park, either hiking or camping in the backcountry. The questionnaire results will be kept anonymous. Participants will not be asked to disclose their name and, as such, under no circumstances will you be identified or be identifiable. Given that participants will be anonymous, withdrawal from the study will not be possible once the questionnaire has been submitted. Data collected from this questionnaire will be held in a secure and locked location. Please note that confidentiality cannot be guaranteed while data are in transit over the internet.

This research has been reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Board at the University of Guelph (Research Ethics Clearance number 13NV024). Any questions regarding your rights as a participant can be addressed to:

Director, Research Ethics (519) 824 - 4120 Ext. 56606 [email protected]

If you have any questions or concerns about this research please contact either: Student Researcher: Principal Investigator: Chad Neufeld Sean Kelly MLA Candidate Assistant Professor University of Guelph University of Guelph (519) 362-6329 (519) 824 - 4120 Ext. 56870 [email protected] [email protected]

108

Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park User Experience Questionnaire

CONSENT. In order to participate in this study informed consent is required and participants must be at least 18 years of age.

I have read the information provided and agree to participate in the study. ␀ By checking this box I certify I have read and accept the above statement.

I have previous experience hiking and/or camping in the backcountry area of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park ␀ By checking this box I certify I have read and accept the above statement.

109

As a reference, the following map is provided of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park refers to the following trails, lakes and routes:

Lindeman Lake Post Creek Trail Mount Webb Greendrop Lake Flora Lake Trail MacDonald Peak Flora Lake Trans Canada Trail (portion) Mount Lindeman Radium Lake Hanging Lake Trail Mount Meronuik Hanging Lake Radium Lake Trail Paleface Mountain Upper Hanging Lake Mount Whittenberg

110

SECTION A: This section is meant to gather general information on the reasons for accessing Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park

1. Approximately how many hiking or backcountry camping trips have you taken in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park? 1 2 – 5 6 - 10 10 - 20 20 – 30 Over 30

2. On average how many days do you go hiking/backcountry camping at a time? 1 day 2 days 3-5 days More than 5 days

3. What are your reasons for hiking or backcountry camping in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park? (check all that apply)

Exploratory Experience the Natural environment Adventure Use Wilderness Travel Skills Self Discovery Connectedness / Spiritual Shared Solitude Experience Remoteness To Live Simply Physical Activity Other (please indicate)

4. Does the protected area of Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park offer better hiking and backcountry camping opportunities than non-protected similar areas? Yes No

5. Do you belong to any of the following outdoor recreation organizations? Yes, ClubTread.com Yes, Valley Outdoor Association Yes, Chilliwack Outdoor Club No

111

SECTION B: This section is meant to understand factors that are important to your experience at Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park.

6. How important are the following factors to your ideal wilderness experience at Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park;

Slightly Not Not Very Question Important Important Neutral Important Important Being alone / experiencing solitude The opportunity to explore areas off a trail Physical exercise and health Available maps and signage The number of visible places where others have camped Amount of informal "routes" available Lack of cabins or huts View the scenic quality of Nature To have a reserved campsite Seeing only native vegetation Amount of litter along trails and at campsites Condition of the trail systems Variety in length and difficulty among trails The number of users that camped near you Designated camping areas Seeing no signs of human impact on vegetation Seeing different dramatic landscapes Number of backcountry facilities available (trails, campsites) Experience solitude with similar people Availability of pit toilets To have a sense of remoteness from development The number of users you encountered while hiking To experience new and different landscapes A small, intimate group experience To travel in a challenging area The opportunity to camp on a tent pad Experience the natural environment Improve wilderness travel skills; Signs of human waste To test your physical endurance

112

SECTION C: This section is meant to allow you to voice any additional ideas about your experiences or improvements for Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park.

7. Please describe any improvements to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park that you think would benefit the user experience

8. Please describe your definition of a wilderness area

9. Does Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park provide your definition of a wilderness area?

YES NO

10. Is there anything else you would like to express relating to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park or the park user experience?

113

SECTION D: This section is meant to gather some basic demographical information about yourself.

11. Please indicate your gender: Male Female Other

12. Please indicate your age group: 18 – 24 25 – 34 35 – 49 50 – 64 Over 64

13. Please indicate how far away you live from Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park: 0-20min drive 20-40 min drive 40-60 min drive Over 60 min drive

Thank you for completing this questionnaire!

