Perceptions of Stakeholders Regarding Wilderness and Best Management Practices in an Alaska Recreation Area Emily F

Managing Sport and Leisure, 2015 Vol. 20, No. 1, 36–55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13606719.2014.940692

Perceptions of stakeholders regarding wilderness and best management practices in an Alaska recreation area Emily F. Pomeranz1, Mark D. Needham2 and Linda E. Kruger3 1Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA; 2Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA; 3USDA Forest Service Paciﬁc Northwest Research Station, Juneau, AK, USA

This article focuses on the collaborative and voluntary Wilderness Best Management Practices (WBMP) for managing recreation in Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness in Alaska. Stakeholder definitions of wilderness, opinions about the WBMP, and whether these opinions are reflective of their perceptions of wilderness are examined. Interviews with tour operators, agency personnel, cruise industry representatives, and local residents showed that most expressed some degree of purism in their definitions of wilderness (e.g. solitude and minimal impact), although cruise representatives had less purist definitions. With the exception of cruise representatives, most felt that the wilderness character of this area is threatened by vessel traffic. Most supported the WBMP as alternatives to regulations because they allowed for freedom and input, but many felt that these practices may be unable to address future impacts. A few small and more purist operators felt that if the wilderness characteristics were threatened, they might support regulations. Others, however, displayed a type of cognitive dissonance by expressing concern over threats to this wilderness, yet rejecting regulations that may be needed for protecting the wilderness experiences they value the most. Keywords: wilderness, stakeholders, collaboration, best management practices, codes of conduct, recreation management

INTRODUCTION power is shared and stakeholders take collective responsibility for their actions and The increasing popularity of nature-based subsequent outcomes from those actions” recreation activities coupled with their (p. 190). Collaboration “involves individuals potential impacts on social and biophysical or groups moving in concert in a situation conditions (e.g. crowding, erosion, and in which no party has the power to litter) has led resource managers to search command the behavior of the others” (Won- for innovative and adaptable methods of dolleck & Yaffee, 2000, p. xiii). management (Manning, 2011; Needham & Collaboration can be challenging when Rollins, 2009). One increasingly popular stakeholders involved share different per- form of adaptable management is the ceptions about the resource being managed reliance on stakeholder collaboration to (Bryan, 2004). These different cognitions understand and ameliorate impacts of are particularly relevant and complicated in recreation. Selin and Chavez (1995) defined places labeled as “wilderness” because this collaboration as “a joint decision-making has both a legal definition in some countries, approach to problem resolution where as well as competing and changing social # 2014 Taylor & Francis Wilderness and Best Management Practices 37 interpretations (Cronon, 1996; Shultis, 1999). process are reflective of their perceptions Since the passage of the United States (U.S.) of wilderness. Wilderness Act in 1964, designated wilderness areas within the U.S. National Wilder- CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION ness Preservation System (NWPS) have been important resources for recreationists Collaboration has been examined in various seeking relatively remote and primitive recreation management contexts such as nature-based experiences. If stakeholders designation of river use (Plummer, 2006), disagree about what it means to have a wild- regulations on hunting (Sandstro¨m, 2009), erness experience, however, they may also local recreation policies (Bramwell & disagree on the best approaches for mana- Sharman, 1999), and restrictions on commer- ging the experience or setting. Understand- cial tour operators (Pomeranz, Needham, & ing different stakeholder definitions and Kruger, 2013a, 2013b). Collaboration is an perceptions of wilderness is important for emergent process where stakeholders are collaborative processes associated with independent, solutions emerge by dealing managing use in these areas because recog- constructively with differences, joint owner- nizing potential contradictions may help ships of decisions are involved, and stake- managers understand some barriers to holders assume collective responsibility for achieving successful collaboration and future directions (Gray, 1989). In contrast other long-term management goals (Gray, to regulation, collaboration provides a 1989; Lauber & Decker, 2011). decision-making process that offers opportu- The U.S. Congress has designated nities to explore new sources of knowledge, millions of acres of federal land to be empowers individuals normally excluded managed as wilderness areas as part of from external mandates, creates a sense of the NWPS and in accordance with the Wild- shared ownership over decisions, and erness Act. Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilder- should be adaptable to change given its evol- ness in Alaska is one of these areas, and ving nature (Bryan, 2004; Lauber & Decker, impacts from increasing visitation in this 2011). area prompted the U.S. Forest Service in One potential barrier to collaboration 2007 to implement a collaborative process arises from differences in how participating for creating and managing voluntary codes stakeholders and managers value the of conduct known as the Wilderness Best resource being managed (Wondolleck & Management Practices (WBMP) for this Yaffee, 2000). When these differences occur, area. Stakeholders (e.g. agencies, tour oper- individuals may be loath to cooperate due ators, cruise lines, and local residents) have to fear of compromising their values (Bryan, participated in this collaborative WBMP 2004). This can be problematic, as research process by helping to create and implement has shown that successful collaborative its guidelines, manage the area through self- endeavors are predicated on willingness to enforcement to ensure that guidelines are compromise (e.g. Selin, Schuett, & Carr, not violated, monitor and evaluate the 2000). Collaboration should help to develop success of these guidelines and stakeholder a shared resource identity among stake- interactions, and update and revise this holders and encourage those with different process. This article examines stakeholder values to recognize that “in spite of our differ- definitions and perceptions of wilderness, ences, we are all in this together” (Bryan, opinions about the WBMP for managing 2004, p. 892). Creating common goals is an recreation use in this area, and whether important step in collaboration and allows these opinions about this collaborative for institutionalization of collaboration that 38 Pomeranz et al. should foster efficient and coordinated pro- personal benefits of experiencing wilder- cesses (Lauber, Stedman, Decker, Knuth, & ness); (b) scientific (i.e. significance of wild- Simon, 2011). Understanding stakeholder erness as a pharmacological resource, values and goals associated with resources habitat for threatened or endangered such as wilderness areas may provide species, and place to research human behav- insight into conflicts faced in collaboration, ior); (c) symbolic and/or spiritual; and (d) and mediators might then be positioned economic (i.e. bequest, existence, and better to achieve compromise that builds option values). on shared goals despite potentially divergent Wilderness as a legal land designation in values. the U.S. was classified in the 1964 Wilderness The idea of wilderness has been defined Act as: and redefined many times. Once a place to be feared and conquered, by the end of the In contrast with those areas where man and nineteenth century, wilderness was con- his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the structed as a romanticized and pristine earth and community of life are untrammeled space in stark contrast to rising urbanization by man, where man himself is a visitor who and industrialization (Cronon, 1996; Hanni- does not remain. gan, 1995). Various scholars attempted to define wilderness and describe its value, This wilderness construct was tangibly thereby