Backcountry Visitors' Leave No Trace Attitudes

SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Backcountry Visitors’ Leave No Trace Attitudes

BY WADE M. VAGIAS and ROBERT B. POWELL

Abstract: This study examined overnight backcountry visitors’ attitudes regarding 22 common backcountry behaviors. Each behavior corresponded with a specific Leave No Trace Principle for Responsible Recreation. Insight and further understanding of backcountry visitors’ attitudes regarding common backcountry behaviors can assist in the development of more effective visitor education strategies, potentially resulting in the reduction of visitor-induced recreation impacts. Data were collected via a mail-back questionnaire from visitors to Cumberland Island National Seashore, Georgia, Glacier National Park, Montana, and Olympic National Park, Washington. Results indicate widespread variability in the perceived appropriateness of several common backcountry activities, indicating that backcountry behaviors may also vary.

Introduction Park and protected area managers face many difficult and diverse management challenges. As an example, the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) is mandated to Wade and Brooke Vagias kayaking in western Robert Powell in the Everglades. Maryland. Photo courtesy of Wade Vagias. balance resource protection and visitor enjoyment while addressing challenges including incompat- sidered to be more in line with the spirit of the Wilderness ible adjacent land use, invasive species, climate change, and Act (Hendee and Dawson 2002). Further, research has improper human behavior, among others. Managing visitor shown that education-based programs are preferred by behaviors is further compounded, as sensitive environments both managers (Washburne and Cole 1983) and visitors found in many protected areas may be vulnerable to signifi- (Hendee, Stankey, and Lucas 1990) for protecting resources cant degradation from nominal recreational use (Leung and and reinforcing appropriate visitor behavior over enforce- Marion 2000) and cumulative impacts can be substantial ment. Yet the task of effectively educating the public (Hammitt and Cole 1998). regarding appropriate behaviors can be a complex assign- To help mitigate negative impacts, natural resource ment, with challenges including noncaptive nature of managers typically employ a multipronged strategy of edu- audiences, limited contact time between park personnel cation and/or enforcement to help meet management and the public, and others (Orams 1997). To assist in over- objectives (Hendee and Dawson 2002; Lucas 1983; coming these impediments, agencies have employed social Manning 2003). Education is usually preferred over marketing and educational campaigns such as Woodsy enforcement, as it provides managers “light-handed” Owl’s “Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute,” Smokey Bear’s “Only options for lessening visitor-induced impacts and is con- You Can Prevent Forest Fires,” and Leave No Trace.