If you know of other hikers that you think would be interested in being a part of this research, please forward this link to them. ______

If you would like an abstract of these findings, provide your email and I will send you a copy when the study is complete. ______

114

Appendix C: Open Ended Questionnaire Responses

Question 3 (Other)

What are your reasons for hiking or backcountry camping in Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park? (check all that apply)

Total Responses 20

Categories Number % Lived Nearby 6 30.00% Socialize 2 10.00% Fishing 2 10.00% To visit the alpine 1 5.00% To get to a destination 1 5.00% Avoid Nature Deficit Disorder 1 5.00% Bag Peaks 1 5.00% Good Loop Route 1 5.00% Hunting 1 5.00% Photography 1 5.00% See lakes 1 5.00% See Wildlife 1 5.00% Show younger generation 1 5.00% Total 20

Question 7

Please describe any improvements to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park that you think would benefit the user experience

Total Responses 105

Category Value % Trail improvements (new trails) 18 17.14% Secure Parking 15 14.29% Regular maintenance to trails 15 14.29% Improved Signage 11 10.48% 115

Add pit toilets 9 8.57% Increased enforcement of rules 9 8.57% Nothing 9 8.57% Bridge maintenance/replacement 8 7.62% Road upgrading 8 7.62% Expansion of park size 6 5.71% Garbage cans at trailheads 5 4.76% Promote winter use 4 3.81% Remote accessed hut 4 3.81% Ban Alcohol 3 2.86% GPS trail maps 3 2.86% No Logging nearby 3 2.86% camping areas kept clean 2 1.90% More camping opportunities 2 1.90% Camping at South Chilliwack Lake 2 1.90% Increased Cellphone service 1 0.95% Boat access camping 1 0.95% Limit users 1 0.95% All season boat launch 1 0.95% Close access roads to discourage partying 1 0.95% Remove facilities 1 0.95% Limit nearby development 1 0.95% Left as natural as possible 1 0.95% Remove spray paint 1 0.95% No Data 14 Total 145

Question 8

Please describe your definition of a wilderness area

Total Responses 105

Category Value % No human occupation/dwellings/development 30 28.57% See original state of natural features 25 23.81% No human signs 17 16.19% Areas without car access 13 12.38% Restricted off road motorised vehicles (ATVs dirt bike) 12 11.43%

116

A protected area with limited development 10 9.52% Limited people encountered 10 9.52% A peaceful natural area 9 8.57% An area with trails and backcountry camping 8 7.62% Area without facilities (trails/ campsites) 6 5.71% Remoteness 6 5.71% Did not answer 5 4.76% Intact wildlife habitat 4 3.81% An area without resource extraction (logging, mining) 2 1.90% An area far from trails/roads 2 1.90% An area one can feel connected with nature 1 0.95% No invasive species 1 0.95% No pit toilets 1 0.95% Referred to Wikipedia 1 0.95% Area needing to take essential supplies to 1 0.95% Accessible to motorised vehicles 1 0.95% No Data 14 Total 165

Question 10

Is there anything else you would like to express relating to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park or the park user experience? (Optional)

Total Responses 57

Category Value % The park is not supposed to be all wilderness, some parts are 6 10.53% Catch the car thieves/ more secure parking 4 7.02% There is increase use of the backcountry (crowding) 4 7.02% Its a nice area 3 5.26% Road beside lake needs to be improved 3 5.26% Need increase in backcountry camp facilities to accommodate demand 3 5.26% Park and campground gate should be open in winter 3 5.26% More signage and education about camping practises needed 3 5.26% No valid response 3 5.26% Needs more enforcement and ranger presence 2 3.51% Do something about rowdies at Lindeman Lake camp spots 2 3.51%

117

There is a good mix of trails already 2 3.51% Limit motorised vehicles better 2 3.51% The park is beautiful 1 1.75% I have not hiked in the alpine areas yet 1 1.75% Difficult to answer Q11 as I haven't done much off trail hiking 1 1.75% Increased trail maintenance is needed 1 1.75% Increased use because of Cultas Lake crowding is damaging to park 1 1.75% Need camping opportunities around Chilliwack Lake 1 1.75% Most visitors to the park use the frontcountry only 1 1.75% Unsafe area in summer due to partying, gunfire, crime 1 1.75% Would be interesting in volunteering for trail maintenance 1 1.75% There is a large disconnect between frontcountry and backcountry 1 1.75% Would explore more if there was a safe place to store my car overnight 1 1.75% New day use parking lot is nice to see 1 1.75% Wildlife was not addressed in the questionnaire 1 1.75% Found wording on two questions in the matrix confusing 1 1.75% This park is not wilderness because Grizzly's have been lost 1 1.75% Facilities (toilets, camp pads) in backcountry destroy the "wilderness" 1 1.75% Needs some huts in the backcountry 1 1.75% Radium trail bridge needs replacement 1 1.75% Not too popular, which is good, compared to other provincial parks 1 1.75% Good staff 1 1.75% Better trail maintenance at Radium lake trail is needed 1 1.75% Nearby logging impacts the experience negatively 1 1.75% Total 62

118

Appendix D: ClubTread REP Results Natural Environment Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 44 42 86 54.43% 1 Important 26 30 56 35.44% Neutral 4 2 6 3.80% Slightly Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% Not Important 1 0 1 0.63% No Data 4 5 9 5.70% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 3.49 3.54 7.03 Q1 View the scenic quality of Nature Q2 Experience the natural environment