making a case for its protection. defined as an area of “undeveloped federal Leopold (1941), for example, described the land” with “outstanding opportunities for value of wilderness as a “base-datum of nor- solitude or a primitive unconfined type of mality” for landscapes and their biota recreation”, and “ecological, geological, or (p. 3). The scientific view of wilderness as a other features of scientific, educational, dynamic and complex ecological system scenic or historical value” (Wilderness Act, has been referred to by some as “wild com- 1964). This definition presents a particular munity” (Allen, 1979; Nelson & Callicott, concept of wilderness where humans are 2008; Spurr, 1963). Marshall (1930) had a viewed as largely separate from nature. more human-oriented definition by identify- Tucker (1982) viewed this definition of wild- ing wilderness as primitive and far from erness as “an attempt to create what are modern sources of transportation where essentially ‘ecological museums’ in scenic one must rely only on oneself to survive and biologically valuable lands” (p. 131). and achieve physical, mental, and aesthetic This conceptualization of wilderness has benefits. Rolston (1985) identified 12 major also been reflected in international models values for wilderness: economic, life of this concept (e.g. Russia’s zapovedniks support, recreational, scientific, genetic or “forbidden areas”, Australia’s wilderness diversity, aesthetic, cultural symbolization, world heritage areas, and mapping of Brit- historical, character building, therapeutic, ain’s wild areas; Bentrupperbaümer, Day, & religious, and intrinsic. Others have Reser, 2006; Carver, Evans, & Fritz, 2002; attempted to explicitly identify the monetary Dawson & Hendee, 2008). In New Zealand, value of wilderness to establish an economic for example, wilderness is even more primi- justification for protection (e.g. Loomis & tive with stock use and human structures Richardson, 2001; Walsh, Loomis, & strongly discouraged; wilderness areas in Gillman, 1984). Dawson and Hendee (2008) this country are basically developed so that condensed this diversity of definitions day visitation is practically impossible associated with wilderness into four major (Higham, Kearsley, & Kliskey, 2000). Other themes: (a) experiential (i.e. immediate and concepts of wilderness are less rigid. Given Wilderness and Best Management Practices 39 issues related to the vastness, accessibility, transportation, that are more in line with and native resource use of wilderness areas the Wilderness Act. This scale, which accord- in Alaska, for example, motorized access, ing to Shafer and Hammitt (1995) describes cabin maintenance, and subsistence use are an “attitudinal orientation toward an ideal”, legislatively allowed in these areas based consists of 14 resource characteristics on the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands derived from the Wilderness Act (p. 16). Conservation Act (Dawson & Hendee, 2008). Users with distinct levels of purism may More recent conceptualizations of wilder- differ in awareness and preferences of ness around the world also take these types resource impacts and social conditions (e.g. of social concerns into account, such as solitude). Canada’s Vuntut National Park that not only Stankey and Schreyer (1987) found that gives native people subsistence rights, but users of wilderness areas have become also allows for cooperative and collaborative more purist, supportive of use restrictions, management (Sherry, 1999). and in favor of more preservationist-oriented Despite the working definition and legal experiences as opposed to consumptive classification of the Wilderness Act, people uses. More recent studies, however, have continue to define wilderness in various contradicted these findings. Hall, Seekamp, ways (Dawson & Hendee, 2008). Shultis and Cole (2010), for example, studied wilder- (1999), for example, explored how closely ness users in Oregon and Washington (U.S.) the New Zealand public’s definition of wilder- and found that regardless of how purist a ness aligned with the definition of the New user was, restrictions were not overwhel- Zealand Wilderness Policy (similar to the mingly desired because people preferred U.S. Wilderness Act) and found significant individual freedom as opposed to regu- differences, confirming a duality of percep- lations on use. This suggests an interesting tions where wilderness exists both as a pol- paradox about wilderness where people itical and popular concept. Recognizing this may desire experiences such as solitude, variety of wilderness definitions held by indi- but do not endorse direct regulations viduals, researchers have attempted to required to ensure these experiences (Hall develop typologies based on these defi- et al., 2010). These contradictions may be nitions. As early as 1946, for example, understood by exploring stakeholder defi- MacKaye noted that there exist “two poles nitions of wilderness and the implications in the sphere of outdoor recreation living: a for managing natural spaces. pole of intensive recreation for the gregar- There are reasons why managers would iously-minded many, and a pole of extensive want to understand stakeholder perceptions recreation for the solitary-minded few” (p. 3). of wilderness. Identifying the level of purism MacKaye (1946) thought that wilderness among individuals may be beneficial for users fell on the solitary side of this sphere, monitoring the state of a wilderness resource but other studies have found that distinction because people “with well-developed atti- to be too simplistic. Catton (1969) recog- tudes toward the resource (purists) can nized that wilderness user motivations vary provide the level of specificity needed in greatly and developed a spectrum categoriz- the selection of resource indicators used to ing wilderness users from utilization to pres- monitor the health of recreational experi- ervation motivations. Stankey (1973) ences in wilderness” (Shafer & Hammitt, developed a wilderness purism scale based 1995, p. 28). In addition, manager percep- on the notion that recreationists with high tions of wilderness are likely to be different purist tendencies would value experiences, from those of users and other stakeholders such as solitude and non-motorized because managers may tend to consider 40 Pomeranz et al. more heavily the objective qualities of wild- 50 miles southeast of the city of Juneau erness (i.e. legally defined) as opposed to (Figure 1). This wilderness is managed by subjective values held by users (Shin & the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Jaakson, 1997). Subjective values are Tongass National Forest and includes two defined as a type of social cognition that narrow and deep granite-walled fjords, functions to facilitate adaptation to environ- Tracy and Endicott Arms, both of which ments (Homer & Kahle, 1988). These values contain active tidewater glaciers. At the are shaped by sociocultural and socioeco- head of Tracy Arm are the twin Sawyer Gla- nomic experiences, and they influence atti- ciers (North and South), and at the head of tudes and other cognitions associated with Endicott Arm are the twin Dawes Glaciers particular concepts or objects (Manfredo, (North and South). Both of these fjords are Teel, & Bright, 2004). Catton (1969), for approximately 30 miles in length with 20% example, found that individuals on the pre- of the area covered in ice. Both are also servationist end of his utilization–preser- home to seals and other wildlife such as vation spectrum were more highly bears, whales, and Dall sheep (U.S. Forest educated and likely to live in cities. Likewise, Service, 2003). Despite these similarities, Tucker (1982) called wilderness areas “parks vessels are sometimes forced to divert to for the upper-middle class” (p. 140). Under- Endicott Arm because navigational chal- standing differences in stakeholders and lenges such as ice conditions can be more their definitions and values associated with common in Tracy Arm. wilderness areas is important in the context Given this protected area’s wildlife of collaborative processes because recogniz- viewing opportunities and tidewater gla- ing any contradictions in these cognitions ciers, it is a popular destination for people may help explain any difficulties in achieving arriving by cruise ship, and tour boats offer- compromise among participants. ing full-day tours are also common (Dugan, This study builds on this previous Fay, & Colt, 2007). Tours operating in this research by using