PEER REVIEWED

DECEMBER 2010 • VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 21 Leave No Trace Service, and NPS to formally adopt related, a link occasionally referred to as The most pervasive minimum-impact LNT as the primary minimum-impact the “learning leads to loving hypoth- visitor education program used in pro- visitor education message promoted esis” (Ham 2009, pers. comm.). Under tected area contexts today is Leave No on federal lands. Other adopters of the this model, information traveled one Trace (LNT), a program designed to LNT program have included various way, from the sender (provider of infor- educate recreationists about minimum- state-level land management agencies, mation) to the receiver (recipient of impact practices with the end goal of including the recent adoption by all 50 information). According to Ham, the protecting resources (Harmon1997; state park managers representing some assumption educators make can be Marion and Reid 2001). Currently, 5,000-plus state parks, as well as sev- described as: “If they know what we the LNT message consists of the seven eral foreign countries, including know, they’ll care as we care” (in press, LNT principles: Ireland, New Zealand, Canada, p. 4, ). However, this assumption has 1. Plan ahead and prepare. Australia, Montenegro, Hong Kong, proven incorrect (Hungerford and Volk 2. Travel and camp on durable sur- South Korea, Greece, Scotland, 1990), and advances in psychology and faces. Argentina, Mexico, and Taiwan (www. social psychology have provided alter- 3. Dispose of waste properly. lnt.org). For a review of the history native models for understanding the 4. Minimize campfire impacts. and evolution of LNT, see Marion and relationship between education and 5. Leave what you find. Reid (2001), and see Manning (2003) human behavior (Heimlich and Ardoin 6. Be considerate of other visitors. for a review of studies investigating the 2008; Ham 2009). And although 7. Respect wildlife. role of education as a visitor manage- understanding, predicting, and influ- ment tool in protected areas. encing human behavior is particularly The LNT program can be traced complex and context specific, social- back to the 1960s when the U.S. Knowledge—Attitude— psychological theory suggests that one Forest Service (USFS) began to Behavior Association important driver of behavior is a per- encourage “pack it in—pack it out” When using education to protect son’s attitude regarding the behavior of messages to users (Marion and Reid resources, protected area managers interest (Ajzen 1991; Ajzen and Fishbein 2001). Through partnership with the usually desire to influence or reinforce 1980; Kraus 1995). Thus to effectively National Outdoor Leadership School, visitors’ knowledge, attitudes, and/or change behavior, particularly environ- the LNT message continued to develop behaviors (KAB). Knowledge refers to mental behaviors, researchers have throughout the 1990s. Leave No Trace information we possess, or “what we shown that education should target individuals’ attitudes or the salient belief Focused context-specific educational messages structures that underpin those attitudes (Ajzen 1991; Pooley and O’Connor designed to inform NPS visitors regarding specific 2000; Ajzen and Fishbein 2005). practices may need to be used to complement the This study examined NPS overnight backcountry visitors’ attitudes more prevalent general LNT educational effort regarding the “appropriateness” of 22 common backcountry behaviors. Each (now called the Leave No Trace Center know.” Attitudes are defined as the behavior corresponded with a specific for Outdoor Ethics, or just The Center) “psychological tendency that is LNT Principle for Responsible was incorporated as a 501©(3) non- expressed by evaluating a particular Recreation. If attitudes are an impor- profit organization in 1994. The entity with some degree of favor or tant determinant of behavior, as mission statement of The Center states disfavor” (Eagly and Chaiken 1993, p. social-psychological research contends that it is “dedicated to the responsible 1). Behavior, which is a broad umbrella (e.g., Ajzen 1991; Ajzen and Fishbein enjoyment and active stewardship of term, refers to any number of actions a 1973, 2005), insight and further the outdoors by all people, worldwide” person may undertake. understanding of backcountry visitors’ (www.lnt.org). Also in 1994, a memo- To influence KAB, early learning attitudes regarding common back- randum of understanding was signed theorists operated under the assump- country behaviors can assist in the with the USFS, Bureau of Land tion that the link between learning and development of more effective visitor Management, Fish and Wildlife behavior was simplistic or directly education strategies, potentially