Litter and Waste Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 52 30 82 51.90% 2 Important 17 27 44 27.85% Neutral 4 10 14 8.86% Slightly Not Important 0 3 3 1.90% Not Important 1 4 5 3.16% No Data 5 5 10 6.33% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 3.61 3.03 6.64 Q1 Amount of litter along trails and at campsites Q2 Signs of human waste

Physical Activity Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 34 17 51 32.28% 3 Important 34 37 71 44.94% Neutral 6 18 24 15.19% Slightly Not Important 0 2 2 1.27% Not Important 0 1 1 0.63% No Data 5 4 9 5.70% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 3.38 2.89 6.27 Q1 Physical exercise and health Q2 To test your physical endurance

119

Remoteness Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 18 35 53 33.54% 4 Important 40 31 71 44.94% Neutral 12 6 18 11.39% Slightly Not Important 3 1 4 2.53% Not Important 2 2 4 2.53% No Data 4 4 8 5.06% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 2.92 3.28 6.20 Q1 Being alone / experiencing solitude Q2 To have a sense of remoteness from development

Exploratory Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 19 29 48 30.38% 5 Important 35 36 71 44.94% Neutral 18 9 27 17.09% Slightly Not Important 2 1 3 1.90% Not Important 1 0 1 0.63% No Data 4 4 8 5.06% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 2.92 3.24 6.16 Q1 To experience new and different landscapes Q2 Seeing different dramatic landscapes

Wilderness Travel Skills Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 18 17 35 22.15% 6 Important 40 33 73 46.20% Neutral 11 16 27 17.09% Slightly Not Important 4 6 10 6.33% Not Important 1 3 4 2.53% No Data 5 4 9 5.70% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 2.95 2.73 5.68 Q1 To travel in a challenging area Q2 Improve wilderness travel skills

120

Vegetation Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 14 21 35 22.15% 7 Important 30 38 68 43.04% Neutral 13 13 26 16.46% Slightly Not Important 10 2 12 7.59% Not Important 8 1 9 5.70% No Data 4 4 8 5.06% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 2.43 3.01 5.44 Q1 Seeing only native vegetation Q2 Seeing no signs of human impact on vegetation

Shared Solitude Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 9 12 21 13.29% 8 Important 32 41 73 46.20% Neutral 26 19 45 28.48% Slightly Not Important 3 2 5 3.16% Not Important 4 1 5 3.16% No Data 5 4 9 5.70% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 2.53 2.81 5.34 Q1 A small, intimate group experience Q2 Experience solitude with similar people

R outes Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 9 19 28 17.72% 9 Important 28 36 64 40.51% Neutral 24 14 38 24.05% Slightly Not Important 8 1 9 5.70% Not Important 4 5 9 5.70% No Data 6 4 10 6.33% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 2.41 2.84 5.25 Q1 Amount of informal "routes" available Q2 The opportunity to explore areas off a trail

121

Number of Users Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 14 18 32 20.25% 10 Important 23 27 50 31.65% Neutral 30 21 51 32.28% Slightly Not Important 6 4 10 6.33% Not Important 2 5 7 4.43% No Data 4 4 8 5.06% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 2.55 2.65 5.20 Q1 The number of users you encountered while hiking Q2 The number of users that camped near you

Facilities Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 8 19 27 17.09% 11 Important 28 33 61 38.61% Neutral 23 17 40 25.32% Slightly Not Important 8 3 11 6.96% Not Important 5 3 8 5.06% No Data 7 4 11 6.96% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 2.36 2.83 5.19 Q1 The amount of backcountry facilities available (trails, campsites) Q2 Variety in length and difficulty among trails

Management Conditions Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 11 4 15 9.49% 12 Important 38 17 55 34.81% Neutral 20 28 48 30.38% Slightly Not Important 2 14 16 10.13% Not Important 3 12 15 9.49% No Data 5 4 9 5.70% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 2.70 1.83 4.53 Q1 Condition of the trail systems Q2 The number of visible places where others have camped

122

Cabins/Buildings Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 10 4 14 8.86% 13 Important 14 18 32 20.25% Neutral 19 26 45 28.48% Slightly Not Important 12 14 26 16.46% Not Important 19 13 32 20.25% No Data 5 4 9 5.70% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 1.78 1.81 3.60 Q1 Lack of cabins or huts Q2 Availability of pit toilets

Information on Wilderness Area Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 0 9 9 5.70% 14 Important 3 27 30 18.99% Neutral 16 19 35 22.15% Slightly Not Important 10 13 23 14.56% Not Important 46 7 53 33.54% No Data 4 4 8 5.06% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 0.68 2.24 2.92 Q1 To have a reserved campsite Q2 Available maps and signage