the collaborative WBMP area also accommodate some independent process in the Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wild- visitors who are not associated with the erness area as a case study example to cruise industry. To capture the cruise address three research questions. First, market, some operators have opted to pre- how do commercial tour operators, local sell tours on board and collect clients residents, and agency personnel define and directly from cruise ships to allow the value wilderness? Second, what are the necessary travel time to both Tracy and End- opinions of these stakeholders regarding icott Arms (Dugan et al., 2007). Limits on vis- the collaborative WBMP for managing itation by cruise ships to nearby Glacier Bay recreation in this wilderness area? Third, to National Park have increased the volume of what extent are these opinions about the large vessel traffic visiting these two fjords, WBMP reflective of their perceptions of as many cruise ships are now using this wilderness? area as an alternative to Glacier Bay (U.S. Forest Service, 2003). Other than cruise ships and tour boats, the area is also METHODS popular for smaller boat operators, charter and private yachts, kayakers, and other wild- Study Area and Context erness recreationists and enthusiasts Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness is a (Dugan et al., 2007). 653,000 acre protected area in southeast Although Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilder- Alaska located off Stephens Passage about ness is a federally protected wilderness Wilderness and Best Management Practices 41

Fig. 1. Map of Study Area Source: Adapted from Pomeranz et al. (2013a, 2013b) and Zegre, Needham, Kruger, and Rosenberger (2012). area, most visitors do not enter the national Some regulations concerning ships in forest and instead remain on boats. In con- Juneau’s port and the surrounding waters trast to Glacier Bay National Park where the have been partially supported by citizen U.S. Park Service has regulatory control action given that the U.S. Forest Service has over the waterways, the U.S. Forest Service no jurisdiction over the water and, therefore, has no regulatory control over the water, little managerial control over operator only the uplands of Tracy Arm-Fords Terror behavior. Regardless, this agency has been Wilderness. The State of Alaska maintains attempting to facilitate implementation of jurisdiction over the waterways although it the collaborative and voluntary WBMP with has not exercised much regulatory action the cruise industry and other commercial with respect to vessel behavior in the area. operators and stakeholders in this area Some aspects of the environment are regu- since 2007 (Neary & Griffin, 2008). The lated by other agencies such as the National WBMP were inspired by the Tourism Best Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Management Practices (TBMP) that were that oversees protection of endangered wild- developed in 1997 by the City and Borough life and mammals, and Alaska’s Department of Juneau, tour operators, the cruise indus- of Environmental Conservation that over- try, and transportation services. The TBMP sees water quality standards. (2009) contain codes of conduct for 42 Pomeranz et al. minimizing negative environmental and schedule, which is a collection of questions social impacts of visitation in the Juneau and topics in the form of a guide that the area. Similarly, the WBMP (2011) process is researcher wants to cover (Bernard, 2006). “intended to minimize the impacts of Three slightly different schedules were tourism and vessel operations ...in a created for tour operators and cruise line manner that addresses both concerns for representatives, agency personnel, and natural resources and operators’ concerns local residents because a few questions for safety and passenger service”. Major cat- were specific to the type of stakeholder inter- egories of guidelines in the WBMP include viewed (e.g. how long they operated tours preserving quiet (e.g. limit announcements (operators and cruise lines only) and how to cruise passengers to five minutes), main- long they worked at the agency (agencies taining clean air (e.g. improve emissions only)). Questions addressing perceptions of monitoring), protecting wildlife (e.g. comply wilderness and the WBMP, however, were with the Marine Mammal Protection Act), identical across these schedules (e.g. “what preserving solitude (e.g. vessels with 250 does wilderness mean to you” and “in what passengers or more should try not to use ways has implementation of WBMP posi- Endicott Arm), communication (e.g. use tively or negatively affected the environment WBMP blog to report ice conditions), and of the Tracy Arm area, policies and regu- keeping the WBMP process active (e.g. use lations, the local economy, and people in WBMP in employee training). Participants communities such as the Juneau area, if at meet annually in Seattle, Washington to all”). Semi-structured interviewing allowed discuss issues from the previous season the researcher to follow leads, ask additional and update current practices. In addition, probing questions, and let the interview take operators are encouraged to provide feed- its course. The schedule is only intended as a back to wilderness rangers who frequent guide, not an explicit set of questions that the area. The WBMP process is still in its each respondent must answer (Bernard, infancy with new stakeholders recently 2006). Interviews ended when no new infor- becoming involved, such as cruise ship mation was forthcoming (i.e. saturation pilots and some environmental point). organizations. A total of 28 interviews were conducted in August and September 2010 (Table 1). This is a relatively large number of participants for a Data Collection qualitative study involving semi-structured A qualitative approach was used for addres- interviews, and none of the individuals sing this article’s research questions. Quali- declined after being asked to participate tative techniques are useful for exploring (Bernard, 2006; Patton, 2002). Interviews and describing elements of a problem in lasted between 20 and 90 minutes, averaging depth and detail, and examining situations approximately 50 minutes. Interviews were with characteristics that may not be easily conducted with direct stakeholders (i.e. represented in numerical format (Leedy & involved in guideline creation, management Ormrod, 2010; Patton, 2002). This research of the area, or directly impacted by the was conducted using qualitative semi-struc- WBMP) in the Juneau–Douglas area in tured interviewing or “conversations in respondent homes or offices, aboard which a researcher gently guides a conversa- vessels, at local coffee shops, or over the tional partner in an extended discussion” telephone. (Rubin & Rubin, 2005, p. 4). Semi-structured The sampling technique used for selecting interviewing often uses an interview participants was a combination of purposive Wilderness and Best Management Practices 43

Table 1. Interview List of Stakeholder Participants

Pseudonym Interview length Role Cruise representatives Chester 48 minutes 27 seconds Cruise industry representative Abe 1 hour 18 minutes 3 Cruise ship pilot seconds Herbert, Calvin, Sarah 32 minutes 45 seconds Captain, Crew, 40-passenger cruise (group) Ben 43 minutes 49 seconds Director, local branch midsize cruise company Smaller tour operators Ted 34 minutes 14 seconds Catamaran manager Warren 23 minutes 13 seconds Helicopter tour employee John 48 minutes 24 seconds Captain; 24-passenger vessel Elizabeth 47 minutes 40 seconds Owner, day boat tour Thomas 41 minutes 17 seconds 6-passenger sailboat owner and operator Hayes 43 minutes 12 seconds Kayak tour guide Louisa 31 minutes 36 seconds Owner, kayak tour guide company Andrew, Rachel 51 minutes 13 seconds 6-passenger yacht owner and operator (group) James 30 minutes 46 seconds 10-passenger yacht operator William 51 minutes 47 seconds 6-passenger yacht owner and operator Zachary 1 hour 22 minutes 22 6-passenger sailboat owner and operator seconds Franklin 21 minutes 17 seconds 6-passenger vessel owner and operator Wilson 34 minutes 11 seconds Naturalist and tour guide Agency representatives Grover 38 minutes 6 seconds Former U.S. Forest Service ranger George 53 minutes 6 seconds U.S. Forest Service wilderness manager Dolley 18 minutes 32 seconds U.S. Forest Service intern Anna 1 hour 9 minutes U.S. Forest Service employee and whale tour naturalist Martin 1 hour 3 minutes 8 seconds U.S. Forest