Visitor Capacity in the National Park System Dr

Social Science Research Review Volume 2, Number 1 Spring 2001 Visitor Capacity in the National Park System Dr. Glenn E. Haas Colorado State University

established a statutory requirement that NPS general management plans include carrying capacities for all Abstract areas of each park unit. National policy on recreational This paper reviews social science research carrying capacity has been further expanded within the on visitor capacity relevant to units of the Na- NPS Management Policies and Director’s Orders related tional Park System (NPS). Visitor capacity is de- to planning, baseline inventories, wilderness, transpor- fined as a prescribed number and type of people tation, grazing, and tourism. NPS planning processes that an area will accommodate given the desired continue to evolve, such as general management plan- natural/cultural resource conditions, visitor ex- ning, strategic planning, implementation planning, and periences, and management program. Some 40 the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) years of scientific investigation illustrate the com- framework. Some park managers have established ca- plexity of the interaction between human use and pacities for parts of their units and for some uses such park resources. This paper provides insights from as aircraft overflights, river boating, mountain climb- environmental psychology on person-environ- ing, caving, automobile parking, wildlife viewing, in- ment relationships, nine capacity-related research terpretive programs, facility developments, and findings, a matrix of NPS studies, and recom- backcountry camping. Biological and social science ef- mendations for a program of research. forts continue to strengthen the understanding of the interactions between human use and park resources. Establishing recreational carrying capacities in park units is a work in progress and, as such, it is occasion- Introduction and Scope ally useful to assess what has been learned and where we should go. The purpose of this paper is to synthe- Historically, the National Park Service strategy has size the social science literature on recreational carry- been to promote and accommodate recreational touring capacity in national parks. ism in order to assure public and political support (Sellars 1997). This strategy has been remarkably suc- The first section of the paper discusses how capac- cessful in endearing the National Park Service in the ity decisions are made and where social science can be hearts and minds of the American public. Yet ironically, integrated in the different stages of a planning process. it is this success that is challenging the agency to estab- The following three sections provide insights from en- lish and implement recreational carrying capacities. vironmental psychology on person-environment relationships, nine capacity-related research findings, a ma- Legislative and national policy guidance on recre- trix of park studies, and recommendations for a program ational carrying capacity has been evolving in several of research. [Terms that may be unfamiliar to the reader ways. The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978

Visitor Capacity in National Park System 1 are highlighted in boldface and defined in a glossary at trackable, and defensible decisions. The processes are the end of the paper.] essentially the same, although they vary in terminology, sequence of steps, type and level of analysis, time Planning Context and effort, and decision-making criteria. All processes Recreational carrying capacity is defined as a pre- address some need or problem, build upon agency man- scribed number and type of people that an area will dates and mission, define a future desired condition for accommodate given the desired natural/cultural re- resources and opportunities, establish objectives and source conditions, visitor experiences, and management standards, inventory uses and resources, develop alter- program (Haas 1999a). A capacity serves as a trigger or native ways to achieve the desired future conditions signal that alerts management that other actions may and opportunities, assess the effectiveness and efficiency be necessary to sustain the area’s resources, visitor ex- of each alternative, implement the alternative which periences, and management effectiveness. Capacities maximizes public benefits, monitor and evaluate, and are unfortunately confused with visitor limits or clo- accommodate change and revisions. sures, and it is important to understand that a capacity Science is a required input to rational planning and does not itself prescribe any specific management re- contributes throughout the process. Figure 1 illustrates sponse. It is a useful management tool to assure the and serves three purposes. First, it provides a generic protection and enjoyment of park resources and planning process and the terminology that is often used values for present and future generations. in national park planning. A generic process was cho- Recreational capacity decisions are made within the sen to make the point that capacity decisions can be context of a rational planning process such as NPS gen- made within any rational planning process, and do not eral management planning, implementation planning, require a special or unique set of steps or framework. the VERP process, or other planning processes in ac- Second, it identifies where in the process a capacity cordance with National Environmental Policy Act com- decision(s) is made. Third, and most importantly for pliance. Section 8.2.1 of the NPS Management Policies this paper, it conveys that scientific information is vital states: to decision making and identifies key social variables that are linked to the different steps of the process. Fig- For all areas within a park, superintendents will identify visitor carrying capacities, make implementation com- ure 1 is not meant to be exhaustive of all of the inputs mitments, and identify ways in which to address and moni- to planning, but rather illustrative of key social vari- tor unacceptable impacts to resources and visitor experi- ables and linkages between science, planning, and ca- ences. Decisions about what kinds and levels of use are pacity decisions. acceptable and sustainable for given areas should be made through general management planning. If a general man- The Person-Environment agement plan is not current or complete, or if more detailed decision making is required, a carrying capacity pro- Relationship cess, such as the Visitor Experience and Resource Protec- Recreationists come to national parks seeking a plea- tion (VERP) framework, should be applied in a separate visitor management plan or amendment to an existing plan. surable recreation experience. Visitors experience the If the time frame for making decisions is insufficient to physical and social environment encountered and, con- allow application of a carrying capacity planning frame- versely, they affect the physical and social environment. work, then superintendents must make decisions based on While the context is different, the much broader and the best available scientific and other information. In ei- more mature discipline of environmental psychology ther case, such planning must be accompanied by appro- has focused on person-environment relationships. This priate environmental impact analysis, in accordance with Director’s Order #12 (NPS 2000). section presents some important insights from this theoretical perspective (Bell et al. 1996; Gifford 1997). Planning is a systematic, comprehensive, and inte- th grated decision-making activity. Every public agency Environmental psychology began in the early 20 has a variety of planning processes to make logical, century in response to industrialization, urbanization, and population growth. It has endeavored to describe

2 NPS Social Science Research Review Winter 2001 Figure 1. Key Social Science Inputs to Planning Process

>scoping public >public support issues and >visitor for changes management >local and >visitor satisfaction concerns national public understanding and Evaluation/ values Need for Plan appreciation Revision >type and quality >local and of park experience Monitor/ national trends Measure How Park Purpose/ >visitor perceptions of Outputs Why? Significance >regional recreation resource impacts and Well? demand/supply conflicts

>visitation Planning Process Desired Future patterns >park visitation Implement e.g., NEPA Process, General Management Conditions history and Desired • physical >educating Planning, Strategic Planning, VERP patterns Alternative • social visitors • managerial >current and >informing How? What? desired park publics experiences

Evaluate Inventory >mitigation • physical measures Management >existing and potential Alternatives • social visitor conflicts >cumulative Alternative Management • managerial effects Prescriptions >determining • zoning appropriate use >type and level • standards >consequences of public support • capacities and benefits of >determining quality alternatives >effects on standards for park public values resources and experiences

the interactions between humans and their environment vironment which has physical characteristics (e.g., or surroundings, particularly in the context of urban buildings, weather, open space, vegetation) and socio- built environments and issues such as noise, violence, cultural characteristics (e.g., people, behaviors, laws, pollution, natural disasters, landscape preference, per- norms, customs, history). Various combinations of these sonal space, and crowding. characteristics are the clues by which one interprets Environmental psychology views human function- and interacts with the surroundings. These person-en- ing as an on-going “collection of clues” gathered by vironment interactions are two-way whereby an indi- our senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. These vidual (or group) can affect the environment and other clues are interpreted with the information from past people and, conversely, the environment and other experiences. This functioning (i.e., thoughts, feelings, people can affect the individual (or group). and behaviors) is a continuance of interactions and ad- Another important feature of person-environment aptations shaped by one’s personal and environmental relationships is the constancy of change, adaptation, situation, and interpreted by linking it to past reference and drive for optimality. Wohlwill (1974) advanced the points. Adaptation Level (or Optimal Stimulation) Theory of An individual brings a host of personal characteris- person-environment relations, which is particularly rel- tics (e.g., personality, age, gender, ethnicity, goals, in- evant to the experiential nature of outdoor recreation. tellect, past experience, expectations, beliefs) to an en- This theory views humans as transacting through life

Visitor Capacity in National Park System 3 seeking a satisfying optimal range of stimulation/ lustrate that recreational carrying capacity is a prescribed arousal, outside of which there is dissatisfaction. The number and type of people that an area will accommo- stimulation/arousal is a response to a combination of date given the desired natural/cultural resource condi- clues that come from the surrounding physical, social, tions, visitor experiences, and management program. and managerial environments. When there is too little 1. Capacity defies scientific determinism. There or too much stimuli (e.g., noise, danger, annoyance, have been many barriers to establishing recreational car- crowding, solitude, anger, elation, boredom, disappoint- rying capacity over the years (Haas 1999b; Loomis ment, confusion, exertion, discomfort, pain), humans 1999b). Perhaps the most lingering and damaging bar- activate compensatory measures to reposition them- rier has been the hopeful anticipation that there is a selves back within an optimal range of stimulation/ scientific formula to calculate the “magic number” of arousal. Examples of compensatory measures include visitors, and with enough science the answer will be the behavioral responses of avoidance, disengagement, determined. A subtle, yet important, distinction is that attraction, and confrontation; the cognitive responses one does not determine capacity but rather decides upon of attribution, rationalization, and adaptation; the emo- it. Science is a vital part of decision making (Figure 1), tional responses of fear, anger, and happiness; and the but it is one input among many that a manager must physiological response of habituation. consider. Figure 2 illustrates other inputs to decision In summary, environmental psychology provides six making and the fundamental responsibility of sound important insights into how visitors may experience professional judgment. park settings: Capacity decisions can be found throughout our 1. visitors may experience a park using all five everyday lives in industrial and commercial develop- senses; ment, land-use zoning, affordable housing, health care, 2. a visitor’s experience is multi-dimensional and flood control, noise ordinances, K-12 classrooms, mili- results from a collection of clues gathered by their tary preparedness, water quality, work safety, and wel- senses during their visit; fare (Beatley 1994). Capacities are numerical standards that help to define and assure desired future conditions 3. a visitor’s experience is influenced by their per- throughout society. sonal characteristics; The recreation research community recognizes that 4. a visitor’s experience is influenced by the park’s recreational capacity decisions are land-use allocation physical, social, and managerial characteristics; decisions (Stankey and Manning 1986), and maintains 5. a visitor’s interpretation and assessment of their that social science will continue to make vital contri- experience is based on the total combination of butions to the understanding and implementation of the clues from their senses; and capacity decisions (Lime 1996). Such contributions are 6. visitors adapt with their environment towards an illustrated in the subsequent findings. optimal range of satisfying stimulation and 2. Public values are diverse and go beyond arousal. recreation. The vast majority of carrying capacity re- These insights provide a broad theoretical perspec- search related to national parks has focused on tive on person-environment relations. Recreation social recreationists and the value of parks for recreational science and carrying capacity research have focused on purposes. Yet, capacity planning must consider all the some of these insights. people that use and value an area. A park will have a variety of other users such as educational groups, sci- Recreation Research Findings entists, artists, concessionaires, local communities, park personnel, and distant people who have an affinity for This section synthesizes social science research on the park. carrying capacity from the outdoor recreation literature. Nine broad research findings are presented to help il- The National Parks Conservation Association has been helpful in identifying the multiple values for parks