Designated Campsites Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 0 3 3 1.90% 15 Important 4 19 23 14.56% Neutral 18 30 48 30.38% Slightly Not Important 20 8 28 17.72% Not Important 33 14 47 29.75% No Data 4 5 9 5.70% Total 79 79 158 Importance Score 0.91 1.85 2.76 Q1 The opportunity to camp on a tent pad Q2 Designated camping areas

123

ClubTread Individual REP Scale Question Rankings Importance Question Domain Score Rank Q1 Amount of litter along trails and at campsites Litter and Waste 3.61 1 Q2 Experience the natural environment Natural Environment 3.54 2 Q1 View the scenic quality of Nature Natural Environment 3.49 3 Q1 Physical exercise and health Physical Activity 3.38 4 Q2 To have a sense of remoteness from development Remoteness 3.28 5 Q2 Seeing different dramatic landscapes Exploratory 3.24 6 Q2 Signs of human waste Litter and Waste 3.03 7 Q2 Seeing no signs of human impact on vegetation Vegetation 3.01 8 Wilderness Travel Q1 To travel in a challenging area Skills 2.95 9 Q1 Being alone / experiencing solitude Remoteness 2.92 10 Q1 To experience new and different landscapes Exploratory 2.92 11 Q2 To test your physical endurance Physical Activity 2.89 12 Q2 The opportunity to explore areas off a trail Routes 2.84 13 Q2 Variety in length and difficulty among trails Facilities 2.83 14 Q2 Experience solitude with similar people Shared Solitude 2.81 15 Wilderness Travel Q2 Improve wilderness travel skills Skills 2.73 16 Management Q1 Condition of the trail systems Conditions 2.70 17 Q2 The number of users that camped near you Number of Users 2.65 18 Q1 The number of users you encountered while hiking Number of Users 2.55 19 Q1 A small, intimate group experience Shared Solitude 2.53 20 Q1 Seeing only native vegetation Vegetation 2.43 21 Q1 Amount of informal "routes" available Routes 2.41 22 Q1 The amount of backcountry facilities available (trails, campsites) Facilities 2.36 23 Information on Q2 Available maps and signage Wilderness Area 2.24 24 Designated Q2 Designated camping areas Campsites 1.85 25 Q2 The number of visible places where others Management have camped Conditions 1.83 26 Q2 Availability of pit toilets Cabins/Buildings 1.81 27 Q1 Lack of cabins or huts Cabins/Buildings 1.78 28 Designated Q1 The opportunity to camp on a tent pad Campsites 0.91 29 Information on Q1 To have a reserved campsite Wilderness Area 0.68 30

124

Appendix E: Chilliwack Outdoor Club REP Results Natural Environment Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 21 19 40 68.97% 1 Important 8 10 18 31.03% Neutral 0 0 0 0.00% Slightly Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 3.72 3.66 7.38 Q1 View the scenic quality of Nature Q2 Experience the natural environment

Litter and Waste Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 21 20 41 70.69% 2 Important 6 6 12 20.69% Neutral 1 3 4 6.90% Slightly Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% Not Important 1 0 1 1.72% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 3.59 3.59 7.17 Q1 Amount of litter along trails and at campsites Q2 Signs of human waste

Exploratory Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 12 15 27 46.55% 3 Important 12 11 23 39.66% Neutral 5 2 7 12.07% Slightly Not Important 0 1 1 1.72% Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 3.24 3.38 6.62 Q1 To experience new and different landscapes Q2 Seeing different dramatic landscapes

125

Facilities Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 6 10 16 27.59% 4 Important 18 18 36 62.07% Neutral 4 0 4 6.90% Slightly Not Important 1 1 2 3.45% Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 3.00 3.28 6.28 Q1 The amount of backcountry facilities available (trails, campsites) Q2 Variety in length and difficulty among trails

Remoteness Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 5 16 21 36.21% 5 Important 11 11 22 37.93% Neutral 8 2 10 17.24% Slightly Not Important 3 0 3 5.17% Not Important 2 0 2 3.45% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 2.48 3.48 5.97 Q1 Being alone / experiencing solitude Q2 To have a sense of remoteness from development

Shared Solitude Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 6 10 16 27.59% 6 Important 11 14 25 25.86% Neutral 11 4 15 25.86% Slightly Not Important 1 1 2 3.45% Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 2.76 3.14 5.90 Q1 A small, intimate group experience Q2 Experience solitude with similar people

126

Physical Activity Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 2 10 12 20.69% 7 Important 13 12 25 43.10% Neutral 10 6 16 27.59% Slightly Not Important 3 0 3 5.17% Not Important 1 1 2 3.45% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 2.41 3.03 5.45 Q1 Physical exercise and health Q2 To test your physical endurance

Wilderness Travel Skills Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 4 5 9 15.52% 8 Important 14 12 26 44.83% Neutral 10 11 21 36.21% Slightly Not Important 1 1 2 3.45% Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 2.72 2.72 5.45 Q1 To travel in a challenging area Q2 Improve wilderness travel skills