Service wilderness ranger Local residents Martha 29 minutes 4 seconds Juneau Bed & Breakfast proprietor Abigail 1 hour 13 minutes 23 Juneau resident, former tour contractor seconds Grant 51 minutes 2 seconds Grassroots attorney for environmental organization Hannah 52 minutes 1 seconds Juneau Visitors Bureau employee Julia 50 minutes 15 seconds Alaska native elder Millard 48 minutes 3 seconds Manager, local native tourism corporation and snowball (i.e. respondent-driven) in the WBMP process and according to approaches. Purposive sampling is a non- other attributes such as operator type (e.g. probability judgment sample that is useful flightseeing, sport fishing, sightseeing, for identifying respondents who have adventure tours, and marine charters) and specific attributes that the researcher is whether the service is locally owned and interested in studying (Bernard, 2006). In operated. U.S. Forest Service personnel this study, commercial operators were were also selected purposively and con- selected based on their direct involvement sisted of informants who work or previously 44 Pomeranz et al. worked in the area as resource managers or inductive coding, which allows themes to wilderness rangers and have been involved arise from the data through iterative close in the WBMP process. Interviews with local readings of transcriptions (Bernard, 2006). residents and users of this wilderness area Coding refers to applying a label to a were useful for gathering information on resi- segment of text relating to an identified dent perspectives of the area and its theme or category. Typically, analysis of management. qualitative data involves two stages – Most respondents were identified from coding transcripts to identify themes or ana- internet searches, past research, and a lytic concepts, followed by comparing and WBMP mailing list containing people who linking emergent themes or concepts were still available or living in the area across respondents (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). (Janson, 2008; Zegre et al., 2012). The This second step also involves comparison WBMP mailing list was provided by the U.S. with other concepts and issues identified in Forest Service and was up to date as of the literature. January 2010. Discussions in June 2010 with An open coding process was used where the U.S. Forest Service ranger responsible thematic coding occurred as interviews for convening meetings helped to identify were systematically transcribed. This respondents who were still involved in the resulted in numerous broad themes or process, and all potential respondents were codes, not all of which were relevant to this contacted for interviews. article’s research questions. Subsequently, Snowball or respondent-driven sampling through an axial coding process, these was also used for locating other stakeholders codes were refined, distilled, and organized. not initially contacted. In snowball sampling, Axial coding involves the disaggregation of the researcher asks respondents to rec- broad themes or codes, and relating them ommend anyone who the researcher should to each other (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). As interview (Bernard, 2006). This technique part of this axial coding process, both free yielded eight interviews bringing the total (i.e. independent) and hierarchical (i.e. number of interviews to 28 for as close to nested) codes were revealed. A free or inde- complete coverage of those directly involved pendent code represents a theme that may in the WBMP as possible. In addition, the not contain any subthemes or related final few interviews revealed little new infor- codes, whereas a hierarchical or nested mation, indicating that a saturation point code can represent a subtheme or code of a was starting to be achieved (Bernard, 2006). related broader theme or code. These main Interviews were digitally audio recorded themes and codes are listed as subsections and transcribed verbatim. To preserve anon- in the following results section and are illus- ymity, all respondents were given pseudo- trated by select verbatim quotes from nyms (e.g. John and Hannah). respondents.

Data Analysis RESULTS According to Rubin and Rubin (2005), the goal of qualitative data analysis is “to dis- Definitions of Wilderness cover variation, portray shades of meaning, Respondents’ definitions of wilderness and examine complexity ...by portraying it usually involved some degree of purism, as in the words of the interviewees” (p. 202). interviewees frequently employed common Through an immersive analysis of interview words associated with wilderness such as content, the data were examined using “pristine” and “solitude”, and citing Wilderness and Best Management Practices 45 attributes such as “untrammeled” wildlife, it was more than acceptable to have large quietude, and landscapes as requisite for a numbers of people in a wilderness area at wilderness experience. Distances from once because the most important character- human construction and crowds were also istic of wilderness is that people experience commonly identified as a required character- these areas. He stated: istic of wilderness. For example, Louisa,a What is the purpose of wilderness areas, but kayak tour operator, defined wilderness as to make it available so people can see it, and “pristine and untouched, and just an area where you get the biggest bang for your buck that we could get away from crowds of [is] 3,000 people on a cruise ship that is run people that’s off the beaten path and wild by professionals ...why would you not with animals”. want vessels to go and see the wilderness? Many interviewees stated language from the 1964 Wilderness Act as part of their defi- This opinion is contrary to many who nitions. In fact, many agency personnel and described solitude and distance from people as requisites for wilderness. Attitudes some small operators directly (and possibly unconsciously) cited this Act as representa- such as Chester’s and Abe’s, therefore, dif- tive of their personal definition of wilder- fered from the majority of respondents. ness. Wilderness is cited in this Act as a place “where man himself is a visitor who The Study Area as Wilderness does not remain”. George, a U.S. Forest Although most respondents identified Tracy Service manager, echoed this sentiment in Arm or Endicott Arm as places where they his definition of wilderness: can have wilderness experiences, many noted that opportunities to experience wild- It [wilderness] is not just a place we go for erness in the area are currently threatened. our own selfish interest, but it is a place we As Hayes, a kayak tour operator, stated: should go and think ...I am a visitor here and how should I be conducting myself in a “compared to some of the other wilderness way that really allows the animals and the areas we go to, Endicott [Arm] is becoming soils and the waters and the air to function less of an opportunity for us to have those as if I were not here. wilderness solitude moments”. For many respondents not affiliated with cruise lines, One of the most succinct definitions of wild- large cruise vessels and increasing vessel erness was provided by James, a 10-passen- traffic in general were often identified as ger yacht captain, who directly stated that the major threats to wilderness character- it is “the congressional statute”. istics of this area. Although the increase in Some larger operators and cruise industry small vessel traffic to the region was noted, affiliates, however, were less purist or rigid in many stakeholders cited cruise ships as the their definitions. For example, Chester,a most significant threat to wilderness oppor- cruise industry representative, stated that tunities. According to Franklin, a six-passen- wilderness is “something that is quiet and ger vessel operator: somewhat solitude, somewhat nature- bound, somewhat calming, and soothing”. It [Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness] is Although citing some of the same attributes mostly a wilderness experience. But, it is seriously interrupted when a cruise ship as other respondents (e.g. solitude), he indi- intrudes ...there is a huge difference cated that wilderness only needed to “some- between a cruise ship that is hundreds of what” embody these characteristics. Cruise feet long and a couple hundred feet high, ship pilot Abe expressed an opinion contrary and is at times polluting the air in addition to most respondents, explaining that he felt to the water, to a small yacht or small 46 Pomeranz et al.