4 NPS Social Science Research Review Winter 2001 Figure 2. Information Inputs to Sound Professional Judgement

Mission Goals and Desired Future Conditions Infrastructure resources, visitor experiences, type, design, amount, O&M management program standards Management Inputs Park Resources and Values budget, personnel, type, amount, condition, facilities, programs, uniqueness services, activities Other Regional Public Visitors and Visitation Lands recreationists, education uncertainty local, state, federal groups, concessionaires, scientists, communities, artists Sound risk Professional Public and Political Preference Scientific Research risk Judgment ecological, social, operations/management uncertainty Judicial Rulings

Tradition and History Organic Act, Park Legislation, and other Public Laws Planning Processes NEPA, GMP, Strategic Management Policies, American Public Values Plan, VERP Director’s Order, and local, regional, national Handbooks/Manuals

held by Americans (Haas and Boston 1998; Vaske et al. life, timber, law enforcement, maintenance, interpreta- 1996). Studies have shown that Americans highly value tion, fire, wilderness, recreation) is being guided by more park areas for their protection of wildlife habitat, air integrative, comprehensive, and NEPA-compliant plan- and water quality, natural sounds, culture and history, ning. As such, deciding upon recreation capacities in- historic buildings and sites, the option for research and dependent of other human uses of a park is not ad- scientific study, the provision of income for tourism in- equate. Furthermore, deciding upon desired future con- dustry, and the provision of recreation opportunities. ditions and quality standards based solely on input from Furthermore, Americans rated recreation opportunities on-site recreationists, and not inclusive of other users, as less important than they did the protection of water, is not adequate. air, wildlife, natural ecosystems, and the options for 3. Recreation experiences are multi-dimensional. our future generations. Haas et al. (1986) also found An early critical advance made by social scientists was this latter point to be the case among on-site wilder- in expanding the concept of outdoor recreation from ness backpackers. simply a specific recreation activity to include a The functional planning approach of formulating recreation setting and recreation experience (Burch plans for each resource and program (e.g., water, wild- 1969; Driver and Tocher 1970; Hendee 1974). This conceptual advancement redefined recreational activities

Visitor Capacity in National Park System 5 and settings as the inputs or “means to an end,” with is also a multi-sensory phenomenon, consistent with the outputs being a recreational experience or bundle the environmental psychology literature. How much of desired psychological outcomes (Driver and Brown each of the senses contributes to the recreation experi- 1978). The implication for carrying capacity is to pre- ence is not known, but it would seem reasonable to scribe a number and type of people not simply by a assume that the novelty and pleasantries of an outdoor recreational activity, but also by the recreational expe- recreational setting, particularly one in contrast to daily rience for which the area is being managed. living environments, would arouse multiple senses. Rec- Over the past 25 years, many researchers have con- reation social science needs to consider more than vi- tributed to developing a set of scales to define and sual clues in the person-environment relation. measure a recreation experience. These scales are simi- Thus, a recreation experience (either expected, de- lar to psychological testing instruments used to mea- sired, or realized) can be defined and measured through sure corporate leadership, law enforcement, risk aver- psychometric scaling techniques. Each psychological sion, personality traits, depression, and hundreds of outcome contributes in varying degrees to a recreation other characteristics. experience, may vary in importance across activities Driver et al. (1987) reported on the multi-dimen- and park settings, and the presence or absence of some sionality of the recreation experience. In their findings psychological outcomes may compensate for the pres- across 12 studies, the recreation experience was dis- ence or absence of others. This research also supports sected into specific psychological outcomes including that a visitor’s experience involves multiple senses, and enjoying nature, physical fitness, reducing tension, es- that a capacity decision needs to consider visual at- caping crowds, meeting new people, outdoor learning, tributes as well as auditory attributes (e.g., waterfalls, family kinship, physical rest, risk-taking, achievement, coyotes, wind, traffic, equipment, music) and olfactory sharing with others, and self-introspection. These psy- attributes (e.g., prairie sage, balsam fir, ocean breezes, chological outcomes vary in importance across recre- engine exhaust, sanitation facilities, adjacent land uses). ation activities and settings; some add to satisfaction A clear and comprehensive definition of the desired and some detract from satisfaction (e.g., risk-taking may recreation experience that a park, or zone within a park, add to or detract from satisfaction), but all contribute to is being managed for is a prerequisite to deciding upon defining a recreation experience. Additionally, none of a recreation capacity. the psychological outcomes have been found to be the 4. Recreationists can be grouped by experiences. sole determinant of a quality recreational experience; There is a long-standing expression that the average rather, it is the totality of the multiple dimensions which recreationist does not exist (Shafer 1969), and to man- define the nature and quality of the experience. The age an area for the average recreationist will satisfy no recreation experience scales continue to be refined sci- one. In response, a line of research emerged 20 years entifically and validated in numerous studies across a ago to identify groups or segments of recreationists simi- wide variety of activities and recreational settings in lar to the market segmentation research used in busi- America (Manfredo and Driver 1996). ness marketing and to psychological profiling used in This line of survey research found that recreationists the social wellness profession. By applying the psycho- value not only the visual beauty of parks, but also the logical outcome scales referred to in the previous sec- sounds and smells of nature. Gramann (1999) provides tion, activity participants can be segmented into sub- an excellent review validating the importance of natu- sets of recreation experience types or groupings. The ral soundscapes and suggests that the restorative prop- logic is that by understanding the customer better and erties on visitor experiences may be significant. Haas and the nature of the recreation experience appropriate for Boston (1998) found that 72% of citizens sampled thought the park, managers are able to do a better job in gen- experiencing natural peace and the sounds of nature were eral management planning, inventorying available rec- “very important” reasons for having national parks. reation experience opportunities, defining desired park conditions and standards, selecting management tools, These findings suggest that a recreation experience

6 NPS Social Science Research Review Winter 2001 deciding recreation capacities, monitoring, and pirical attention is that of crowding and social interac- adaptive managing. tion. The scientific community has identified different Dr. Irv Altman (1975), an environmental psycholo- types or groups of wilderness backpackers (Brown and gist and recognized leader in how people socially inter- Haas 1980; Haas et al. 1981; Manfredo et al. 1983), fish- act, supported the notion that the person-environment ers (Zwick et al. 1993), crosscountry skiers (Haas et al. relationship is a dynamic, on-going process by which a 1980), hunters (Brown et al. 1977; Floyd and Gramann person seeks an optimal range of social interaction. Any 1997), wildlife viewers (Manfredo et al. 1991), climb- deviation from this optimum is unsatisfactory. There ers (Ewert 1993), state park visitors (McCool and Reilly are times and places where one seeks out social inter- 1993), and river floaters (Williams et al. 1990). The action, and times and places where one restricts social important point for capacity decisions is that not all interaction. When too much social interaction is expe- backpackers want the same experience, not all hunters rienced, crowding is experienced. Conversely, when want the same experience, not all climbers want the there is too little social interaction, isolation is experi- same experience, and so forth. enced. People are active agents in regulating or opti- The experience types are differentiated by how much mizing the amount and nature of social interactions particular psychological outcomes add to or detract from through such compensatory strategies as repeat/return, the experience. For example, while enjoying nature may avoidance, shifting, rationalization, attribution, and be a commonly desired psychological outcome, other other behavioral and cognitive mechanisms. outcomes will tend to vary across types: physical fit- The 1960–70s witnessed an array of studies which ness, skill development, risk taking, learning about validated the social importance of outdoor recreation nature, teaching and sharing skills, escaping crowds, (Burdge and Field 1972; Cheek 1972; Clark et al. 1971; tranquility, independence, being with friends, meeting Field and Wagar 1973; ORRRC 1962). These studies new people, and observing others. Tarrant et al. (1999) found that social relationships were often an important found that recreation experience types may be further part of the outdoor recreation experience, both within understood by considering the type of trip taken (i.e., and between groups. It was suggested that it was so- guided vs. private trips) and characteristics of the par- cially acceptable to interact with strangers in a leisure ticipants (e.g., age, level of experience, level of special- setting and that this was a major benefit of outdoor ization, ethnicity). recreation (Field and Wagar 1973). Haas, in a study of For what type of recreation experiences is a park national park campground users, concluded that “this being managed? The responsibility of the NPS to pro- [campground] is an atmosphere in which social dis- vide quality recreation experiences has been a vague tinctions are stripped, where anonymity reigns and in- concept, but can be more clearly defined. It is impor- formality prevails, an atmosphere which would appeal tant to go beyond managing for the average recreationist to campers, whom [sic] have been described (LaPage and decide the appropriate and compatible 1967) as socially gregarious people” (1977, 46). park-dependent recreation experiences to provide. Be- Driver et al. (1987) found across 12 wilderness stud- cause different types of recreation experiences will of- ies that the “average” wilderness visitor reported that ten lead to different capacity decisions, the clarity af- meeting new people slightly detracted from the experi- forded by this line of research is valuable to making ence. Yet, testing the expression that the average visi- capacity decisions. tor does not exist, Brown and Haas (1980) identified 5. Social interaction is important for some five types of wilderness users visiting the Rawah Wil- experiences. Most social carrying capacity literature fo- derness in Colorado. They found that two types of wil- cuses on understanding the on-site recreation experi- derness users (36% of total) thought that meeting/ob- ence. Furthermore, the one dimension of the on-site serving others slightly added to the experience, another recreation experience that has received the greatest em- type (10% of total) thought it moderately detracted, and the remaining two types (54%) thought that it nei-