22 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2010 • VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3 resulting in the reduction of visitor- regarding the behaviors of interest as cated visiting ONP at least once prior induced recreation impacts (Ham et well as the variability (spread in to being contacted for participation in al. 2007). scores) as evidenced by standard devi- this study. ations (SD). Global perceptions of Methods LNT as a program were measured via Awareness and Global Three NPS units were selected for two Likert-type statements anchored Perceptions of Leave No inclusion in this research: from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = Trace Cumberland Island National strongly agree. The appropriateness of The majority of GNP, ONP, and CINS Seashore (CINS), Georgia; Glacier specific LNT practices were measured respondents reported they had heard National Park (GNP), Montana; and using 22 Likert-type statements of LNT (94%, 97%, and 89%, respec- Olympic National Park (ONP), anchored from 1 = very inappropriate tively). As a follow-up, respondents Washington. The three study loca- to 7 = very appropriate. Only atti- who answered yes were asked to indi- tions were selected because all contain tudes pertaining to LNT Principles cate the year they first heard of LNT. wilderness/de facto wilderness areas, 2–7 were investigated, because LNT ONP respondents indicated having are popular NPS backpacking desti- Principle #1 addresses behaviors that heard of the LNT in 1992.5 (mean nations that attract a significant occur prior to the wilderness recre- year), and GNP and CINS respon- volume of overnight backcountry ational experience. Each item was dents both indicated 1995. visitors annually, require permits for written to solicit maximum variation Overall, support for the LNT pro- all overnight backcountry visitors, in responses. For example, one item gram appears high, with a majority of and mandate pretrip check-ins with reads “having a campfire.” Having a GNP, ONP, and CINS respondents ranger staff. campfire in the backcountry has been, answering either “6” or “7” to the item A systematic sampling strategy and will likely continue to be, “it is important to use minimum- was employed to ensure both represen- common practice among many back- impact/LNT techniques when in the tativeness and a more accurate estimate country campers, yet LNT principles backcountry” (91%, 93%, and 89%, of the error (Babbie 2005). Individuals recommend foregoing a fire to lessen respectively). Likewise, a predomi- and groups were intercepted as they environmental impact (www.lnt.org). nance of respondents indicated that registered/picked up their backcountry In fact, all 22 of the specific items are they believe the LNT practices help permits at the backcountry offices/ considered inappropriate backcountry reduce environmental harm. ranger stations within the three respec- behaviors under strict interpretation Approximately 68% of GNP respon- tive NPS units. All adult group of LNT. dents (M = 1.65), 69% of ONP members present were asked to pro- respondents (M = 1.56), and 62% of vide their contact information. This Results CINS respondents (M = 1.74) “strongly strategy allowed for the sampling of all Greater than 63% of the GNP sample disagreed” with the statement: party members, not just the registered was male, with a mean age of 36.2 “Minimum-impact/LNT techniques trip leader, as past studies have shown years; approximately 60% of ONP do not reduce the environmental harm that less experienced backcountry trav- respondents were male, with an average caused by backcountry travel.” elers rely on more experienced age of 41.4; and 62% of CINS respon- individuals as sources of information dents were male, with an average age Attitudes Regarding (Ramthun 1998). Questionnaires were of 40.3 years. More than 95% of the Specific LNT Principles subsequently mailed approximately total sample was white, and more than Attitudes toward LNT Principle #2, one month after contact and followed 90% of the respondents in each unit Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces, a modified Tailored Design Method reported having a college degree or were evaluated by eight statements (see (Dillman 2007). An adjusted response higher. Slightly more than half of table 1). Mean scores as well as stan- rate of 65% (N = 162) for CINS, 68% respondents were registered as the trip dard deviations varied widely. For for GNP (N = 279), and 73% (N = leader. For 76% of GNP respondents example, “moving rocks and/or logs to 312) for ONP was achieved. and 63% of CINS respondents, this make a campsite more comfortable” is Our principle interest in con- was their first trip to the respective viewed by GNP respondents as slightly ducting this study was to explore the NPS unit. This contrasts sharply with inappropriate (M = 3.59), but slightly mean scores of respondents’ attitudes ONP, where 66% of respondents indi- appropriate by both ONP and CINS

DECEMBER 2010 • VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 23 viewed as slightly appropriate in all Table 1—Means and standard deviations of attitudes under units (CINS M = 4.75, GNP M = LNT Principle #2: Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces. 4.17, ONP M = 4.46). Further, the SD for this item was at least 2, indi- Item Unit N Mean1, 2 SD cating widespread variability among GNP 273 4.31 1.7 Walking around muddy spots on respondents about the appropriateness the trail ONP 308 4.02 1.6 CINS 157 4.67 1.5 of this behavior. For example, approxi- GNP 275 2.88 1.7 Hiking side by side with my friends mately 18% of GNP respondents, on existing backcountry trails ONP 308 2.93 1.6 CINS 159 3.55 1.6 14% of ONP respondents, and 10% GNP 271 4.22 1.9 of CINS respondents indicated this as Camping along the edge of a stream or lake ONP 309 3.78 1.9 “very inappropriate” (scoring this item CINS 159 4.22 1.9 a “1”), whereas 24% of GNP respon- GNP 275 4.37 1.6 Moving rocks from where I plan to dents, 25% of ONP respondents, and place my tent ONP 308 4.74 1.7 CINS 159 4.94 1.5 27% of CINS respondents indicated GNP 273 3.59 1.7 this as a “very appropriate” behavior Moving rocks and/or logs to make a ONP 308 4.25 1.7 campsite more comfortable (scoring the same item a “7”). Also of CINS 158 4.35 1.6 interest are attitudes regarding uri- When camping in heavily used GNP 271 2.14 1.6 areas, placing the tent in an undis- ONP 306 2.07 1.4 nating on vegetation, with means turbed spot CINS 158 2.81 1.7 ranging from 3.2 to 3.7. Although on In popular backcountry areas, GNP 273 1.77 1.2 the “inappropriate” side of the scale, camping where no one has camped ONP 309 1.77 1.2 before CINS 159 2.31 1.4 the scores are close to neutral and may GNP 269 4.90 1.7 reflect a level of complacency about Camping two nights in a pristine camp ONP 301 4.67 1.8 this action. Particularly in alpine envi- CINS 153 5.07 1.4 ronments, urinating on vegetation 1 Mean score based on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very inappropriate, 4 = neutral, 7 = very appropriate). deposits salts that subsequently may be 2Lower mean score reflects attitude more congruent with behavior/LNT principle. dug up by animals, killing the plant. respondents (M = 4.25 and 4.35, interest for managers is the finding Results pertaining to various wil- respectively). The standard deviation that “burying used toilet paper” is derness backcountry practices related (SD) was ≥ 1.6 points for each of the Table 2—Means and standard deviations of attitudes under units investigated, indicative of wide- LNT Principle #3: Dispose of Waste Properly. spread divergence in attitudes regarding the appropriateness of this behavior. Item Unit N Mean1, 2 SD Similar items that had mean scores GNP 274 4.17 2.2 close to neutral with relatively large Burying used toilet paper ONP 308 4.46 2.1 SD included “camping along the edge CINS 158 4.75 2.0 of a stream or lake” and “walking GNP 273 3.15 1.6 Urinating on vegetation ONP 304 3.46 1.7 around muddy spots on the trail (figure CINS 159 3.70 1.9 1).” However, respondents from all GNP 274 3.16 1.9 three units reported attitudes more Burning paper trash in the campfire ONP 309 3.84 2.1 closely aligned with recommended CINS 159 4.08 1.9 LNT practices regarding the behaviors Using soap in streams as long as GNP 275 1.89 1.2 there are currents to help dilute the ONP 310 1.95 1.3 “Hiking side by side with my friends suds CINS 158 2.13 1.4 on existing backcountry trails” and “In Depositing human waste on top of GNP 275 1.55 1.1 popular backcountry areas, camping the ground so it will decompose ONP 309 1.58 1.1 quickly CINS 159 1.86 1.3 where no one has camped before.” GNP 275 1.52 0.9 Respondents were fairly consistent Disposing of dishwater in streams or lakes ONP 310 1.53 1.0 across the study sites in their attitudes CINS 159 1.45 0.9 regarding waste management practices 1Mean score based on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very inappropriate, 4 = neutral, 7 = very appropriate). 2Lower mean score reflects attitude more congruent with behavior/LNT principle. (Principle #3, table 2). Of particular