cruising boat; the effect is totally different ... cruise ship pilot Abe explained that he did my preference would be that cruise ships not think that use of these fjords would never enter Endicott Arm. increase substantially, and vessel usage is A minority of respondents who had the no longer a threat to the region: most purist definitions of wilderness The system is kind of self-limiting just by explained that the wilderness characteristics where you can put a ship every day ...if of the Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness there is a graph that shows increase usage, area are already completely lost. John, a 24- I do not see that thing continuing; there are passenger vessel operator, stated: only so many ships that you can get into this pattern. I think it is unrealistic and really unfair to ask somebody who uses the main arms of Endi- Similarly, day boat operator Elizabeth stated, cott and Tracy in accessing the wilderness “I do not think the fjord is going to be over- area whether or not they are having a valid crowded.” Ben, a director of regional oper- or good wilderness experience. That is not ations for a midsize cruise company, felt a wilderness experience. It is not until you that the WBMP has actually improved the get off the boat, and hike far up one of the wilderness experience in Tracy Arm: side fjords ...then you can talk about the wilderness experience. I think it [the environment of the area] is better, I do not think there is anybody, well, It is clear that perceptions of crowding and I do not believe there should be anybody vessel traffic in both Endicott Arm and around that table who would say that it is Tracy Arm have seriously debased the wild- worse ...I guess I do not have any major con- erness experience for John. Local Juneau cerns because I think that we can continue to resident Abigail explained further that a wild- work progressively with the small operators erness area such as Tracy Arm lures visitors and industry and U.S. Forest Service if they precisely because it is accessible to cruise stay involved, which I hope they will, and ships. Perceived crowding and use of this come up with a general resolution. So from congressionally designated wilderness by a wilderness environment and perspective, cruise ships has, for Abigail, destroyed the I think it improves that experience. wilderness character to the point that non- designated settings may actually provide a more “pure” wilderness experience: Perceptions of the WBMP Tracy Arm Wilderness ...by the very nature A majority of respondents were generally of the designation they [visitors] want to supportive of the WBMP as an approach for go, but the way in which they go destroys preserving or improving characteristics of the value of the “W” ...sometimes you can this area, particularly in contrast to potential get better wilderness by being away from regulations. This perception was prevalent the capital “W;” in a sense ...the people from small six-passenger vessel operators who want a really real nature experience are not on the cruise ships. to large cruise ship operators. Abe, a cruise ship pilot, explained that government regu- For Abigail, a “really real” wilderness lations in other areas are often too restrictive experience is no longer achievable in this compared to alternatives such as the WBMP: area. “we do not want a bunch of hokey rules that A small number of respondents, however, jeopardize us ...we do not want to be felt that wilderness and related experiences restricted by saying ‘oh you can’t go here’ are not necessarily threatened by use in ...there really needs to be an alternative Tracy or Endicott Arms. For example, like WBMP”. Zachary, a six-passenger Wilderness and Best Management Practices 47 sailboat charter operator, echoed these sen- by this agency in the area, he would timents by explaining that operators who are only advocate for voluntary guidelines, familiar with the resource and social con- describing the original conception of the ditions of this area may be better situated WBMP: to formulate codes of conduct: “government I did not want to be put into a position enfor- does not always have the right answer, but cing something in an area where I really had the guys doing this every day, we can prob- no jurisdiction or authority, or very ques- ably nail the right answer because the gov- tionable jurisdiction or authority. There are ernment will more often than not miss the some things that we could do ...but some mark”. He also explained that “regulation of the other things, they are voluntary would have to be written for probably the guidelines [and] I would not have advocated worst case scenario”, fearing that potentially for making them mandatory, regulation, or larger or more irresponsible vessel operator law. behavior will force regulations that may limit In contrast, local resident and attorney Grant operators such as himself, who may be felt that if voluntary guidelines are unable to behaving responsibly. protect wilderness, which legally the U.S. The voluntary WBMP provides an alterna- Forest Service is mandated to protect, then tive to government regulation and an oppor- this agency should advocate for regulation: tunity for stakeholders to actively “they [U.S. Forest Service] can’t try to influ- participate in a decision-making process, as ence legislation, but policy, they can do opposed to passively receiving mandated that and they can identify the issue and rules, as explained by cruise industry repre- they can create forums for addressing it”. sentative Chester: He also explained: In situations like this, voluntary is probably When congress defined wilderness, they better than regulation because ...for all made it clear what it was supposed to those who participate ...there is some own- include and not include. And, it was not ership. It is not just somebody saying “you to include mechanized transportation. Now have to do this” ...at the end of the day we have an unique situation here that to there is some pride taken in the fact that protect some of these uplands it makes we have worked together to come up with sense to allow mechanized use of the these things and you are doing your best to water, boats ...that is considered okay as honor them ...that is why it is probably long as the level of use is compatible with better than regulation. maintaining the area’s value. And it is not Hannah of the local convention and visitor at all clear that they [WBMP] are achieving bureau expressed a similar opinion by that. describing pride that comes from a voluntary He also faulted this agency for not fighting for as opposed to mandated endeavor: jurisdiction at the outset of the creation of this wilderness area: I think operators take pride in that program and it is self-regulated. So, they are imposing Given the lack of clarity in terms of jurisdic- good practices of their own, which I think is tion, the U.S. Forest Service gave it up. They better when you own it as opposed to some- gave it up. I think they had a reasonable body saying this is how you will operate. claim that the tidelands and submerged Now it becomes something that you want lands, particularly in wilderness waters, to be a part of. were not going to be given up. Former U.S. Forest Service ranger Grover Six-passenger vessel operator Thomas explained that given the lack of jurisdiction explained that non-compliant vessels in the 48 Pomeranz et al. voluntary WBMP-managed environment (as Limitations of the WBMP opposed to a regulatory environment) Pervasive throughout interviewee responses may take advantage of more responsible was recognition that the WBMP alone would vessels: not be sufficient to address future effects and adequately ensure the wilderness char- We definitely feel that given the effort and expense that we go through, it definitely acter of this area. Some of the most fervent would be unfair for somebody else ...to be support for regulations only came from taking advantage of it and not going respondents with the highest degree of wild- through the same expenses and so on ...it erness purism. As James, a small yacht would be unfair for us to have to carry the charter operator stated: “some things are burden on that. too precious, if ultimately ...we as small boat operators or large boat operators, if we Local resident Abigail expressed a desire for both regulation and voluntary codes of had adverse impacts on the area overall, I conduct: “I am skeptical of WBMP. I think would rather see everybody get kicked out”. that if people operate with integrity that He impassionedly asked, “what is going to they can be valuable, but I think that regu- be there for your kids? If we allow some of lation is important as well.” Wilderness these places to literally go without regulation, what is going to be there for you? For your ranger Martin had a similar opinion and explained that “some things are better children?” His support for a Tracy Arm- handled through regulations and other Fords Terror Wilderness area that is devoid of commercial operators, however, was not things could be better handled or at least adequately handled through volunteer a common sentiment. Grant, an attorney for efforts”. a local non-profit environmental organization, gave one explanation for why some sta- For vessels and companies that may have been accused of irresponsible behavior in keholders such as James feel that the WBMP the past or suffer from a negative public are already insufficient: “they are volunteer based ...let’s be goody-good neighbors; image, involvement in the WBMP was frequently cited as an opportunity to amelio- does it work? Maybe to some degree it has rate a damaged image. As kayak tour improved things. Has it resolved the issues? No ...because you have some actors who operator Hayes noted: will always put their dollar ahead of every- I think it is [WBMP participation] a good first body else”. step and I think from the publicity side of Instead of the more direct support for cruise ships that are