Visitor Capacity in National Park System 7 ther added to nor detracted from their experience. Haas experience. et al. (1980) found that one type of wilderness visitor Manning and Lime (1996) published a synthesis on (20% of total) felt meeting/observing others slightly crowding in the national parks. Paralleling the environ- added to the experience. Manfredo et al. (1983) found mental psychology model of person-environment rela- that being near considerate people and meeting/observ- tions, they reported on a variety of personal and situ- ing new people slightly added to the experiences for ational variables found to be linked to perceived crowd- two of the three types of Wyoming wilderness visitors ing, and to subsequent visitor changes or adaptations. (75% of the total). Personal characteristics related to perceived crowding To generalize that social interaction is a negative ex- included visitor motivation (synonymous to desired and perience in particular settings or for particular activ- expected psychological outcomes previously discussed), ity participants, or that each contact with another per- preference for experience type, expectations, past ex- son or group erodes the recreation experience, is ques- periences, and norms or personal beliefs about appro- tionable. Social interaction can be a valued part of an priateness. Situational variables linked to perceived outdoor recreation experience, even in wilderness set- crowding included actual number of encounters with tings and among recreational activities that are popu- others, perceived or reported number of others, mode larly considered solitude-dependent. Thus, making ca- of travel of groups encountered, size of groups encoun- pacity decisions based on recreational activities (e.g., tered, behavior of others, location of encounters, type nature study, backcountry hiking, mountain climbing, of other activities encountered, sense of alikeness with caving, boating, coastal wildlife viewing) without ex- others, sense of disruption, type of park setting, loca- amining the recreation experiences within those activi- tion within park setting, nature of built environment, ties is not adequate. and evidence of past users or artifacts. 6. Perceived crowding is a dominant focus. The They also supported that recreationists can compen- vast majority of social carrying capacity research has sate for crowded conditions by leaving the area (dis- focused on the concept of crowding. This line of re- placement/avoidance), altering or redefining their sense search has attempted to link perceived crowding to (a) of purpose for the area (product shift), rationalizing or what personal characteristics people bring to the recre- making attribution as to why the crowding situation is ation setting, (b) what situational characteristics influ- the way it is, or habituating to the crowded conditions. ence the on-site experience, and (c) how these experi- Others have validated these coping mechanisms attrib- ences are assessed. Several overview publications pro- utable to too many encounters, litter, noise, and resource vide details (Graefe et al. 1984; Kuss et al. 1990; Man- impacts (Anderson and Brown 1984; Gramann 1982; ning 1999; Manning and Lime 1996; Shelby and Hammitt and Patterson 1991; Kuentzel and Heberlein Heberlein 1986; Stankey and Lime 1973; Stankey and 1992; Shelby and Heberlein 1986). Manning 1986; Tarrant et al. 1999). The dominant approach in the 1980-90s for measur- In that carrying capacity is a tool to assure the pro- ing perceived crowding and acceptable resource change tection and enjoyment of park resources and values, is the normative approach (Shelby and Heberlein 1986; early research efforts measured “enjoyment” by using Vaske et al. 1986). Norms are personal beliefs or stan- the metric of visitor satisfaction. Efforts to link number dards of what is acceptable or appropriate behavior, or of visitors (density) to visitor satisfaction found little conditions that are shared among members of a group. or no statistical relationship (Graefe et al. 1984; Man- It is generally accepted that recreationists can identify ning and Lime 1996; Shelby 1980). Thus, the research norms, and that their norms may be influenced by per- focus shifted to examining the linkage of numbers of sonal characteristics brought to the recreation setting visitors to perceived crowding. Perceived crowding re- as well as those situational characteristics during the mains the dominant metric in the social carrying ca- on-site experience (Manning and Lime 1996; Tarrant et pacity literature and, in effect, is a surrogate or proxy al. 1999). measurement for satisfaction and a quality recreation In summary, the measurement of perceived crowd-

8 NPS Social Science Research Review Winter 2001 ing is a popular and useful contribution to understand- grams, and services being a separate and subsequent ing social carrying capacity, particularly in park settings decision. Yet, management experience provides evidence and for park experiences where low social interaction that these management attributes are central to mak- is a preferred psychological outcome for a quality expe- ing capacity decisions because they can increase or de- rience. Perceived crowding has been found to be a com- crease capacity. Capacity decisions are influenced by plex phenomenon and cannot be defined solely by the all aspects of park operations, such as the type and number of visitors in a park. Good progress has been amount of facilities, available personnel, budget, regu- made to identify the variables which may help to un- lations, fee systems, reservation and permit systems, derstand crowding in a particular park setting. interpretive and public education programs, operation 7. Recreation satisfaction can be measured. and maintenance standards, volunteers, concession- Throughout the public and private sector, the most domi- aires, and local communities. nant and traditional metric to measure product and ser- Several examples of how management may affect vice quality has been consumer satisfaction (Engel and capacities are useful. An effective low-impact educa- Blackwell 1982). Recreation satisfaction has been found tion program may increase the capacity in a particular to be a complex psychological phenomenon involving area. A mandatory registration and designated camp- multiple dimensions which can add positively or nega- site program may increase an area’s capacity. The lack tively to overall experience quality (Graefe and Fedler of personnel and monitoring capability may decrease 1986; Vaske et al. 1986; Whisman and Hollenhorst 1998; the capacity in a fragile area. A new mass transit sys- Williams 1999). Early criticism with the measuring of tem with timed departures may expand capacity while, satisfaction was attributed to the methodological ap- conversely, the associated lack of parking and sanita- proach of asking people simply to report on their over- tion facilities may result in a net capacity decrease. all satisfaction. This global overall satisfaction approach Health and safety regulations on acceptable noise and has given way to assessing satisfaction on multiple di- speed levels may alter capacities for boating on lakes mensions of the experience, with consideration of the and rivers and for future lodging facilities. Scientific mediating effects attributable to the personal charac- enclosures, no fishing zones, grazing allotments, or spe- teristics that people arrive with at the park, situational cial wildlife habitat zones will decrease recreation ca- characteristics during the on-site visit, and how visi- pacities. tors assess their experience (Manning 1999). Environmental psychology and recreation research The measurement of visitor satisfaction is a primary conclude that a person experiences a setting through a goal as set forth in the National Park Service Strategic combination of its physical, social, and managerial char- Plan. Mission Goal IIa states that “visitors safely enjoy acteristics. Thus, concurrent consideration of the man- and are satisfied with the availability, accessibility, di- agement program during the planning process is equally versity, and quality of park facilities, services, and ap- important and might sometimes be determinant in ca- propriate recreational opportunities” (NPS 1996, 23). pacity decisions. The goal further sets a quality standard that 80% of the Several studies have made the conceptual and em- park visitors are satisfied with appropriate park facili- pirical linkage between desired recreational experiences ties, services, and recreational opportunities. Assessing and management preferences (Ballman et al. 1981; visitor satisfaction (see Figure 1) is a primary output Brown and Haas 1980; Brown et al. 1977; Haas et al. measure to monitor management programs and for 1980; Manfredo et al. 1983; McLaughlin and Paradice adaptive management, including changes based on new 1980). These findings help to validate that concurrent information to desired future conditions and capacities. consideration of management actions is important for 8. Management can change recreation capacity. capacity decisions. The research literature has focused on capacities related 9. Recreation can change resource conditions. A to natural resources and perceived crowding, with con- detailed review of the ecological science literature was sideration of a park’s management infrastructure, pro-

Visitor Capacity in National Park System 9 beyond the scope of this paper, and there exist sub- and unconsumed oil and gas also affect water quality stantial literature reviews and bibliographies on recre- and fisheries. ation interactions with water, wildlife, fisheries, soils, Social science research has found that the type of and vegetation (Cole 1987; Ewert 1999; Haas and Bos- recreation use can affect resource conditions. These ton 1998; Hammitt and Cole 1998; Knight and Gutzwiller social factors are important to consider in the planning 1995; Liddle 1997; Lucas 1987; Marion and Farrell 1998; process (Figure 1) when managers decide upon future York 1994). There are, however, several basic social fac- desired conditions for the natural resources, visitor ex- tors and relationships that might be helpful to the reader. periences, and management program. Because these Much like the perceived crowding and satisfaction characteristics of the setting affect one another, it is research, the linkage of levels of use and resource change important that these considerations be concurrent and is equally complex and multi-dimensional. An accepted integrated. formula or index is not available which indicates that for X change in recreation use there would be Y change NPS Studies Matrix in resource condition. The matrix in Table 1 provides an overview for man- In the area of recreationally-induced change to soils agers of the type and location of carrying capacity stud- and vegetation, several social variables are notewor- ies that have taken place in the National Park System. thy. The recreation use-resource change relationship is Virtually every NPS social science research project has curvilinear; i.e., the greatest amount of change to soils implications for carrying capacity and discretion was used and vegetation takes place in the early or initial stages as to which studies directly contributed social science of use (e.g., backcountry camping). Other recreational insights to carrying capacity decisions. The matrix indi- factors found to influence resource change include cates the recreation sample studied, data collection tech- amount of use, frequency of use, size of groups, length nique, and findings. of stay, timing or season of use, and type of campsite Several points can be drawn from comparisons across infrastructure such as campfires, corrals, benches, and the matrix. There was a considerable increase in ca- waste disposal. pacity research activity in park units during the 1990’s, Likewise, recreation behavior can affect wildlife (York yet the overall quantity of capacity research in the Na- 1994). While there is consensus that humans do affect tional Parks has been very small. The research foci were fish and wildlife, the specific type and amount of posi- typically visitor perception of resource change or per- tive and negative changes, and the associated benefits ception of crowding. The metric of perceived crowding and costs, are localized. Social variables affecting these and its norm-based measurement remains popular. resources have been found to include human sounds, Study samples were almost exclusively of on-site startle effect, size and speed of recreational boats, fre- park visitors visiting specific locales during high use quency and regularity of encounters, and time and sea- summer seasons. Visitors were systematically sampled son of encounter. based on such variances associated with time of day, Social variables can also influence the effect of rec- day of week, mode of travel, size of party, and by other reational uses on water quality, aquatic vegetation, and descriptive characteristics. Efforts to distinguish visi- fisheries. The type, amount, and speed of boats influ- tors beyond broad activity types and to understand or ence the amount, duration, and constancy of wave ac- segment by recreation experience type were few. tion on the shorelines, thus increasing erosion, habitat Data collection instruments were principally inter- loss, turbidity, and loss of aquatic vegetation. Con- view and questionnaire survey instruments. The re- versely, these same social variables may improve water search designs were typically post-hoc or case studies, quality by oxygenating water and diluting point source with few comparison groups, control groups, pre-post contaminants (Wisconsin Department of Natural Re- test measures, repeated measures, and hypothesis test- sources 1996). Human behavior related to human waste ing.

10 NPS Social Science Research Review Winter 2001 CITATION Absher 1979

Andereck 1989

Andereck and Becker 1993

Becker 1981 Becker

Bultena et al. 1981

Floyd et al. Floyd 1997

ees

ers’

vels

wed as a wed

ere related ere

eater

ant) of

ceived crowding ceived

xperience.

ed more closely to ed more

as found. When vie

eferences for density and eferences

s rather than to actual use s rather

e related to an individual’ e related

country trips.

e appears to be a displacement of e appears

. Density and per

ver crowding effect from one aspect effect from crowding ver

, backcountry travel experience, and experience, travel , backcountry

, while individuals with lesser degr

ere more accepting of certain park more ere

ers was viewed individually, no relation- individually, viewed was ers

ere less accepting (or less toler ere

, and visitor experience were not signifi- were , and visitor experience

ecreation experience were directly and directly were experience ecreation

al environment. Individuals with gr al environment.

, expectations, and preferences for contacts and preferences , expectations,

Perceptions of crowding are found to be link are of crowding Perceptions desired experiential outcomes experiential desired socio-demographic attributes of visitor socio-demographic levels.