24 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2010 • VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3 groups should be kept small and large groups broken into small groups. Mean scores ranged from 2.98 at ONP to 3.81 at CINS (GNP M = 3.10). The seventh LNT Principle, Respect Wildlife, was evaluated with two items: “dropping food on the ground to provide wildlife a food source” and “feeding wildlife” (see table 4). Scores between GNP and ONP were quite similar across both items, with CINS visitors indicating slightly higher scores for both items. Overall, respondents indicated that the behaviors were very inappropriate.

Discussion and Management Implications Figure 1—Braided trail made by users avoiding a muddy trail tread. Photo by Ben Lawhon. The purpose of this study was to examine overnight backcountry visi- to LNT Principle #4, Minimize slightly inappropriate to very inappro- tors’ attitudes regarding the Campfire Impacts, suggest widespread priate. However, 19% of GNP “appropriateness” of 22 common back- variation across individuals and the respondents, 28% of ONP respon- country behaviors. Each investigated three units (see table 3). Campfires have dents, and 36% of CINS respondents behavior corresponded directly with a long been a part of the backcountry indicated that this behavior was slightly specific LNT Principle for Responsible experience, and the results of this study appropriate to very appropriate (M = Recreation. A number of important show general acceptance for fires, with 2.91, 3.52, and 3.70, respectively). findings emerged that transcended more than 50% of individuals from the Principle #6, Be Considerate of study sites and are worthy of further three units indicating a neutral to very Other Visitors, was evaluated with the discussion. At a global level, respon- appropriate response for the item statement: “camping with large groups dents were very positive and supportive “having a campfire” and relatively wide (8 or more people) in the backcountry.” of using LNT techniques. This sug- variation on scores within the unit. The LNT message espouses that gests they are largely supportive of the Results regarding the three other campfire attitudinal items were similar (see Table 3—Means and standard deviations of attitudes under figure 2). The item “building a fire ring LNT Principle #4: Minimize Campfire Impacts. if one is not present” received the lowest mean scores across all units with scores Item Unit N Mean1, 2 SD below 4. However, 33.4% of CINS GNP 269 4.15 1.7 respondents, 16.9% of GNP respon- Having a campfire ONP 305 4.10 1.8 dents, and 22.7% of ONP respondents CINS 158 4.37 1.8 GNP 274 3.84 1.9 indicated this behavior was appropriate Cooking over a campfire in the backcountry ONP 308 3.72 1.9 (5 or higher). CINS 159 4.21 1.8 The appropriateness of leaving GNP 273 2.41 1.9 Building a fire ring if one is not what is found in the backcountry present ONP 308 2.80 2.0 CINS 159 3.25 2.3 (Principle #5) was evaluated via the GNP 272 3.88 1.9 item “keeping a single small item like Leaving charred wood contained in the fire ring ONP 307 4.13 1.9 a rock or feather as a souvenir.” A CINS 157 4.55 1.7 majority of individuals across the three 1Mean score based on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very inappropriate, 4 = neutral, 7 = very appropriate). 2 units indicated that the behavior was Lower mean score reflects attitude more congruent with behavior/LNT principle