coming in and out of regulations or skepticism toward the WBMP there I think that is a good angle if they are as voiced by James and Grant, support for getting really bad publicity ...they are heightened regulatory control was more fre- going to change their practices to benefit quently expressed on the condition that their public image. use of the area continues to increase sub- Former U.S. Forest Service ranger Grover stantially. This was not the preferred stated that the WBMP should be enticing outcome for most respondents, but was for businesses due to advertising benefits: seen as a potentially unavoidable result due “part of the reward for these companies to perceived limitations of the WBMP, such involved is that we publish in the paper as its inability to address future growth of that these companies subscribe to the vessel traffic in the area. As six-passenger WBMP, and they are free to use that fact in vessel operator William stated, “if there is a their advertising”. substantial continued growth in usage I Wilderness and Best Management Practices 49 think it inevitably will become a permit area. I wouldn’t say not allowed, I would like to see If the growth stabilizes at what it is today, them negotiate to where they do not go in. then I think a voluntary agreement just Through the best management practices ... might work”. I think something like I guess where every- Many respondents were concerned that body decides well we are going to do this and okay I will give you this, I can do that, future use might impede the wilderness char- would be a much better way to solve it. acter of this area since, for many, wilderness experiences in the area are already affected At this point, Andrew seemed to believe that by increasing vessel traffic. Six-passenger cruise ships would willingly and voluntarily sailboat captain Thomas illustrated the ban themselves from the area. When asked need for some regulatory intervention if his if he was optimistic that this would be a suc- perception of wilderness is to be protected: cessful tactic and the WBMP would work to “if we start seeing violations or we start achieve his goals, he replied: “they might, losing some of the pristine character of the yeah, but not really”. Andrew seemed to area, then I would fully support active law hold contradictory views where he did not enforcement”. Franklin, a small boat oper- support regulations, but without regulations ator, echoed this statement by noting that his preferred scenario most likely could not despite his preference for a non-regulatory exist. Among operators, these contradictions environment: between regulations versus voluntary codes of conduct seemed to reflect a tension I think it is going to get worse. And it [regu- between defending personal freedom and lations] is not something that I would prefer, but it is a special place, and it is protecting wilderness characteristics and going to deteriorate seriously without values. someone having more control than they Among agency personnel, however, a have now. different type of tension was evident between protecting wilderness character- Frequently, however, respondents’ recog- istics through greater agency power versus nition of potential limitations of the WBMP protecting the community building goals in protecting the very wilderness definitions and outcomes of collaboration associated and qualities they valued was expressed as with the WBMP. Wilderness ranger Martin tensions and contradictions throughout the explained why he is reluctant to prefer regu- interview process. One example of these con- latory measures over the voluntary WBMP or tradictions in opinions about the WBMP was vice versa: evidenced in an interview with small yacht charter operator Andrew. When initially Why am I not just saying, yes, of course I asked what he would like to see in Tracy- would want regulations? I suppose, certainly, Arm Fords Terror Wilderness, he stated: “I that would be best, but this sure has been would like to see cruise ships not allowed fun ...one of the reasons I say that is in there [Tracy Arm]. Anything over some because we have built such a strong sense footage, maybe 200 feet, not allowed in of community ...I would be surprised if you did not come across the sentiment from the there. That would be nice.” This seemed to smaller and midsize operators that they feel imply the use of formal restrictions or regu- part of and they feel connected to the stew- lations, as indicated by the phrase “not ardship of the place. allowed”. A few minutes later, however, he was asked a follow-up question about how He implied that as agency personnel, it might cruise ships could be prohibited from the be expected that he should support regu- area without regulation. He responded: lations that would ameliorate the 50 Pomeranz et al. jurisdictional incapacity of the U.S. Forest small commercial operators. Given that wild- Service, but regulatory action may undo the erness managers are trained in the use of fruits of collaboration. He continued, “I do tools derived from this act (e.g. Wilderness not have a clear answer ...to be honest Attribute Rating System), this finding is not with you, but it seems like regulation would unexpected. Managers have also been achieve our goals ...my only hesitation is found to differ from other stakeholders in that making regulations could alienate various ways, including their perceptions of some of the allies that we have had.” the quality of wilderness resources (Shin & Among interviewees of this agency, their Jaakson, 1997). definitions and values of wilderness were Larger tour operators and cruise industry reflective of the Wilderness Act, but empow- personnel, however, tended to be less purist ering themselves to fulfill the mandate of this than agency personnel and small operators, Act through regulation is not necessarily which may be a reflection of the business their desired outcome. Even agency models of these large operations whose members such as George, who would scale may be seen as out of place in wilder- impose regulations if he could, recognized ness where solitude often implies distance drawbacks to mandatory action: from large groups. There may be a tension between the largely profit-driven goals of If I had a wand I would wave it [and give the these operators that “encourages a catering U.S. Forest Service jurisdictional control] certainly, because that would give me tools to customer comforts” versus what managers in my toolbox that do not exist now. There deem to be permissible in a “pure” wilderness are ramifications to that though. If we could setting (Hendee & Dawson, 2002,p.358). make rules, we would be less collaborative This article also examined whether the because we would have the authority to Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness was a make those rule changes. place where respondents felt that they could achieve a wilderness experience. Similar to findings of Shafer and Hammitt (1995) whose purist respondents were con- DISCUSSION cerned about “human impacts”, “natural pro- This article examined definitions and values cesses”, “solitude”, and “management of wilderness held by commercial tour oper- confinement” of wilderness areas, respon- ators, local residents, and agency personnel, dents here were also concerned about the and the extent that these may have been wilderness characteristics of the area reflected in their perceptions of the WBMP (p. 26). Except for cruise industry represen- in the Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness tatives, many other stakeholders inter- area in Alaska. Most respondents’ definitions viewed felt that the wilderness character of of wilderness contained some aspect of the fjords was threatened by large vessel purism, a concept proposing that purist indi- use. For the minority of interviewees with viduals should value wilderness experiences the most purist views, considering this desig- and managerial decisions aligned most nated wilderness area as “wilderness” was closely with tenets of the 1964 Wilderness viewed as nearly akin to an oxymoron. Act. Language such as “solitude” and These findings are comparable to Hall et al. descriptions of land without crowds and (2010) who found that remoteness and soli- motorized equipment frequently arose, tude were the most desired characteristics closely mirroring this Act. In fact, the Wilder- of wilderness experiences by purist users, ness Act itself was at times quoted verbatim, but also those aspects that were the least fre- particularly by wilderness managers and quently attained. Wilderness and Best Management Practices 51