Reported contacts Reported behavior of other people behavior cantly related to crowding. Perceived crowding in a built recreation crowding Perceived to crowding. cantly related environment was best predicted by density, and expectations and and expectations density, by best predicted was environment preferences for density preferences

There was evidence of a carry-o evidence was There of a visitor experience to another of a visitor experience

during one phase of a r indirectly related to expectations and pr to expectations related indirectly perceived crowding in a second phase of the e crowding perceived

When each of the study riv ship between density and satisfaction w ship between

system, however, it was discovered that a proportion of users from of users that a proportion discovered it was however, system, the Lower St. Croix River who were sensitive to its high use le sensitive who were River St. Croix the Lower now favored the Mississippi. Ther favored now users between rivers within a system. rivers between users

Density was correlated with contacts and these contacts w correlated Density was with crowding. Crowding was not shown to be important to hik not shown was Crowding with crowding. overall satisfaction with their back overall

Public perceptions of park impacts ar Public perceptions beliefs about the natur environmental concern w environmental certain types of park impacts of environmental concern w of environmental impacts.

Survey

Self- administered questionnaires

On-site questionnaires and interviews

Pre-trip and Pre-trip post-trip questionnaires

Mail-back questionnaires

METHODS FINDINGS

Table 1: NPS Carrying Capacity Studies Matrix Table

Crowding

Displacement

Recreational carrying capacity

Perceptions of Perceptions park impacts and environmental concern

CONCEPTS STUDIED

Backcountry users STUDIED

Visitors

River users River

Backcountry users

Visitors

PARK UNITPARK GROUP

Yosemite NP Yosemite

Fort Sumter Fort NM

Lower St. Croix Lower WSR and Upper WSR Mississippi River

Mount McKinley NP McKinley

Cape Lookout Nat. Seashore and Moores Creek National Creek Battlefield

Visitor Capacity in National Park System 11 CITATION

Haas 1977

Hammitt and Hughes 1984

Hammitt and Patterson 1991

Hammitt and Patterson 1993

viors

vy visitor

action

. They are . They eat Smoky

xperience,

y and the

s (X=2.7 parties/

y felt the number

veraged 33 years of 33 years veraged

, and 73% of the

. Winter camper

xperience.

ound setting, but neither

s, with winter camper s,

e often in 10 of the 12 e often in 10

s backpacking less than 5

olling visitors’ interactions olling visitors’

. Visitors who had lower . Visitors

om urban areas of nearby om urban areas

action is related to user action is related

son with whom inter

. Encounter levels were highest on were . Encounter levels

y the importance of wildland

acy. Use of physical coping beha Use of physical acy.

ear, both in and outside GSMNP ear,

vel of interaction and activity patterns ar of interaction vel

cent had previous backpacking e cent had previous

. In comparing the camping-style user aggr

viors were used more commonly than the used more were viors

ark during the summer because of hea

viors.

, and who were more sensitive to actual encounter sensitive more , and who were

en, life stage, and first visits do significantly differ and first en, life stage,

Social interaction occurs in a family campgr occurs Social interaction the level nor the amount of social inter the level descriptive characteristics, except for the length of sta except characteristics, descriptive distance from the campsite of the per distance from

occurs. User-descriptive characteristics are not distinctly associated are characteristics User-descriptive occurs. with activity patterns gate, the amount and le gate, similar; however, the descriptive characteristics, marital status, characteristics, the descriptive similar; however, number of childr

among the three camping styles among the three

Backcountry permit data indicate that use patterns differ signifi- Backcountry cantly between winter and summer camper cantly between taking shorter, weekend, destination-type trips weekend, taking shorter, engage in backcountry camping nearly twice as often during winter engage in backcountry as other seasons of the y influenced b strongly more was also experienced hikers that tend to avoid camping in Gr that tend to avoid hikers also experienced solitude and congruent encounter norms Mountain National P encounter norms use. participated significantly mor experienced, coping behaviors. Level of past experience had little influence on of past experience Level coping behaviors. Physical coping beha Physical use of coping beha social behaviors as a mechanism for contr social behaviors and maintaining wildland priv indicated that the “typical” shelter user a Results age, was college educated, and came fr was age, states. Eighty-four per states.

averaging 6.8 total years of experience. Trips in the study ar Trips of experience. 6.8 total years averaging consisted of 3-day hikes, with 94% of user hikes, consisted of 3-day days. Distance hiked ranged from 3 to 80 miles from ranged Distance hiked days. parties contained 2-4 individuals trails (X=10.2 parties/trip), with shelter encounter (X=10.2 trails trip) being less. A third of users reported that the reported of users A third trip) being less. of encounters detracted from their solitude e from detracted of encounters

On-site questionnaires

Mail-back questionnaires, and use of data from permits from

On-site contacts and mail-back questionnaires

On-site and mail questionnaires

METHODS FINDINGS

Social interaction, activity patterns, camping style, and descriptive characteristics

Use patterns, characteristics, experience and experience motives

Coping behaviors

Solitude preferences and visitor characteristics

CONCEPTS STUDIED

Table 1: NPS Carrying Capacity Studies Matrix (cont.) Table

STUDIED

Big Meadows Campground overnight visitors

Winter backcountry users

Backcountry campers

Shelter campers

PARK UNITPARK GROUP

Shenandoah NP

Great Smoky Great Mountains NP

12 NPS Social Science Research Review Winter 2001 CITATION

Jacobi and Manning 1997

Johnson and Swearingen 1992

Kariel 1990 Kariel

Krumpe and Brown 1982 Brown

ol (no

e no

, and

s in the

ed rates of ed rates

esources and esources

ychological

ange of sound

country use.

as significantly mor

ds were established ds were

ent trails, and presented as and presented ent trails,

1 or more. Behavioral standards Behavioral 1 or more.

yee.

al or cultural resources were resources al or cultural

oads. In step 4, the range of In step 4, the range oads.

xperience 90% of the summer

oads and a map of r

as narrowed to social conditions as narrowed

oad carrying capacity is 3,000 visitor

as the next most effective sign, but the most effective as the next

w-uses zone are also discussed. The w-uses zone are

ol and mass transit, visitor permits ol and mass transit,

ocess resulted in the statement of purpose ocess resulted

ds of quality in the high use zone ar

o zones (peak and nonpeak) of the carriage

ed the trail-selector useful. ed the trail-selector

0, and no min. at 1

ent sign texts vary significantly in observ vary ent sign texts

Steps 1-3 of the VERP pr and significance of the carriage r social conditions of the carriage r resource and social conditions w resource only, as no major impacts to natur only, identified. In step 5, tw road system were identified. In step 6, standar were system road for the two indicators of quality, crowding and behavior: (1) 80% of and behavior: crowding of quality, indicators for the two visitors will have a high quality e will have visitors season days; (2) the carriage r season days; per day; and (3) standar per day;

of quality for the high- and lo management actions (Step 9) identified to handle violations of hiking. The off-trail in reducing other treatment than any effective crowding and behavioral standards of quality include visitor standards and behavioral crowding sign with the ethical appeal w education, parking contr of noncompliance nearly doubled in comparison with the rate more enforcement patrols. enforcement more sanction sign. Noncompliance almost disappear threatened presence of a uniformed NPS emplo presence less than 341 minutes at zero, no more than 27 min. at 1-5, no mor no more minutes at zero, less than 341 noncompliance in comparison to a contr signs reduce Trailside than 2 min. at 6-1 sign), and differ is independent of loudness within the r Annoyance noncompliance. The threatened sanction sign w The threatened noncompliance. and socio-ps characteristics studied. Physical levels aspects of the sounds appear to influence the manner in which people evaluate different sounds. different people evaluate

Information describing attributes of differ a decision tree, was effective in redistributing back in redistributing effective was a decision tree, Recreationists consider Recreationists

Three phase Three research program

Observation and field interviews

On-site questionnaires and interviews

Trail-selector map and follow- up questionnaires

METHODS FINDINGS

Application of the VERP process

Effectiveness of social control techniques

Reaction of Reaction people to sounds

Use of information to redistribute use

CONCEPTS STUDIED

Table 1: NPS Carrying Capacity Studies Matrix (cont.) Table

STUDIED

Carriage roads

Trail users at users Trail Paradise Meadows

Visitors to Visitors highway oriented campgrounds

Backcountry users

PARK UNITPARK GROUP

Acadia NP Acadia

Mount Rainier NP

Banff, Yoho and Kootenay NP (Canada)

Yellowstone NP Yellowstone

Visitor Capacity in National Park System 13 CITATION

Kuentzel and Kuentzel Heberlein 1992

Lee 1975

Lime et al. 1994

Manning et al. 1993

xperi-

vidence

owding-

ould stop

ent from

ysical environ- ysical

ch is an

ould either

s depended on non-

ysical condition of ysical

ch. Five management ch. Five

se manure on the trails se manure

etive facilities and services etive

s, absence of pack stock and s,

opriate behavior) were generally were opriate behavior)

een groups of campers were more were of campers een groups

se manure, and pleasant social se manure,

esource, or change his/her contact esource,

, and whether one w

ariety of inappropriate visitor activities ariety of inappropriate

ea, and a limited number of other

edict whether or not one w

y one time at Delicate Ar

ceived crowding than actual contacts crowding ceived

as set for Delicate Ar

s. Satisfaction of camper s.

ariable. A standard of quality of a maximum of A standard ariable.

eferences over the next 10 years. Crowding in Crowding years. 10 the next over eferences

ail users depended on good ph ail users

boating at the Apostle Islands change his/her mind about the r expectations and pr expectations 1975 did predict redistribution to less popular locations within the redistribution 1975 did predict Apostle Islands. The crowding scores of those who did not use scores The crowding Apostle Islands. cognitive coping strategies were not significantly differ were coping strategies cognitive those who did. Crowding in 1975 did not pr Crowding Satisfaction of tr the trails, absence of litter and hor the trails, demeanor of other user destructive behaviors of other camper behaviors destructive horse manure in the camp ar manure horse campers. Social relationships betw Social relationships campers. important to satisfaction than the condition of the ph ment. Crowding was less important to visitor satisfaction than was ment. Crowding perceptions of “alikeness.” Amount of hor of “alikeness.” perceptions had a bigger effect on per recorded by an observer, and the amount of litter and the e an observer, by recorded of destructive acts also had an effect. of destructive

The number of people at an important indicator v 30 people at one time w 30 actions (e.g., education about appr actions (e.g., supported by the visitors. supported by

Good information, education, and interpr were often cited as contributing to the quality of the visitor e were ence, and relatively large numbers of visitors expressed the desire expressed of visitors numbers large and relatively ence, for more programs. Many visitors were concerned with cr were visitors Many programs. for more

related issues in the park, a v related and behaviors, and resource impacts of public use and resource and behaviors,

Panel study and Panel follow-up questionnaires

On-site questionnaires

Personal interviews supplemented by mail-back by questionnaires

Personal interviews and interviews focus groups

METHODS FINDINGS

Coping and displacement

Visitor use

Relative importance of indicator variables

Indicators of quality of the visitor experiences

CONCEPTS STUDIED

Table 1: NPS Carrying Capacity Studies Matrix (cont.) Table

STUDIED

Boaters

Backcountry users

Park visitors Park

Apostle Island NL

Yosemite NP Yosemite

Arches NP Arches

PARK UNITPARK GROUP

14 NPS Social Science Research Review Winter 2001 CITATION

Manning, Johnson and Vande Kamp Vande 1996

Manning, Negra, Valliere Negra, and Jacobi 1996

Manning, Valliere, Ballinger and Jacobi 1998

Manning, Valliere, Wang, Valliere, Ballinger and Jacobi 1998

Manning et al. 1999

ance)

oblem

esented

oads

oad visitor

w the same

as considerably

viors (i.e., viors

oaches. There is a There oaches.

ant of problem

ed on them. Visitor

son per-viewscape (PPV) son per-viewscape

ences between crowding ences between

owding norms. The five norms. owding

oblems related to crowding (i.e., to crowding oblems related

espondents who sa

atercraft/aircraft. These findings atercraft/aircraft.