Vegetation Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 6 5 11 18.97% 9 Important 10 17 27 46.55% Neutral 8 4 12 20.69% Slightly Not Important 4 3 7 12.07% Not Important 1 0 1 3.45% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 2.55 2.83 5.38 Q1 Seeing only native vegetation Q2 Seeing no signs of human impact on vegetation

127

Management Conditions Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 15 2 17 29.31% 10 Important 13 6 19 32.76% Neutral 1 7 8 13.79% Slightly Not Important 0 6 6 10.34% Not Important 0 8 8 13.79% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 3.48 1.59 5.07 Q1 Condition of the trail systems Q2 The number of visible places where others have camped

Number of Users Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 1 2 3 5.17% 11 Important 10 10 20 34.48% Neutral 17 11 28 48.28% Slightly Not Important 0 3 3 5.17% Not Important 1 3 4 6.90% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 2.34 2.17 4.52 Q1 The number of users you encountered while hiking Q2 The number of users that camped near you

Routes Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 2 2 4 6.90% 12 Important 5 13 18 31.03% Neutral 14 10 24 41.38% Slightly Not Important 5 3 8 13.79% Not Important 3 1 4 6.90% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 1.93 2.41 4.34 Q1 Amount of informal "routes" available Q2 The opportunity to explore areas off a trail

128

Information on Wilderness Area Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 1 10 11 18.97% 13 Important 0 14 14 24.14% Neutral 10 5 15 25.86% Slightly Not Important 3 0 3 5.17% Not Important 15 0 15 25.86% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 0.93 3.17 4.10 Q1 To have a reserved campsite Q2 Available maps and signage

De signated Campsites Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 0 9 9 15.52% 14 Important 2 5 7 12.07% Neutral 12 13 25 43.10% Slightly Not Important 5 2 7 12.07% Not Important 10 0 10 17.24% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 1.21 2.72 3.93 Q1 The opportunity to camp on a tent pad Q2 Designated camping areas

Cabins/Buildings Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 3 3 6 10.34% 15 Important 3 11 14 24.14% Neutral 8 12 20 34.48% Slightly Not Important 4 1 5 8.62% Not Important 11 2 13 22.41% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 29 29 58 Importance Score 1.41 2.41 3.83 Q1 Lack of cabins or huts Q2 Availability of pit toilets

129

Chilliwack Outdoor Club Individual REP Scale Question Rankings Importance Question Domain Score Rank Q1 View the scenic quality of Nature Natural Environment 3.72 1 Q2 Experience the natural environment Natural Environment 3.66 2 Q1 Amount of litter along trails and at campsites Litter and Waste 3.59 3 Q2 Signs of human waste Litter and Waste 3.59 4 Q2 To have a sense of remoteness from development Remoteness 3.48 5 Management Q1 Condition of the trail systems Conditions 3.48 6 Q2 Seeing different dramatic landscapes Exploratory 3.38 7 Q2 Variety in length and difficulty among trails Facilities 3.28 8 Q1 To experience new and different landscapes Exploratory 3.24 9 Information on Q2 Available maps and signage Wilderness Area 3.17 10 Q2 Experience solitude with similar people Shared Solitude 3.14 11 Q2 To test your physical endurance Physical Activity 3.03 12 Q1 The amount of backcountry facilities available (trails, campsites) Facilities 3.00 13 Q2 Seeing no signs of human impact on vegetation Vegetation 2.83 14 Q1 A small, intimate group experience Shared Solitude 2.76 15 Wilderness Travel Q1 To travel in a challenging area Skills 2.72 16 Wilderness Travel Q2 Improve wilderness travel skills Skills 2.72 17 Q2 Designated camping areas Designated Campsites 2.72 18 Q1 Seeing only native vegetation Vegetation 2.55 19 Q1 Being alone / experiencing solitude Remoteness 2.48 20 Q1 Physical exercise and health Physical Activity 2.41 21 Q2 The opportunity to explore areas off a trail Routes 2.41 22 Q2 Availability of pit toilets Cabins/Buildings 2.41 23 Q1 The number of users you encountered while hiking Number of Users 2.34 24 Q2 The number of users that camped near you Number of Users 2.17 25 Q1 Amount of informal "routes" available Routes 1.93 26 Q2 The number of visible places where others have Management camped Conditions 1.59 27 Q1 Lack of cabins or huts Cabins/Buildings 1.41 28 Q1 The opportunity to camp on a tent pad Designated Campsites 1.21 29 Information on Q1 To have a reserved campsite Wilderness Area 0.93 30

130

Appendix F: Valley Outdoor Association REP Results Natural Environment Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 8 6 14 63.64% 1 Important 3 5 8 36.36% Neutral 0 0 0 0.00% Slightly Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 3.73 3.55 7.27 Q1 View the scenic quality of Nature Q2 Experience the natural environment