Overall, most interviewed stakeholders significantly deteriorates in the future, they were generally supportive of the voluntary would support regulations such as prohibi- and collaborative WBMP as opposed to tion even though this is not their desired potential mandatory regulations. Most outcome. These individuals hold a sincere respondents, especially larger operators respect and passion for the area, and were and cruise ship personnel, appreciated the willing to compromise some of their own freedom that the WBMP allow and the owner- freedoms in the event that impacts become ship they maintain over the process because uncontrollable through voluntary codes of they are able to negotiate rules of their be- conduct. These attitudes toward regulations havior in a way that may not jeopardize reflect the rationalization for regulation pro- their businesses. Small operators were also posed by Nash (2001): supportive of the WBMP and expressed nega- Wilderness recreation is ...a game that tive opinions about any possible capability cannot be played at any one time and place of the government to designate appropriate by more than a few people. Solitude is not regulations. Some of these views may be easily shared. Respect for the quality of the derived from a fear of being “locked out” of wilderness experience argues for acceptance places such as nearby Glacier Bay National of regulation ...inconvenience and frustra- Park where operators are rarely able to tion are inevitable. But the rules at least obtain entry permits into the park. One of ensure that when one’s turn arrives wilder- their only alternatives for viewing tidewater ness enthusiasts will find what they seek. glaciers is in the Tracy Arm-Fords Terror (p. 341) Wilderness. The convergence of both large Findings presented here are also consist- and small operators in support for the ent with those of Hall et al. (2010) who WBMP should lend some optimism to U.S. found that wilderness users with percep- Forest Service facilitators that continuing tions most closely associated with the Wild- with this voluntary model may be an appro- erness Act tended to be more in favor of priate method for management in a location regulations such as use limits. Support for where they do not have direct regulatory regulations in Hall et al. (2010), however, power. There was some disagreement was relatively weak, suggesting “when among operators regarding whether or not forced to choose, wilderness visitors includ- the WBMP conferred more or less responsi- ing the most purist segment ...prioritize[d] bility on operators engaging in depreciative freedom over control and solitude” (p. 121). behaviors, but there was general agreement Findings in the present study are similar that this process provided good publicity and suggest that most stakeholders would for participants. not prefer regulations. Although many oper- Despite this support for the WBMP, there ators recognized threats to the wilderness was some recognition that these practices character of Tracy Arm-Fords Terror may be insufficient in curtailing major Wilderness, there was tension between per- issues and future effects to the wild commu- sonal ideologies that reject government nity of this area. Some of the most purist interference and recognition that the wilder- respondents even noted a self-sacrificing ness definition they maintain may not be able willingness to be prohibited from this wilder- to be upheld without government ness area to preserve the ecological charac- interference. teristics of this area. More frequently, A reverse type of cognitive dissonance however, support for regulations was con- and discomfort arose in interviews with man- ditional; purist respondents stated that if agers who recognized that as individuals the “pristine” character of this area tasked with managing wilderness, 52 Pomeranz et al. jurisdictional and regulatory power might such as the WBMP to foster communication theoretically make their jobs easier. In a that recognizes shared goals for the resource regulatory environment, however, these indi- beyond divergent values (Lauber et al., viduals would lose the fruits of collaboration 2011). and voluntary management, such as Given that most respondents were sup- increased communication and understand- portive of the WBMP, the role of the U.S. ing among groups. These findings point to Forest Service as facilitator should be contradictory recommendations for man- upheld. Monitoring of social and environ- agers who wish to maintain wilderness con- mental conditions, however, must occur to ditions and the wild community, but test the efficacy of the WBMP since there is recognize that stakeholders do not desire some recognition among respondents that regulation. However, given that regulation it may not be able to curtail future effects is not an option for U.S. Forest Service man- and the program is still in its infancy. Moni- agers who do not have jurisdiction over the toring and evaluation are important parts of waterways of the fjords, it is advisable that adaptable collaborative processes, and they continue investing in the voluntary allow those involved to amend their prac- WBMP to address wilderness management tices in response to changing conditions concerns. The voluntary WBMP that allow (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). Monitoring is for stakeholder input in designing behavioral also a component of collaboration that is fre- guidelines perhaps best satisfy the contra- quently ignored, so it is important that the dictory perceptions of stakeholders who WBMP conveners attend to this recommen- desire wilderness experiences, but reject dation because it will enhance their under- government regulation. standing of guidelines that require attention Understanding stakeholder perceptions (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). associated with wilderness is a critical Given that the methods in this research aspect of management (Dawson & Hendee, are qualitative and based on interviews 2008). It should be encouraging to agency with a sample chosen in a purposive (i.e. managers that many respondents demon- non-probability) manner, results may not strated some aspects of wilderness purism be statistically representative of a particular that closely mirrored aspects of the Wilder- population. These findings, however, may be ness Act. A recognition that smaller oper- analytically generalizable to other areas that ators tended toward more purist definitions are witnessing similar recreation conditions, of wilderness than did larger operators and particularly in areas where the managing cruise industry representatives may agency has little direct managerial control provide insight into potential conflicts or (Yin, 2003). There may be commonalities in contradictions that could arise as the themes and findings that arose here with WBMP are monitored and revised. If pro- studies or situations in other locations that blems occur, it may be helpful to understand may suggest a general trend or theory with that they could derive from different values respect to voluntary codes of conduct and and expectations of experiences in this wild- collaboration. In addition, results of this erness area. Differing values among stake- qualitative approach may aid in future devel- holders present a possible barrier to opment of survey instruments for quantitat- successful collaboration because values are ive studies that could be used for informing deeply held and shaped over the course of and refining the WBMP agreement for the a lifetime (Manfredo et al., 2004; Wondolleck Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness area. & Yaffee, 2000). It is important for mediators Although purism studies have typically and managers of collaborative approaches focused on visitors to wilderness areas, the Wilderness and Best Management Practices 53 sample in this study did not include visitors Bryan, T. (2004). Tragedy averted: The promise of (e.g. recreationists), but rather commercial collaboration. Society and Natural Resources, operators, managers, and local residents. 17, 881–896. Future research, however, should include Carver, S., Evans, A., & Fritz, S. (2002). Wilderness these visitors and other potential stake- attribute mapping in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Wilderness, 8(1), holders not identified or examined here 24–29. (e.g. Juneau businesses that benefit from Catton, W. (1969, December 19). Motivations of cruise passengers), and compare them to wilderness users. Pulp and Paper Magazine other stakeholders to provide a complete of Canada, pp. 121–126. understanding of stakeholder perceptions Cronon, W. (1996). The trouble with wilderness; of this wilderness area and its WBMP or, getting back to the wrong nature. In W. process. Cronon (Ed.), Uncommon ground: Rethinking the human place in nature (pp. 69–90). New York, NY: Norton. Dawson, C., & Hendee, J. (2008). Wilderness management: Stewardship and protection of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS resources and values (4th ed.). Golden, CO: Dr John Bliss, Dr Glen Murphy, the anon- Fulcrum. ymous reviewers, and the editors are Dugan, D., Fay, G., & Colt, S. (2007). Nature-based tourism in southeast Alaska: Results from 2005 thanked for comments on earlier versions. and 2006 field study. Anchorage: Institute of The authors also thank the interview partici- Social and Economic Research, University of pants for their cooperation and support. The Alaska Anchorage and Eco-Systems. lead author was at Oregon State University Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating. San Francisco, CA: when this research was conducted. Jossey-Bass. Hall, T., Seekamp, E., & Cole, D. (2010). Do recreation motivations and wilderness involvement relate to support for wilderness manage- FUNDING ment? A segmentation analysis. Leisure The authors acknowledge funding from the USDA Sciences, 32, 109–124. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Hannigan, J. (1995). Environmental sociology: A and other support from Oregon State University. social constructionist perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Hendee, J., & Dawson, C. (2002). Wilderness management: Stewardship and protection of REFERENCES resources and values (3rd ed.). Golden, CO: Allen, D. (1979). Wolves of Minong: Isle Royale’s Fulcrum. wild community. Ann Arbor: University of Higham, J., Kearsley, G., & Kliskey, A. (2000). Michigan Press. Wilderness perception scaling in New Bentrupperbaümer, J., Day, T., & Reser, J. (2006). Zealand: An analysis of wilderness percep- Uses, meanings, and understandings of tions held by users, nonusers, and inter- values in the environmental and protected national visitors. In Proceedings from the area arena: A consideration of “world heri- Wilderness science in a time of change confer- tage” values. Society and Natural Resources, ence (RMRS-P-15-vol 2). Ogden, UT: USDA 19, 723–741. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Bernard, H. (2006). Research methods in anthropol- Station. ogy. Lanham, MD: AltaMira. Homer, P., & Kahle, L. (1988). A structural Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration equation test of the value-attitude-behavior in local tourism policymaking. Society and hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Natural Resources, 26, 392–415. Psychology, 54, 638–646. 54 Pomeranz et al.