, findings suggest that only a

oads have not yet reached their reached not yet oads have

oads enjoy their experience. However, their experience. oads enjoy

, these problems were selected as the were , these problems

elatively small, difference between small, difference elatively

owding (i.e., preferences, acceptability, preferences, (i.e., owding

ds for the four most important pr

s of quality for the carriage r

ve similar norms, or standards, for or standards, similar norms, ve

oads) and some user beha

espect to crowding or sheer number of espect to crowding

s, management action, and absolute toler s,

e presented an especially strict test of norm e presented

esulted in higher cr

Examining the sample as a whole Examining relatively small percentage of respondents evaluated the number of evaluated of respondents small percentage relatively watercraft/aircraft seen in a way that was incongruent with data on that was seen in a way watercraft/aircraft their personal norms for seeing w their personal were generally consistent over the five types of watercraft/aircraft the five consistent over generally were studied. However, a sub-sample of r studied. However, number of watercraft/aircraft as the hypothetical number pr as the hypothetical number of watercraft/aircraft in the questionnair congruence. In this situation, norm incongruence w congruence. higher, averaging nearly half of this sub-sample averaging higher,

Most visitors to the carriage r Most visitors there were growing indications of pr growing were there too many people on the r too many bicycles going too fast). Thus bicycles most appropriate indicator most appropriate experience.

Residents reported having adjusted their use of carriage r having reported Residents substantially because of changes that had occurr and residents appear to ha and residents crowding; however, residents were much less toler were residents however, crowding; behaviors than were visitors. than were behaviors

The maximum acceptable number of per ranged from 11 to 18. Visitors also reported they currently see about currently they also reported to 18. Visitors 11 from ranged 5 PPV, suggesting the carriage r 5 PPV, carrying capacity with r visitors. Numerical standar visitors. behaviors were also developed. were behaviors

There are statistically significant differ are There norms derived from the visual and numerical appr from norms derived statistically significant, but r crowding norms derived from the long and short question formats from norms derived crowding The long format r evaluative dimensions of cr evaluative acceptability to other

On-site and mail-back questionnaires

Survey, monitoring and focus groups

Mail-back questionnaires

On-site survey using a visual approach, a approach, computer-based simulation model

Personal interviews and mail-back questionnaires

METHODS FINDINGS

Norm congruence

Potential indicators of indicators quality and estimation of visitor use

Standards of Standards quality and displacement

Normative standards of standards quality and visitor use estimation

Crowding norms

CONCEPTS STUDIED

Table 1: NPS Carrying Capacity Studies Matrix (cont.) Table

STUDIED

Tour boat Tour passengers to passengers Grand Pacific Grand Glacier

Carriage road visitors

Mount Desert Island residents

Carriage road visitors

PARK UNITPARK GROUP

Glacier Bay NP Glacier Bay

Acadia NP Acadia

Visitor Capacity in National Park System 15 CITATION

Noe et al. 1997

Patterson and Patterson Hammit 1990

Roggenbuck et al. 1991

Shelby 1976 Shelby

Stewart and Carpenter 1989

gins

ere

er.

ely.

ceived

ere

ary

een three

eference were eference

w consensus

w River.

, explaining an , explaining

eferences to a high eferences

oups and how they oups and how

oups met on the riv

s indicated that the

xperience of most back-

ariance in perceived crowd- ariance in perceived

s, and within changing s,

ds people brought with them w ds people brought

xperiences in the Ne

archy of crowding norms among these of crowding archy

ance for situational impacts v

e of the three encounter sites w e of the three

ance. There is an indication that mar There ance.

y saw more than they expected or expected than they more y saw

s at the attraction sites had a small effect. s at the attraction

oups of park user

ariance in perceived crowding. In other words, crowding. ariance in perceived

s intuitively to be meaningful. s intuitively

0% of hikers who desired solitude were not solitude were who desired 0% of hikers

s did not detract from their experience. from s did not detract

e important than actual contacts

ange from a low associated with pr a low ange from

tested differ from one another significantly and often substantiv tested differ from There appears to be a clear hier appears There dimensions that appear

Park user perceptions and toler user perceptions Park widely among cluster gr situations there are degrees of acceptability and unacceptability for an degrees are situations there impact. Norms r associated with absolute toler the actual number of encounter by exceeded of relative differences exist between cluster user gr between exist differences of relative number of encounter respond to impact situations respond There is a general lack of river encounter norms and lo lack of river is a general There among norms for most types of e Solitude was important to the wilderness e Solitude was packers in the study. Sixty one percent of study respondents whose of study respondents Sixty one percent in the study. packers personal norms at one or mor personal

Use levels and river encounters had no significant effect on per encounters and river Use levels crowding, but encounter crowding, These variables explain about 4% of the v explain These variables ing. Also, those who said the preferred felt much more crowded. Expectations and pr crowded. felt much more preferred about six times mor additional 25% of the v the personal psychological standar psychological the personal more important than the actual number of gr more

Results indicate that 2 Results fulfilled. There were variations in solitude fulfillment betw variations were fulfilled. There distinct backcountry use zones distinct backcountry

On-site contact cards and cards mail-back questionnaires

On-site contact cards and mail- cards back questionnaires

On-site and mail-back questionnaires

Observation and Observation on-site questionnaires

Mail-back questionnaires

METHODS FINDINGS

Users’ perceptions of resource and use impacts

Norm congruence and wilderness solitude

Encounter norms

Crowding

Expectancy theory

CONCEPTS STUDIED

Table 1: NPS Carrying Capacity Studies Matrix (cont.) Table

STUDIED

Park visitors Park

Backpackers

River boaters River

River users River

Backcountry trip Backcountry leaders

PARK UNITPARK GROUP

Blue Ridge Parkway, Chattahoochee River NRA and River Chickamauga and Chattanooga NMPs

Great Smoky Great Mountains NP

New River New Gorge NR Gorge

Grand Canyon Grand NP

16 NPS Social Science Research Review Winter 2001 CITATION

Thompson et al. 1996

Towler 1977 Towler

Wang and Manning 1999

Williams et al. 1991

Womble and Womble Studebaker 1981 Studebaker

ving

. In

oad

ated their

, which will

xpected a scenic

oposed standards

as mediated by

ds of quality. PPV ds of quality.

ecently instituted

, predicting future , predicting

ent total use level

as not related to norm- as not related

ectly related to the visual ap- ectly related

ea, have a keen appreciation of what appreciation a keen ea, have

s greater than norm) than r s greater

ee of norm-encounter compatibility

ovide an efficient and sophisticated vie ovide

onment.

ent areas within the carriage r ent areas

verity of the problems in each zone of the problems verity

. More respondents were classified as ha were respondents . More

, and support management policies

and Canyon trails. Most hikers perceive the perceive Most hikers trails. and Canyon

esent-day use do not violate pr esent-day

ystem, which severely limits the number of which severely ystem,

ounds facilities and demand for use

There are differences between the property owners’ patterns of owners’ the property between differences are There recreational use and the se recreational general, residential property owners in all zones tended to support owners property residential general, most of the potential management actions suggested for the riverway.

Results indicate overwhelming acceptance of a r indicate overwhelming Results permit and quota s persons using the Gr persons for establishing carrying capacity standar proach inner canyon as a wilderness ar inner canyon conditions under pr wilderness should be preserve a wilderness envir preserve

Person-per-viewscape (PPV) outputs for differ Person-per-viewscape conditions and use zones pr of the visitor experience that is dir of the visitor experience

of quality. Results show likely PPV conditions under scenarios of likely show Results of quality. increasing use and in differ increasing

system. Findings suggest that computer simulation is useful for system. estimating current carrying capacity conditions estimating current conditions, and guiding related research. and guiding related conditions,

Crowding perceptions, efforts to avoid other users, and type of trip other users, efforts to avoid perceptions, Crowding received depend on the degr received These relationships were strongest for those who e strongest were These relationships as opposed to wilderness trip. Satisfaction w encounter compatibility

incompatible trips (encounter

trips as crowded or different from their expected trips. their expected from or different trips as crowded

The relationship between crowding and density w crowding between The relationship density (i.e., preferences and expectations for density), structur and expectations preferences density (i.e., factors (i.e., spatial arrangements of camping parties), social spatial arrangements (i.e., factors behaviors of campers, and the relationship between physical between and the relationship of campers, behaviors capacity of campgr

Mail-back questionnaires

Visitor census counts, on-site counts, surveys, and surveys, geographic information system analysis system

On-site and mail-back questionnaires

On-site questionnaires

METHODS FINDINGS

Elicitation study (attitudes, behaviors)