DECEMBER 2010 • VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 25 to target a specific “problem” behavior. Although a general message may pro- mote a general philosophy and ethic, it may not necessarily translate into support and adoption of specific behaviors.

Conclusions Attitudes toward the specific recommended LNT behaviors varied, at times widely. These results suggest that educational efforts need to target not only the seven general LNT principles but, more importantly, the specific behaviors that underpin each principle. In particular, this research suggests that additional or focused context-specific educational messages designed to inform NPS visi- Figure 2—Campfire ring and evidence of past use. Photo by Ben Lawhon. tors regarding specific practices may need to be used to complement the message and the corresponding behav- that certain recommended practices more prevalent general LNT educa- iors in a general sense. However, as can may not be fully understood and/or tional efforts. This appears particularly be seen in the discrepancy in mean supported by backcountry visitors. This important in areas where visitors mis- scores between the two global items incongruity between visitors’ positive takenly undertake behaviors that and 22 specific items, positive global global support for the LNT message negatively impact valuable resources attitudes do not necessarily equate to and the more varied attitudes toward due to ignorance or misunderstanding attitudes congruent with specific rec- specific behaviors suggests that oppor- regarding the application of the LNT ommended LNT behaviors. For tunities exist to improve educational principles. example, attitudes toward LNT efforts. Social psychological theory and Principle #2, Travel and Camp on communication theory suggests that Acknowledgments Durable Surfaces, measured by items educational efforts aimed at influencing We thank Garry Oye, chief, Wilderness such as “moving rocks and logs to behaviors must be targeted and specific Stewardship Division, and Rick Potts, make a camp more comfortable,” or for the context, audience, and behavior chief, Conservation and Outdoor “walking around muddy spots on the (Ajzen 2005; Ham and Krumpe 1996). Recreation Division, NPS, for their trail” (both inappropriate), received In other words, additional specific and support. The Wilderness Stewardship both supportive and unsupportive targeted education efforts that comple- Division of the NPS funded this responses. The first item, “moving ment general LNT messaging may need research. rocks and/or logs to make a campsite more comfortable” is viewed by 32.6% Table 4—Means and standard deviations of attitudes under of GNP respondents as appropriate, LNT Principle #7: Respect Wildlife. 19% had a neutral response, and 48.3% felt the behavior was inappro- Item Unit N Mean1, 2 SD priate. Similarly, in CINS, 59% of Dropping food on the ground to GNP 275 1.19 0.7 respondents felt it was appropriate to provide wildlife a food source ONP 310 1.19 0.7 “walk around muddy spots on the CINS 159 1.33 0.8 GNP 273 1.16 0.6 trail,” 22% were neutral, and 19% felt Feeding wildlife ONP 310 1.21 0.8 it was inappropriate. CINS 159 1.30 0.7 The relatively high variability (SD) 1Mean score based on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very inappropriate, 4 = neutral, 7 = very appropriate). 2 in scores on certain behaviors suggests Lower mean score reflects attitude more congruent with behavior/LNT principle