Janson, S. (2008). Applying the McDonaldization Nelson, M., & Callicott, J. (2008). The wilderness thesis and norm activation model to examine debate rages on: Continuing the great new wild- trends and effects of commercial outdoor erness debate. Athens: University of Georgia recreation and tourism in Juneau, Alaska Press. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Oregon State Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and University, Corvallis, OR. evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Lauber, T., & Decker, D. (2011). Developing adap- Sage. tability: The promise and pitfalls of collabora- Plummer, R. (2006). Sharing the management of a tive conservation. Human Dimensions of river corridor: A case study of the co-manage- Wildlife, 16, 219–221. ment process. Society and Natural Resources, Lauber, T., Stedman, R., Decker, D., Knuth, B., & 19, 709–721. Simon, C. (2011). Social network dynamics in Pomeranz, E., Needham, M., & Kruger, L. (2013a). collaborative conservation. Human Dimen- Stakeholder perceptions of collaboration for sions of Wildlife, 16, 259–272. managing nature-based recreation in a Leedy, J., & Ormrod, P. (2010). Practical research: coastal protected area in Alaska. Journal of Planning and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Park and Recreation Administration, 31(3), Prentice Hall. 23–44. Leopold, A. (1941, July). Wilderness as a land lab- Pomeranz, E., Needham, M., & Kruger, L. (2013b). oratory. The Living Wilderness,3. Stakeholder perceptions of indicators of Loomis, J., & Richardson, R. (2001). Economic tourism use and codes of conduct in a values of the U.S. wilderness system: coastal protected area in Alaska. Tourism in Research evidence to date and questions for Marine Environments, 9, 95–115. the future. International Journal of Wilderness, Rolston, H., III. (1985). Valuing wildlands. Environ- 7(1), 31–34. mental Ethics, 7, 23–48. MacKaye, B. (1946). A wilderness philosophy. The Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interview- Living Wilderness, 11,1–4. ing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, Manfredo, M., Teel, T., & Bright, A. (2004). Appli- CA: Sage. cations of the concepts of values and atti- Sandstro¨m, C. (2009). Institutional dimensions of tudes in human dimensions of natural co-management: Participation, power, and resource research. In M. Manfredo, J. Vaske, process. Society and Natural Resources, 22, B. Bruyere, D. Field, & P. Brown (Eds.), 230–244. Society and natural resources: A summary of Selin, S., & Chavez, D. (1995). Developing a colla- knowledge (pp. 271–282). Jefferson, MO: borative model for environmental planning Modern Litho. and management. Environmental Manage- Manning, R. (2011). Studies in outdoor recreation: ment, 19, 189–195. Search and research for satisfaction. Corvallis: Selin, S., Schuett, M., & Carr, D. (2000). Modeling Oregon State University Press. stakeholder perceptions of collaborative Marshall, R. (1930). The problem of the wilder- initiative effectiveness. Society and Natural ness. The Scientiﬁc Monthly, 30, 141–148. Resources, 13, 735–745. Nash, R. (2001). Wilderness and the American mind. Shafer, C., & Hammitt, W. (1995). Purism revisited: New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Specifying recreational conditions of concern Neary, J., & Grifﬁn, P. (2008). Tracy arm-fords terror according to resource intent. Leisure wilderness best management practices. Retrieved Sciences, 17, 15–30. from http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/ro/sd_notes/ Sherry, E. (1999). Protected areas and aboriginal spring_08/tracy-arm/tracy_arm.shtml interests: At home in the Canadian Arctic Needham, M., & Rollins, R. (2009). Social science, wilderness. International Journal of Wilder- conservation, and protected areas theory. In ness, 5(2), 17–20. P. Dearden & R. Rollins (Eds.), Parks and pro- Shin, W., & Jaakson, R. (1997). Wilderness quality tected areas in Canada: Planning and manage- and visitors’ wilderness attitudes: Manage- ment (3rd ed., pp. 135–168). Don Mills: ment implications. Environmental Manage- Oxford University Press. ment, 21, 225–232. Wilderness and Best Management Practices 55

Shultis, J. (1999). The duality of wilderness: Tucker, W. (1982). Progress and privilege. Garden Comparing popular and political City, NY: Anchor Press. conceptions of wilderness in New U.S. Forest Service. (2003). Tongass National Forest Zealand. Society and Natural Resources, 12, monitoring and evaluation report. Retrieved 389–404. from http://steffenrasile.com/staging/ Spurr, S. (1963). The value of wilderness to tetratech/tongass/monitoring.php science. In F. Leydet & A. Adams (Eds.), Walsh, R., Loomis, J., & Gillman, R. (1984). Valuing Tomorrow’s wilderness (pp. 59–75). option, existence and bequest demand for San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club. wilderness. Land Economics, 60, 14–29. Stankey, G. (1973). Visitor perception of wilderness Wilderness Act. (1964). Pub. L. No. 88–577, 78 Stat. recreation carrying capacity. Ogden, UT: U.S. 890. Forest Service Intermountain Research Wilderness Best Management Practices for Tracy Station. Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness. (2011). 2011 Stankey, G., & Schreyer, R. (1987). Attitudes toward Tourism Best Management Practices (pp. 17– wilderness and factors affecting visitor 20). Retrieved from www.tbmp.info behavior: A state-of-knowledge review. Ogden, Wondolleck, J., & Yaffee, S. (2000). Making collab- UT: U.S. Forest Service Intermountain oration work: Lessons from innovation in Research Station. natural resource management. Washington, Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative DC: Island Press. research: Techniques and procedures for Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. CA: Sage. Zegre, S., Needham, M., Kruger, L., & Rosenberger, Tourism Best Management Practices. (2009). R. (2012). McDonaldization and commercial Juneau, Alaska. Retrieved from: http://www. outdoor recreation and tourism in Alaska. tbmp.info Managing Leisure, 17, 333–348.