Preferences, users’ characteristics and motivations

Computer simulation as a tool for describing visitor travel

Norm- encounter compatibility

Crowding

CONCEPTS STUDIED

Table 1: NPS Carrying Capacity Studies Matrix (cont.) Table

STUDIED

Property owners Property

Hikers, trail Hikers, users

Carriage road visitors

River users River

Campers

PARK UNITPARK GROUP

Lower St. Croix Lower NSR

Grand Canyon Grand NP

Acadia NP Acadia

New River New Gorge NR Gorge

Katmai NP Katmai

Visitor Capacity in National Park System 17 Research Recommendations from the need for capacities in park units, and because “visitor” reflects the privileged use of park units and While the attention given recreational carrying ca- goes beyond recreation use to include all human use. pacity among park and recreational professionals across Fourth, a significant amount of time within the scien- America has been substantial, the human and financial tific community over the last 20 years has been allocated resources allocated to social carrying capacity research to developing planning processes to address capacity have been small. Thus, as with many young and small decisions and defining quality resources and experi- scientific endeavors, complexity more than resolution ences. No less than nine planning processes have been has been the principal finding. Five recommendations published. These processes have been received with for future research direction are offered. varying degrees of institutional acceptance, utilization, 1. Alternative paradigms need to be advanced and funding, training, and implementation. Yet, unfortu- debated by the scientific, management, and nately, there is a common management perception that stakeholder communities. Several considerations are in order to address capacity decisions one of these pro- stimulated by this synthesis. cesses must be used. First, a quality recreation experience is a multi-di- A reasonable assumption is that some highly visible mensional phenomenon and to use perceived crowd- and controversial capacity decisions will be litigated ing as its proxy may not be sufficient. There are many based on the lack of procedural or substantive compli- motivations and psychological outcomes which in com- ance with NEPA. Indeed, NEPA is the national charter bination define the recreation experience. The focus on for environmental planning and analysis — it can im- one dimension, such as perceived crowding, is counter prove decision making, advance scientific understand- to the multi-dimensionality of person-environment re- ing, and very importantly to this topic, it can provide lations. Furthermore, the “perceived crowding” para- judicial deference for administrative decisions such as digm, while intuitive and having some legislative basis visitor capacity. The judicial system has made it clear in designated wilderness, is questionable across the full that their role is to assure legal compliance and not to spectrum of park units. There is need to consider the make administrative decisions. Thus, an alternative totality of the visitor experience. paradigm is that management addresses major capac- Second, a quality recreation experience is a multi- ity decisions for areas of critical capacity concern (ACC) sensory phenomenon and goes beyond the visual clues in the NPS general management plans, United States of the setting. It has become increasingly apparent that Forest Service forest plans, Fish and Wildlife Service natural sounds and smells are an important part of a refuge management plans, and Bureau of Land Man- park experience, and perhaps in some park settings even agement resource management plans. Capacities can the sense of taste and touch contribute. Capacity deci- easily be written into the management objectives for a sions need to consider the appropriateness of activities park, or areas within, and serve as measurable trig- that impair and enhance the visitor’s senses of nature gers, signals, and standards. and culture, and social science needs to be more inclu- Fifth, a common perception of the purpose of recre- sive of the multiple senses used to shape a recreation ational carrying capacity is that it is a means of impos- experience. ing limits, closures, and no access to the American pub- Third, the historic and disciplinary stereotypes that lic. The phrase has an absolute, regulatory, and negative accompany the terminology of carrying capacity and connotation. An alternative paradigm would have a pro- recreational carrying capacity are burdensome. There active and positive appeal. It would be helpful to recog- is a need for a clearer phrase that the public can relate nize that visitor capacity is a tool to help define and lo- to and a broader concept which can incorporate all the cate appropriate recreation opportunities for the Ameri- human use and uses in a park setting. The phrase, can public that will assure sustaining the area’s resources, “visitor capacity,” is proposed because “capacity” is a values, and opportunities. It would be helpful to recog- common term that people are familiar with in their ev- nize that the goal of visitor capacity is to meet the recre- eryday lives and it does not hide or mislead the public ational demand of the American public through an in-

18 NPS Social Science Research Review Winter 2001 tegrated and collaborative supply of opportunities across views or mail questionnaires) and a post-hoc or case the spectrum of local, state, and federal lands and wa- study research design. The environmental psychology ters. Visitor capacity is a measure of supply which allows field has found merit in expanding to a more multi- for the distribution of demand in a sustainable manner. method, multi-trait approach to the science of person- Sixth, visitor capacity decisions are not static and environment relations. timeless, but dynamic and interim as new information, Social science could provide management with a science, and circumstances present themselves. Visi- valuable service to conduct longitudinal and both for- tors and uses change and new information and tech- mative and summative evaluative research as capacity nology is ever present. Visitor capacity and adaptive efforts are being planned and implemented. Brown and management are two tools which are used together and Haas (1999), in planning for the 1999 Congress on Rec- allow one to capitalize on learning from professional reation and Resource Capacity, compiled a database with field experiences. Capacity decisions will change based 100 state and local parks where managers have estab- on reasoned and deliberate analysis of what is learned. lished and implemented recreational carrying capaci- 2. The shift towards ecosystem management and ties. Much could be learned from analyzing what man- the seamless delivery of recreation opportunities agers have learned from their experience. Evaluative should prompt consideration to plan and manage at research which is integrated early in the planning pro- a larger geographic scale than the park unit level. cess or to existing capacity programs is needed for the This has appeal because a visitor’s “visitation range,” effective and efficient use of adaptive management. much like wildlife and water resources, is often larger 4. The scientific community needs to help define than the political boundaries of a park unit or jurisdic- park recreation experiences and segments of visitors tion. Interagency regional recreation planning efforts, much more substantially in order for managers to with adequate supporting scientific study, are needed make decisions that are rational, defensible, and that (a) go beyond a particular type of recreation activ- understood by the public. The most critical manage- ity and setting, (b) clearly define the recreation experiment decision point in Figure 1 is the development of ences an area is being managed for, (c) consider the the desired future conditions. It is here that managers non-recreational users of the area, and (d) integrate decide what types of activities and experiences are ap- concurrent consideration of management characteris- propriate and desired. There is a need to move beyond tics. This might be best accomplished via several large- planning and managing for general activities and to scale demonstration projects involving multiple juris- move beyond ambiguous experiential phrases. dictions. Social science has determined that recreation expe- Stankey and Manning concluded in their summary riences are multi-dimensional and that segments of to the President’s Commission on American Outdoors recreationists can be identified and managed for. This that “perhaps the greatest shortcoming in the research added clarity in defining recreation experiences and on carrying capacity is the lack of holistic, integrative types of users would help management more clearly studies that combine natural resource, social, and mana- define a park’s desired future conditions and how to gerial perspectives”(1986, 54). This conclusion remains manage its visitors. valid today. 5. Inter-agency institutional leadership and 3. Social carrying capacity research should coordination should be of paramount importance for incorporate additional research tools such as capacity planning, management, and research. Rec- observation, cognitive and behavior mapping, reational capacity is an issue that transcends all public simulation, participant diaries, focus groups, content park and recreation agencies in America. It is often a analysis, field and lab experiments, formative and volatile and complex decision that will generate dis- summative evaluation, repeated measures, control cussions about “recreational rights and takings,” and will and comparison groups, and hypothesis testing. The be shaped by the political system and clarified by the social carrying capacity research has principally used judicial system (Haas 2000; Haas 1999a; Keiter 1999). survey research methods (i.e., on-site recreation inter- The more disparate state and federal park agencies are

Visitor Capacity in National Park System 19 in their capacity processes, terminology, rationale, sci- pose is to coalesce interagency professional judgment ence, knowledge, and experiences, the more professional towards developing a set of capacity principles, decision judgment will be replaced by judicial and political deci- criteria, and decision-making protocols that would de- sions. These interventions will be costly in terms of monstrably assure decisions that are reasoned, de- money, time, resource protection, and most importantly, liberate, fair, trackable, and adequate. A similar inter- professional morale and confidence. agency effort of coalescing expertise is needed to dem- In 1928, federal and state leaders convened the Na- onstrate the advantage of large-scale regional planning tional Conference on Outdoor Recreation. They formu- and scientific study. lated the elements of a federal recreation policy which included the following: Conclusion The initiation, through inter bureau cooperation, of regional National park managers are required by law to es- studies and planning to determine the policy which should tablish capacities for all parks. These decisions are made govern forms of use, occupancy and management which as part of a park planning process and incorporate the will most completely realize the potential educational, sci- best available science. entific, inspirational and recreational values of the national parks and forests (1928, 140). Social science research on recreation carrying capacity is a young field of science and small in terms of In 1962, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review the number of scientists and funding. Complexity more Commission proposed the following management guide- than resolution is a predominant finding, with specific line: “truths” applicable across park visitors and settings re- All agencies administering outdoor recreation resources— maining illusive. Yet, progress has been made and this public and private—are urged to adopt a system of classi- synthesis of social research identifies nine general find- fying recreation lands designed to make the best possible use of available resources in the light of the needs of people. ings that may contribute to improved planning and Present jurisdictional boundaries of agencies need not be sound professional judgment: disturbed . . . • capacity defies scientific determinism; Implementation of this system would be a major step for- • public values are diverse and go beyond recreation; ward in a coordinated national effort. It would provide a consistent and effective method of planning for all land- • recreation experiences are multi-dimensional; managing agencies and would promote a logical adjust- • recreationists can be grouped by experiences; ment of the entire range of recreation activities to the entire range of available areas (1962, 7). • social interaction is important for some experiences; In 1999, the National Congress on Recreation and • perceived crowding is a dominant focus; Resource Capacity was convened with 25 state and • recreation satisfaction can be measured; national institutional sponsors. Once again, a major • management can change recreation capacity; and conclusion expressed by leaders of the public land management agencies and special interests groups was the • recreation can change resource conditions. need for a more integrated, comprehensive, regional, in- The National Parks Omnibus Management Act of tergovernmental, and multi-jurisdictional approach to 1998 includes a mandate for science in the parks and recreational capacity planning, management, and re- park management. Science is central to recreation ca- search (Barry 1999; Bschor 1999; Loomis 1999b; Machlis pacity planning and management. Much work needs to 1999; Williams 1999). be done to assure the protection of park resources and In partial response, a federal Interagency Task Force values, and the opportunities they afford to the Ameri- on Visitor Capacity on Public Lands was activated in can public and world. June 2000 by the Department of the Interior. Its pur-

20 NPS Social Science Research Review Winter 2001 References Brown, P., J. Hautaluoma, and S. McPhail. 1977. Colorado deer hunting experiences. In Transactions of the North Absher, J.D. 1979. A sociological approach to crowding in American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, outdoor recreation: A study of the Yosemite National 216-225. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Park backcountry. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Institute. California, Berkeley. Bschor, D. 1999. A Congress Synthesis. Paper presented at Altman, I. 1975. The environment and social behavior. the 1999 Congress on Recreation and Resource Capacity, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. November 29-December 2, Snowmass, Colorado; and on the Congress web site: www.cnr.colostate.edu/nrrt/ Andereck, K.L. 1989. Perceived crowding among visitors in capacity. a built recreation environment. Master’s Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. Bultena, G., D. Field, P. Womble, and D. Albrecht. 1981. Closing Gates: A study of backcountry use limitation at Andereck, K.L. and R.H. Becker. 1993. Perceptions of carry- Mount McKinley National Park. Leisure Sciences over crowding in recreation environments. Leisure 4(3):249-267. Sciences 15(1):23-35. Burch, W. 1969. The social circles of leisure: Competing Anderson, D. and P. Brown. 1984. The displacement explanations. Journal of Leisure Research 1:125-147. process in recreation. Journal of Leisure Research 16:61- 73. Burdge, R., and D. Field. 1972. Methodological perspectives for the study of outdoor recreation. Journal of Leisure Ballman, G., T. Knopp, and L. Merriam. 1981. Managing the Research 4:63-72. environment for diverse recreation: Cross-country skiing in Minnesota. Agriculture Experiment Station Bulletin Cheek, N. 1972. Variations in patterns of leisure behavior: 544, Forestry Series 39. St. Paul, MN: University of An analysis of social aggregates. In Social Behavior, Minnesota. Natural Resources, and the Environment, ed., 29-43. New York, NY: Harper and Row Publishing. Barry, D. 1999. A Congress Synthesis. Paper presented at the 1999 Congress on Recreation and Resource Capacity, Clark, R., J. Hendee, and F. Campbell. 1971. Values, November 29-December 2, Snowmass, Colorado; and on behavior, and conflict in modern camping culture. the Congress web site: www.cnr.colostate.edu/nrrt/ Journal of Leisure Research 3:145-149. capacity. Cole, D. 1987. Research on soil and vegetation in wilder- Beatley, T. 1994. Ethical land use: Principles of policy and ness: A state of knowledge review. In Proceedings - planning. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State of Press. knowledge, Future Directions, 135-177. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-220. USDA Forest Becker, R. 1981. Displacement of recreational users between Service. the lower St. Croix and upper Mississippi Rivers. Journal of Environmental Management 13:259-267. Driver, B., and P. Brown. 1978. The opportunity spectrum concept in outdoor recreation supply inventories: A Bell, P., T. Greene, J. Fisher, and A. Baum. 1996. Environ- rationale. In Proceedings of the Integrated Renewable mental psychology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt Resources Inventory Workshop, 24-31. USDA Forest Brace College Publishing. Service General Technical Report RM-55. USDA Forest Brown, K. and G. Haas. 1999. Comparative Analysis of Service. Outdoor Recreation Capacity Programs Among Local, Driver, B., and R. Tocher. 1970. Toward a behavioral State, and Federal Agencies. Paper presented at the 1999 interpretation of recreational engagements, with implica- Congress on Recreation and Resource Capacity, Novem- tions for planning. In Elements of Outdoor Recreation ber 29-December 2, Snowmass, Colorado; and on the Planning, ed., 9-31. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Congress web site: www.cnr.colostate.edu/nrrt/capacity. Michigan Microfilms. Brown, P., and G. Haas. 1980. Wilderness recreation Driver, B., R. Nash, and G. Haas. 1987. Wilderness benefits: experiences: The Rawah case. Journal of Leisure Re- A state of knowledge review. In Proceedings of the search 12:229-241. National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State of