26 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2010 • VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3 References Promoting Persuasion in Protected Manning, R. 2003. Emerging principles for Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned Areas: A Guide for Managers using information/education in wilder- behavior. Organizational Behavior and Developing Strategic Communication ness management. International Human Performance 50: 179–211. to Influence Visitor Behavior. Southport, Journal of Wilderness 9(1): 20–27. Ajzen, I., ed. 2005. Laws of human behavior: Queensland, Australia: Sustainable Marion, J. L., and S. E. Reid. 2001. symmetry, compatibility, and attitude- Tourism Cooperative Research Centre. Development of the United States behavior correspondence. In Ham, S. H., and E. E. Krumpe. 1996. Leave No Trace program: An historical Multivariate Research Strategies, ed. Identifying audiences and messages perspective. In Enjoyment and A. Beauducel, B. Biehl, M. Bosniak, W. for nonformal environmental educa- Understanding of the National Heritage, Conrad, G. Schonberger, and D. tion—A theoretical framework for ed. M. B. Usher (pp. 81–92). Edinburgh, Wagener (pp. 3–19). Maastricht, interpreters. Journal of Interpretation Scotland: Scottish Natural Heritage and Netherlands: Shaker Publishers. Research 1(1): 11–23. The Stationery Office. Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1973. Attitudinal Hammitt, W. E., and D. N. Cole. 1998). Orams, M. B. 1997. The effectiveness of and normative variables as predictors Wildland Recreation: Ecology and environmental education: Can we turn of specific behaviors. Journal of Management, 2nd ed. New York: John tourists into “greenies”? Progress in Personality and Social Psychology 27: Wiley and Sons. Tourism and Hospitality Research 3(4): 41–57. Harmon, W. 1997. Leave No trace: Minimum 295–306. Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein, eds.. 2005. The Impact Outdoor Recreation. Helena, Pooley, J. A., and M. O’Connor. 2000. Influence of Attitudes on Behavior. MT: Falcon Publishing. Environmental education and attitudes: Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Heimlich, J. E., and N. Ardoin. 2008. Emotions and beliefs are what is Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding behavior to understand needed. Environment and Behavior Understanding attitudes and predicting behavior change: A literature review. 32(5): 711–23. social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Environmental Education Research Ramthun, R. 1998. Information use in the trip Prentice-Hall. 14(3): 215–37. planning process: A qualitative analysis Babbie, B. 2005. The Basics of Social Hendee, J. C., and C. Dawson, C. 2002. of backpackers. Paper presented at the Research, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wilderness Management: Stewardship Northeastern Recreation Research Thompson/Wadsworth. and Protection of Resources and Symposium, Bolton Landing, NY. Dillman, D. 2007. Mail and Internet Surveys: Values, 3rd ed. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Washburne, R. F., and D. N. Cole. 1983. The Tailored Design Method 2007 Publishing. Problems and practices in wilderness Update with New Internet, Visual, and Hendee, J. C., G. H. Stankey, and R. C. Lucas. management: A survey of managers. Mixed-Mode Guide, 2nd ed. New York: 1990. Wilderness Management, 2nd ed. Research Paper INT-304 Ogden, UT: John Wiley and Sons. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Eagly, A. H., and S. Chaiken. 1993. The Hungerford, H., and T. Volk. 1990. Changing Research Station. Retrieved on May Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, learner behavior through environmental 12, 2010, from www.lnt.org. TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. education. The Journal of Environmental Ham, S. H. 2009. From interpretation to Education 21(3): 8–21. WADE M. VAGIAS is a natural resource protection: Is there a theoretical basis? Kraus, S. J. 1995. Attitudes and the predic- specialist in the Wilderness Stewardship Journal of Interpretation Research tion of behavior: A meta-analysis of the 14(2). empirical literature. Personality and Division of the National Park Service, ———. In press. Interpretation: A Guide for Social Psychology Bulletin 1(1): 58–75. Washington, D.C.; email: Wade_Vagias@ Making a Difference on Purpose. Leung, Y.-F., and J. L. Marion. 2000. nps.gov. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. Recreation impacts and management ———. In press. Thematic Interpretation— in wilderness: A state-of-knowledge ROBERT B. POWELL is an assistant pro- Theory and Practice. Lincoln Street review. Paper presented at the fessor in the Department of Parks, Books. Wilderness Science in a Time of Recreation, and Tourism Management and ———. 2009. Personal communication, Change Conference, Missoula, MT. November 2. Lucas, R. C. 1983. The role of regulations in Department of Forestry and Natural Ham, S. H., T. J. Brown, J. Curtis, B. Weiler, recreation management. Western Resources, Clemson University, Clemson, M. Hughes, and M. Poll. 2007. Wildlands 9(2): 6–10. South Carolina.

DECEMBER 2010 • VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 27