Litter and Waste Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 10 8 18 81.82% 2 Important 1 2 3 13.64% Neutral 0 0 0 0.00% Slightly Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% No Data 0 1 1 0.00% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 3.55 3.50 7.05 Q1 Amount of litter along trails and at campsites Q2 Signs of human waste

Physical Activity Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 7 2 9 40.91% 3 Important 4 8 12 54.55% Neutral 0 1 1 4.55% Slightly Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 3.64 3.09 6.73 Q1 Physical exercise and health Q2 To test your physical endurance

131

Exploratory Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 4 3 7 31.82% 4 Important 4 7 11 50.00% Neutral 3 1 4 18.18% Slightly Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 3.09 3.18 6.27 Q1 To experience new and different landscapes Q2 Seeing different dramatic landscapes

Facilities Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 2 3 5 22.73% 5 Important 7 5 12 54.55% Neutral 2 3 5 22.73% Slightly Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 3.00 3.00 6.00 Q1 The amount of backcountry facilities available (trails, campsites) Q2 Variety in length and difficulty among trails

Vegetation Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 2 4 6 27.27% 6 Important 4 5 9 40.91% Neutral 1 1 2 9.09% Slightly Not Important 2 0 2 9.09% Not Important 1 0 1 9.09% No Data 1 1 2 9.09% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 2.40 3.30 5.70 Q1 Seeing only native vegetation Q2 Seeing no signs of human impact on vegetation

132

Wilderness Travel Skills Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 2 1 3 13.64% 7 Important 6 6 12 54.55% Neutral 3 4 7 31.82% Slightly Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 2.91 2.73 5.64 Q1 To travel in a challenging area Q2 Improve wilderness travel skills

Remoteness Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 1 4 5 22.73% 8 Important 4 5 9 40.91% Neutral 4 2 6 27.27% Slightly Not Important 1 0 1 4.55% Not Important 1 0 1 4.55% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 2.27 3.18 5.45 Q1 Being alone / experiencing solitude Q2 To have a sense of remoteness from development

Shared Solitude Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 3 1 4 18.18% 9 Important 5 8 13 59.09% Neutral 2 0 2 9.09% Slightly Not Important 0 1 1 4.55% Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% No Data 1 1 2 9.09% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 2.82 2.64 5.45 Q1 A small, intimate group experience Q2 Experience solitude with similar people

133

Number of Users Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 3 2 5 22.73% 10 Important 3 5 8 36.36% Neutral 5 1 6 27.27% Slightly Not Important 0 1 1 4.55% Not Important 0 1 1 4.55% No Data 0 1 1 4.55% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 2.82 2.60 5.42 Q1 The number of users you encountered while hiking Q2 The number of users that camped near you

Management Conditions Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 6 0 6 27.27% 11 Important 5 3 8 36.36% Neutral 0 4 4 18.18% Slightly Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% Not Important 0 4 4 18.18% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 3.55 1.55 5.09 Q1 Condition of the trail systems Q2 The number of visible places where others have camped

Cabins/Buildings Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 2 5 7 31.82% 12 Important 2 3 5 22.73% Neutral 1 1 2 9.09% Slightly Not Important 1 1 2 9.09% Not Important 5 1 6 27.27% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 1.55 2.91 4.45 Q1 Lack of cabins or huts Q2 Availability of pit toilets

134

Designated Campsites Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 1 3 4 18.18% 13 Important 2 3 5 22.73% Neutral 3 2 5 22.73% Slightly Not Important 2 1 3 13.64% Not Important 2 1 3 13.64% No Data 1 1 2 9.09% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 1.80 2.60 4.40 Q1 The opportunity to camp on a tent pad Q2 Designated camping areas

Information on Wilderness Area Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 1 3 4 18.18% 14 Important 0 4 4 18.18% Neutral 4 3 7 31.82% Slightly Not Important 1 0 1 4.55% Not Important 5 1 6 27.27% No Data 0 0 0 0.00% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 1.18 2.73 3.91 Q1 To have a reserved campsite Q2 Available maps and signage

Routes Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 2 0 2 9.09% 15 Important 1 2 3 13.64% Neutral 2 5 7 31.82% Slightly Not Important 2 0 2 9.09% Not Important 4 3 7 31.82% No Data 0 1 1 4.55% Total 11 11 22 Importance Score 1.55 1.60 3.15 Q1 Amount of informal "routes" available Q2 The opportunity to explore areas off a trail