Visitor Capacity in National Park System 21 Knowledge, Future Directions, 294-319. USDA Forest web site: www.cnr.colostate.edu/nrrt/capacity. Service General Technical Report INT-220. USDA Forest Haas, G. 1999b. Barriers to carrying capacity. In The Book of Service. Abstracts for the 1999 Congress on Recreation and Engel, J., and R. Blackwell. 1982. Consumer behavior (4th Resource Capacity, November 29-Dec 2, Snowmass, ed.). New York, NY: The Dryden Press. Colorado; and on the Congress web site: www.cnr.colostate.edu/nrrt/capacity. Ewert, A. 1993. Differences in the level of motive importance based on trip outcome, experience, level, and Haas, G. 2000. What is past is prologue. Parks and Recre- group type. Journal of Leisure Research 25:335-349. ation 35(9):34-35. Washington, DC.: National Recreation and Parks Association. Ewert, A. 1999. Outdoor recreation and natural resource management: An uneasy alliance. Parks and Recreation Haas, G., and C. Boston. 1998. The impacts from increased 34(7):59-67. recreation use on the non-recreational purposes and benefits of federally managed man-made lakes/reser- Field, D., and A.Wagar. 1973. Visitor groups and interpreta- voirs. National Recreation Lakes Study Commission. tion in parks and other leisure settings. Journal of Washington, DC: U. S. Department of the Interior. Environmental Education 5(1):12-17. Haas, G., B. Driver, and P. Brown. 1980. A study of ski Floyd, M., and J. Gramann. 1997. Experience-based setting touring experiences on the White River National Forest. management: Implications for market segmentation of In Proceedings of the North American Symposium on hunters. Leisure Sciences 19:113-128. Dispersed Winter Recreation, 25-30. University of Floyd, M. F., H. Jang, F.P. Noe, and H.C. Jang. 1997. The Minnesota, Office of Special Programs Educational Series relationship between concern and acceptability of 2-3. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota. environmental impacts among visitors of two U.S. Haas, G., B. Driver, and P. Brown. 1981. Measuring wilder- national park settings. Journal of Environmental Man- ness recreation experiences. In Proceedings of the agement 51(4):391-412. Wilderness Psychology Group, 20-40. Durham, New Gifford, R. 1997. Environmental psychology: Principles and Hampshire. practices (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Haas, G., E. Hermann, and R. Walsh. 1986. Wilderness Graefe, A., and A. Fedler. 1986. Situational and subjective values. Natural Areas Journal 6(2):37-44. determinants of satisfaction in marine recreational Hammitt, W., and D. Cole. 1998. Wildland recreation: fishing. Leisure Sciences 8:275-295. Ecology and management. New York, NY: John Wiley. Graefe, A., J. Vaske, and F. Kuss. 1984. Social carrying Hammitt, W. E., and J.L. Hughes. 1984. Characteristics of capacity: An integration and synthesis of twenty years of winter backcountry use in the Great Smoky Mountains research. Leisure Sciences 4:51-65. National Park. Environmental Management 8(2):161-166. Gramann, J. 1982. Toward a behavioral theory of crowding Hammitt, W. E, and M.E. Patterson. 1991. Coping behavior in outdoor recreation: An evaluation and synthesis of to avoid visual encounters: Its relationship to wildland research. Leisure Sciences 5:109-126. privacy. Journal of Leisure Research 23:225-237. Gramann, J. 1999. The effect of mechanical noise and Hammitt, W. E. and M.E. Patterson. 1993. Use patterns and natural sound on visitor experiences in units of the solitude preferences of shelter campers in Great Smoky national park system. National Park Service Social Mountains National Park. Journal of Environmental Science Research Review 1(1) Winter. Management 38(1):43-53. Haas, G. 1977. Recreation and parks: A social study at Hendee, J. 1974. A multiple-satisfaction approach to game Shenandoah National Park. National Park Service management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2:104-113. Scientific Monograph Series, No. 10. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. Jacobi, C., and R.E. Manning. 1997. Applying the VERP process to Acadia National Park carriage roads: A Haas, G. 1999a. A working definition and process model of summary of research decision making. Acadia National carrying capacity. In The Book of Abstracts for the 1999 Park Natural Resources Report Number 97-10. USDI Congress on Recreation and Resource Capacity, November National Park Service. 29-Dec 2, Snowmass, Colorado; and on the Congress

22 NPS Social Science Research Review Winter 2001 Johnson, D. R. and T.C. Swearingen. 1992. The effective- erative Park Studies Unit, Pub. No. NPS D-63. St. Paul, ness of selected trail side sign texts in deterring off-trail MN: University of Minnesota. hiking at Paradise Meadow, Mount Rainier National Loomis, L. 1999a. A Congress Synthesis. Paper presented at Park. General Technical Report. USDA Forest Service, the 1999 Congress on Recreation and Resource Capacity, Pacific Northwest Station. Portland, OR: USDA Forest November 29-December 2, Snowmass, Colorado; and on Service. the Congress web site: www.cnr.colostate.edu/nrrt/ Kariel, H. G. 1990. Factors affecting response to noise in capacity. outdoor recreational environments. The Canadian Loomis, L. 1999b. From the outside looking in: Barriers to Geographer 34(2):142-149. the applications of social carrying capacity principles Keiter, R. 1999. The legal foundations of recreation capacity. and methodologies from the perspective of a public Paper presented at the 1999 Congress on Recreation and lands advocate. Paper presented at the 1999 Congress on Resource Capacity, November 29-December 2, Recreation and Resource Capacity, November 29-Dec 2, Snowmass, Colorado; and on the Congress web site: Snowmass, Colorado. www.cnr.colostate.edu/nrrt/capacity. Lucas, R. 1987. (Compiler) Proceedings - National Wilder- Knight, R.L., and K. J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and ness Research Conference: Issues, State of Knowledge, recreationists: Coexistence through management and Future Directions. USDA Forest Service General Technical research. Washington, DC: Island Press. Report INT-220. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service. Krumpe, E.E. and P.J. Brown. 1982. Redistributing Machlis, G. 1999. A Congress Synthesis. Paper presented at backcountry use through information related to recre- the 1999 Congress on Recreation and Resource Capacity, ation experiences. Journal of Forestry 80:360-362, 364. November 29-December 2, Snowmass, Colorado; and on the Congress web site: www.cnr.colostate.edu/nrrt/ Kuentzel, W., and T. Heberlein. 1992. Cognitive and capacity. behavioral adaptations to perceived crowding: A panel study of coping and displacement. Journal of Leisure Manfredo, M., and B. Driver. 1996. Measuring leisure Research 24:377-393. motivation: A meta-analysis of the recreation experience preference scales. Journal of Leisure Research 28:188- Kuss, F., A. Graefe, and J. Vaske. 1990. Visitor impact 213. management: A review of research. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. Manfredo, M., A. Bright, and M. Stephenson. 1991. Public preferences for non-consumptive wildlife recreation in LaPage, W. 1967. Camper Characteristics Differ among the Denver area. Human Dimensions in Natural Re- Public and Commercial Campgrounds in New England. sources Research Unit, Colorado State University. Fort USDA Forest Service Research Note NE-59. Upper Darby, Collins, CO: Colorado State University. PA: USDA Forest Service. Manfredo, M., B. Driver, and P. Brown. 1983. A test of Lee, R. 1975. The Management of Human Components in concepts inherent in experience-based setting manage- the Yosemite National Park Ecosystem: Final Research ment for outdoor recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Report. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Research 15:263-283. Liddle, M. 1997. Recreation and the environment: The Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and ecological impact of outdoor recreation and ecotourism. Manning, R. 1999. research for satisfaction (2nd ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon London, England: Chapman and Hall. State University Press. Lime, D. 1996. Congestion and Crowding in the National Manning, R., and D. Lime. 1996. Crowding and carrying Park System. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station capacity in the National Park System: Toward a social Miscellaneous Publication 86-1996. St. Paul, MN: science agenda. In Proceedings - Congestion and Crowd- University of Minnesota. ing in the National Park System. 27-67. Minnesota Lime, D. W., R.E. Manning, W.A. Freimund, M.E. Lewis, Agricultural Experiment Station Misc. Publication 86- and J.L. Thompson. 1994. Indicators and standards of 116. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota. quality for the visitor experience at Arches National Manning, R. E., D.W. Lime, R.F. McMonagle, and P. Nordin. Park: Phase 2 Research. University of Minnesota Coop-