135

Valley Outdoor Association Individual REP Scale Question Rankings Importance Question Domain Score Rank Q1 View the scenic quality of Nature Natural Environment 3.73 1 Q1 Physical exercise and health Physical Activity 3.64 2 Q2 Experience the natural environment Natural Environment 3.55 3 Q1 Amount of litter along trails and at campsites Litter and Waste 3.55 4 Management Q1 Condition of the trail systems Conditions 3.55 5 Q2 Signs of human waste Litter and Waste 3.50 6 Q2 Seeing no signs of human impact on vegetation Vegetation 3.30 7 Q2 Seeing different dramatic landscapes Exploratory 3.18 8 Q2 To have a sense of remoteness from development Remoteness 3.18 9 Q2 To test your physical endurance Physical Activity 3.09 10 Q1 To experience new and different landscapes Exploratory 3.09 11 Q1 The amount of backcountry facilities available (trails, campsites) Facilities 3.00 12 Q2 Variety in length and difficulty among trails Facilities 3.00 13 Wilderness Travel Q1 To travel in a challenging area Skills 2.91 14 Q2 Availability of pit toilets Cabins/Buildings 2.91 15 Q1 A small, intimate group experience Shared Solitude 2.82 16 Q1 The number of users you encountered while hiking Number of Users 2.82 17 Wilderness Travel Q2 Improve wilderness travel skills Skills 2.73 18 Information on Q2 Available maps and signage Wilderness Area 2.73 19 Q2 Experience solitude with similar people Shared Solitude 2.64 20 Q2 The number of users that camped near you Number of Users 2.60 21 Q2 Designated camping areas Designated Campsites 2.60 22 Q1 Seeing only native vegetation Vegetation 2.40 23 Q1 Being alone / experiencing solitude Remoteness 2.27 24 Q1 The opportunity to camp on a tent pad Designated Campsites 1.80 25 Q2 The opportunity to explore areas off a trail Routes 1.60 26 Q2 The number of visible places where others have Management camped Conditions 1.55 27 Q1 Lack of cabins or huts Cabins/Buildings 1.55 28 Q1 Amount of informal "routes" available Routes 1.55 29 Information on Q1 To have a reserved campsite Wilderness Area 1.18 30

136

Appendix G: Combined REP Results Natural Environment Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 73 67 140 58.82% 1 Important 37 45 82 34.45% Neutral 4 2 6 2.52% Slightly Not Important 0 0 0 0.00% Not Important 1 0 1 0.42% No Data 4 5 9 3.78% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 3.57 3.57 7.14 Q1 View the scenic quality of Nature Q2 Experience the natural environment Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.7455

Litter and Waste Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 83 58 141 59.24% 2 Important 24 35 59 24.79% Neutral 5 13 18 7.56% Slightly Not Important 0 3 3 1.26% Not Important 2 4 6 2.52% No Data 5 6 11 4.62% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 3.63 3.24 6.87 Q1 Amount of litter along trails and at campsites Q2 Signs of human waste Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.5536

Physical Activity Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 63 29 92 38.66% 3 Important 44 57 101 42.44% Neutral 7 25 32 13.45% Slightly Not Important 0 2 2 0.84% Not Important 0 2 2 0.84% No Data 5 4 9 3.78% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 3.49 2.95 6.44 Q1 Physical exercise and health Q2 To test your physical endurance Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.6212

137

Exploratory Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 35 47 82 34.45% 4 Important 51 54 105 44.12% Neutral 26 12 38 15.97% Slightly Not Important 2 2 4 1.68% Not Important 1 0 1 0.84% No Data 4 4 8 3.36% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 3.02 3.27 6.29 Q1 To experience new and different landscapes Q2 Seeing different dramatic landscapes Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.6576

Remoteness Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Ran k Very Important 24 55 79 33.19% 5 Important 55 47 102 42.86% Neutral 24 10 34 14.29% Slightly Not Important 7 1 8 3.36% Not Important 5 2 7 2.94% No Data 4 4 8 3.36% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 2.75 3.32 6.07 Q1 Being alone / experiencing solitude Q2 To have a sense of remoteness from development Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.3252

Wilderness Travel Skills Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 24 23 47 19.75% 6 Important 60 51 111 46.64% Neutral 24 31 55 23.11% Slightly Not Important 5 7 12 5.04% Not Important 1 3 4 1.68% No Data 5 4 9 3.78% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 2.89 2.73 5.62 Q1 To travel in a challenging area Q2 Improve wilderness travel skills Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.6407

138

Facilities Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 16 32 48 20.17% 7 Important 53 56 109 45.80% Neutral 29 20 49 20.59% Slightly Not Important 9 4 13 5.46% Not Important 5 3 8 3.36% No Data 7 4 11 4.62% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 2.59 2.96 5.55 Q1 The amount of backcountry facilities available (trails, campsites) Q2 Variety in length and difficulty among trails Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.7044

Shared Solitude Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 18 23 41 17.23% 8 Important 48 63 111 46.64% Neutral 39 23 62 26.05% Slightly Not Important 4 4 8 3.36% Not Important 5 2 7 2.94% No Data 5 4 9 3.78% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 2.61 2.88 5.49 Q1 A small, intimate group experience Q2 Experience solitude with similar people Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.6606

Vegetation Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 22 30 52 21.85% 9 Important 44 60 104 43.70% Neutral 22 18 40 16.81% Slightly Not Important 16 5 21 8.82% Not Important 10 1 11 4.62% No Data 5 5 10 4.20% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 2.46 2.99 5.45 Q1 Seeing only native vegetation Q2 Seeing no signs of human impact on vegetation Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.5613

139

Number of Users Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 18 22 40 16.81% 10 Important 36 42 78 32.77% Neutral 52 33 85 35.71% Slightly Not Important 6 8 14 5.88% Not Important 3 9 12 5.04% No Data 4 5 9 3.78% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 2.52 2.53 5.05 Q1 The number of users you encountered while hiking Q2 The number of users that camped near you Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.5131

Routes Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 13 21 34 14.29% 11 Important 34 51 85 35.71% Neutral 40 29 69 28.99% Slightly Not Important 15 4 19 7.98% Not Important 11 9 20 8.40% No Data 6 5 11 4.62% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 2.20 2.62 4.83 Q1 Amount of informal "routes" available Q2 The opportunity to explore areas off a trail Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.5878

Management Conditions Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 32 6 38 15.97% 12 Important 56 26 82 34.45% Neutral 21 39 60 25.21% Slightly Not Important 2 20 22 9.24% Not Important 3 24 27 11.34% No Data 5 4 9 3.78% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 2.98 1.74 4.72 Q1 Condition of the trail systems Q2 The number of visible places where others have camped Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.2819

140

Cabins/Buildings Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 15 12 27 11.34% 13 Important 19 32 51 21.43% Neutral 28 39 67 28.15% Slightly Not Important 17 16 33 13.87% Not Important 35 16 51 21.43% No Data 5 4 9 3.78% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 1.67 2.07 3.74 Q1 Lack of cabins or huts Q2 Availability of pit toilets Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.2109

Information on Wilderness Area Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 2 22 24 10.08% 14 Important 3 45 48 20.17% Neutral 30 27 57 23.95% Slightly Not Important 14 13 27 11.34% Not Important 66 8 74 31.09% No Data 4 4 8 3.36% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 0.79 2.52 3.31 Q1 To have a reserved campsite Q2 Available maps and signage Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.5076

Designated Campsites Q1 Q2 Q1 + Q2 Percent Rank Very Important 1 15 16 6.72% 15 Important 8 27 35 14.71% Neutral 33 45 78 32.77% Slightly Not Important 27 11 38 15.97% Not Important 45 15 60 25.21% No Data 5 6 11 4.62% Total 119 119 238 Importance Score 1.06 2.14 3.20 Q1 The opportunity to camp on a tent pad Q2 Designated camping areas Cronbach's Alpha (internal reliability of domain) 0.6266

141

Combined Individual REP Scale Question Rankings Importance Question Domain Score Rank Q1 Amount of litter along trails and at campsites Litter and Waste 3.63 1 Q1 View the scenic quality of Nature Natural Environment 3.57 2 Q2 Experience the natural environment Natural Environment 3.57 3 Q1 Physical exercise and health Physical Activity 3.49 4 Q2 To have a sense of remoteness from development Remoteness 3.32 5 Q2 Seeing different dramatic landscapes Exploratory 3.27 6 Q2 Signs of human waste Litter and Waste 3.24 7 Q1 To experience new and different landscapes Exploratory 3.02 8 Q2 Seeing no signs of human impact on vegetation Vegetation 2.99 9 Management Q1 Condition of the trail systems Conditions 2.98 10 Q2 Variety in length and difficulty among trails Facilities 2.96 11 Q2 To test your physical endurance Physical Activity 2.95 12 Wilderness Travel Q1 To travel in a challenging area Skills 2.89 13 Q2 Experience solitude with similar people Shared Solitude 2.88 14 Q1 Being alone / experiencing solitude Remoteness 2.75 15 Wilderness Travel Q2 Improve wilderness travel skills Skills 2.73 16 Q2 The opportunity to explore areas off a trail Routes 2.62 17 Q1 A small, intimate group experience Shared Solitude 2.61 18 Q1 The amount of backcountry facilities available (trails, campsites) Facilities 2.59 19 Q2 The number of users that camped near you Number of Users 2.53 20 Information on Q2 Available maps and signage Wilderness Area 2.52 21 Q1 The number of users you encountered while hiking Number of Users 2.52 22 Q1 Seeing only native vegetation Vegetation 2.46 23 Q1 Amount of informal "routes" available Routes 2.20 24 Q2 Designated camping areas Designated Campsites 2.14 25 Q2 Availability of pit toilets Cabins/Buildings 2.07 26 Q2 The number of visible places where others have Management camped Conditions 1.74 27 Q1 Lack of cabins or huts Cabins/Buildings 1.67 28 Q1 The opportunity to camp on a tent pad Designated Campsites 1.06 29 Information on Q1 To have a reserved campsite Wilderness Area 0.79 30

142