Visitor Capacity in National Park System 23 1993. Indicators and standards of quality for the visitor the management of the National Park System, Section experience at Arches National Park: Phase 1 Research. 8.2.1. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. University of Minnesota Cooperative Park Studies Unit. Noe, F. P., W.E. Hammitt, and R.D. Bixler. 1997. Park user St. Paul, MN: University of MN. perceptions of resource and use impacts under varied Manning, R. E., D. Johnson, and M. Vande Kamp. 1996. situations in three national parks. Journal of Environ- Norm congruence among tour boat passengers to Glacier mental Management 49(3):323-336. Bay National Park. Leisure Sciences 18:125-141. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1962. Manning, R. E. , C. Negra, W. Valliere, and C. Jacobi. 1996. Outdoor recreation for America. Washington DC: U.S. Acadia National Park carriage road study: Phase 1 Government Printing Office. Research. Technical Report NPS/NESO-RNR/NRTR/96- Patterson, M. E., and W.E. Hammitt. 1990. Backcountry 07. National Park Service. encounter norms, actual reported encounters, and their Manning, R. E., W. Valliere, N. Ballinger, and C. Jacobi. relationship to wilderness solitude. Journal of Leisure 1998. Acadia National Park carriage road study: Phase 3 Research 22(3):259-275. Research. Northeast Region Technical Report Series. Roggenbuck, J. W., D.R. Williams, S.P. Bange, and D.J. USDI National Park Service. Dean. 1991. River float trip encounter norms: Question- Manning, R. E., W. Valliere, B. Wang, N. Ballinger, and C. ing the use of the social norm concept. Journal of Jacobi, C. 1998. Acadia National Park carriage road Leisure Research 23(2):133-153. study: Phase 2 Research. Northeast Region Technical Sellars, R. 1997. Preserving nature in the national parks: A Report Series. USDI National Park Service. history. London: Yale University Press. Manning, R. E., W. Valliere, B. Wang, and C. Jacobi. 1999. Shafer, E. 1969. The Average Camper Who Does Not Exist. Crowding norms: Alternative measurement approaches. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-142. Upper Leisure Sciences 21:219-29. Darby, PA: USDA Forest Service. Marion, J., and T. Farrell. 1998. Managing ecotourism Shelby, B. 1976. Social psychological effects of crowding in visitation in protected areas. In Ecotourism: A guide for wilderness: The case of the river trips in the Grand planners and managers Vol 2. North Bennington, VT: Canyon. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Colorado, The Ecotourism Society. Boulder. McCool, S., and M. Reilly. 1993. Benefit segmentation Shelby, B. 1980. Contrasting recreation experiences: Motors analysis of state park visitor setting preferences and and oars in the Grand Canyon. Journal of Soil and Water behavior. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration Conservation 35:129-131. 11:1-14. Shelby, B. and T. Heberlein. 1986. Carrying capacity in McLaughlin, W., and W. Paradice. 1980. Using visitor recreation settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State Univer- preference information to guide dispersed winter sity Press. recreation management for cross-country skiing and snowmobiling. In Proceedings - North American Sympo- Stankey, G., and D. Lime. 1973. Recreational Carrying sium on Dispersed Winter Recreation, 64-72. University Capacity: An Annotated Bibliography. USDA Forest of Minnesota, Office of Special Programs Educational Service General Technical Report INT-3. Missoula, MT: Series 2-3, 64-72. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota. USDA Forest Service. National Conference on Outdoor Recreation. 1928. Recre- Stankey, G., and R. E. Manning. 1986. Carrying Capacity in ation resources of federal lands. Washington, D.C. Recreational Settings. In A Literature Review: The President’s Commission on American Outdoors. M-47-M- National Park Service. 1996. National Park Service Strategic 57. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office Plan, Final Draft. United States Department of the Interior, Resource Planning Group, Denver Service Stewart, W. P., and E.H. Carpenter. 1989. Solitude at Grand Center, Report NPS D-1151. Denver, CO: National Park Canyon: An application of expectancy theory. Journal of Service. Leisure Research 21(1):4-17. National Park Service. 2000. Management policies: To guide Tarrant, M., A. Bright, E. Smith, and K. Cordell. 1999. Motivations, attitudes, preferences, and satisfactions

24 NPS Social Science Research Review Winter 2001 among outdoor recreationists. In Outdoor recreation in mental stimulation. Human Ecology 2(1):127-147. American life: A national assessment of demand and Womble, P. and S. Studebaker. 1981. Crowding in a national supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing. park campground: Katmai National Monument in Thompson, J. L., D.W. Lime, and M.S. Lewis. 1996. A Alaska. Environment and Behavior 13(5):557-573. survey of residential property owners in the federally York, D. 1994. Recreational-boating disturbances on natural managed portion of the lower St. Croix National Scenic communities and wildlife: An annotated bibliography. Riverway. University of Minnesota Cooperative Park U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Studies Unit, Research Summary No. 7, St. Paul, Minne- Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the sota. Interior. Towler, W. L. 1977. Hiker perceptions of wilderness: A Zwick, R., R. Glass, and T. More. 1993. Motivation/impor- study of the social carrying capacity of Grand Canyon. tance typology of natural resource harvesters. In Proceed- Arizona Review 26(8):1-10. ings of the 1993 Northeastern Recreation Research Vaske, J., A. Fedler, and A. Graefe. 1986. Multiple determi- Symposium. 145-150, USDA General Technical Report. nants of satisfaction from a specific waterfowl hunting Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. trip. Leisure Sciences 8:149-166. Vaske, J., G. Haas, and D. Whittaker. 1996. American views Glossary on national park issues. Washington, DC: National Parks adaptive management: A rigorous application of and Conservation Association. management, research, and monitoring to gain infor- Wang, B. and R.E. Manning. 1999. Computer simulation mation and experience necessary to assess and modify modeling for recreation management: A study on management decisions, objectives, standards, programs carriage road use in Acadia National Park, Maine, USA. and activities. Environmental Management 23(2):193-203. visitor capacity: A prescribed number and type of Whisman, S., and S. Hollenhorst. 1998. A path model of people that an area will accommodate given the de- whitewater boating satisfaction on the Cheat River in sired natural/cultural resource conditions, visitor ex- West Virginia. Environment and Behavior 22:109-117. periences, and management program (Haas 1999a). Williams, D. 1999. A Congress Synthesis. Paper presented at park-dependent experience: A particular kind of the 1999 Congress on Recreation and Resource Capacity, recreation experience that allows the visitor to experi- November 29-December 2, Snowmass, Colorado; and on ence, understand, and appreciate those resources and the Congress web site: www.cnr.colostate.edu/nrrt/ values essential for why the park unit was included in capacity. the NPS. Williams, D. R., J.W. Roggenbuck, and S. Bange. 1991. The park resources and values: The resources and val- effect of norm-encounter compatibility on crowding ues of a park whose conservation is essential to the perceptions, experience, and behavior in river recreation purposes for which the area was included in the NPS. settings. Journal of Leisure Research 23:154-172. park setting: The combination of all the real and Williams, D., R. Schreyer, and R. Knopf. 1990. The effect of perceived attributes that comprise a park, including its experience use history on the multidimensional structure physical resource attributes (e.g., water, trees, weather, of motivations to participate in leisure activities. Journal sounds, geology, historic structures, wildlife), social at- of Leisure Research 22:36-54. tributes (e.g., recreationists, non-recreational park us- Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1996. Impacts ers, values, pets, behaviors, visitor equipment, litter, of motor boats on water quality in Wisconsin lakes: A human noise, sounds and smells of communities or in- final report to the Bureau of Water Resources Manage- dustry outside the park), and the management attributes ment. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, (e.g., rules, regulations, interpretive programs, services, Bureau of Research, Water Resources Section. Monona, type and design of facilities, utilities, personnel, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. signage). Wohlwill, J. 1974. Human response to levels of environ-

Visitor Capacity in National Park System 25 psychological outcomes: The specific mental re- About the Author sponses (i.e., feelings, thoughts, beliefs) that a recreationist will obtain from participating in a particu- Dr. Glenn E. Haas is a professor in the College of lar activity in a specific park setting. These outcomes Natural Resources at Colorado State University. He is may be considered when deciding what type of recre- currently (2000-2001) on sabbatical as Advisor to the ation opportunity to participate in, or reflected upon Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife when assessing one’s satisfaction with the experience. and Parks, and leading the federal Interagency Task Force on Visitor Capacity on Public Lands. His areas of recreation experience: The psychological and physi- interest include natural resource planning, outdoor rec- ological response from participating in a particular recreation management, policy formulation, and public reation activity in a specific park setting. administration. Glenn has worked in the national of- recreation opportunity: The possibility afforded by fice of the U.S. Forest Service where he drafted the lim- managers for the visitor to have a particular kind of rec- its of acceptable change policy and helped advance the reation experience. recreation opportunity spectrum system; served 10 years recreation setting: See park setting. as a university department chair; served 4 years on the board of the National Society for Park Resources and 6 sound professional judgment: The moral and in- years on the board of the National Parks Conservation tellectual ability to make reasoned decisions based upon Association; and was the Co-Chairman of the 1999 Na- careful and due consideration of facts, science, circum- tional Congress on Recreation and Resource Capacity. stances, assumptions, and inferences of the situation. He has worked extensively over the last 25 years with Additional Resources state and federal land and water resource agencies. In- ternationally, Glenn was instrumental in the legislative National Park Service Cooperative Park Studies creation of the Belize Protected Areas Conservation Trust Unit and the Human Dimensions Research Unit in the School Department of Forest Resources of Forestry at Kasetsart University in Thailand. Dr. Haas Attn: Dr. Dorothy Anderson can be contacted at: University of Minnesota Year 2000-2001 St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Dr. Glenn E. Haas Phone: (612) 624-2250, FAX (612) 625-5212 Department of the Interior 18th and C Street, NW Recreation Management Program MS-MIB-3156 School of Renewable Resources Washington, DC 20240 Attn: Dr. Robert Manning Phone: (202) 208-6212 University of Vermont FAX: (202) 208-4684 356 Aiken Center e-mail: [email protected] Burlington, Vermont 05405 Phone: (802) 656-3096, FAX (802) 656-2623 Permanent e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Glenn E. Haas College of Natural Resources 1999 Congress on Recreation and Resource Capacity Colorado State University November 29–December 2, 1999, Snowmass, Colorado. Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Hosted at Colorado State University and sponsored by Office Phone: (970) 491-5126 some 25 state and national organizations. Many of Home Phone: (970) 498-9350 the papers, authors, and an evolving visitor capacity FAX: (970) 491-2255 database can be accessed at www.cnr.colostate.edu/ e-mail: [email protected] nrrt/capacity/. Attn: Dr. Glenn Haas, [email protected]

26 NPS Social Science Research Review Winter 2001 Notes

Visitor Capacity in National Park System 27 About the Series The purpose of the Social Science Research Review is to provide a basis for scientific understanding of specific issues critical to the management of the National Park System. Each paper presents a conceptual framework for understanding the issue, reviews methodologies used in relevant studies, and presents key findings from the published scientific literature, technical reports, and other documents. Each paper is peer-reviewed. The papers are not intended to provide specific policy guide- lines or management recommendations. The Social Science Research Review series is part of the National Park Service Social Science Program under the direction of Dr. Gary Machlis, Visiting Chief Social Scientist, and Dr. Michael Soukup, Associate Director for Natural Resource Stewardship and Science. Katie Bagby provides editorial support for the review series. For more information on the Social Science Research Review series and/or the National Park Service Social Science Program, please contact: Dr. Gary Machlis Visiting Chief Social Scientist National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW (3127) Washington, DC 20240 Phone: (202) 208-5391 e-mail: [email protected]

28 NPS Social Science Research Review Winter 2001