Multiple wilderness recreation management: Sustaining wilderness values - maximising wilderness experiences
Higham, J. E.S., Kearsley, G.W. and Kliskey, A.D.
J. E.S. Higham
Web Editor,
Wilderness Research Foundation
Centre for Tourism
University of Otago
PO Box 56 Dunedin
G.W. Kearsley
Director,
Wilderness Research Foundation
Centre for Tourism
University of Otago
PO Box 56 Dunedin
A.D. Kliskey
Dept. of Geography
University of Canterbury
Private Bag 4800
Christchurch
Abstract
Wilderness is a concept that has both a physical and a perceptual meaning. Wilderness images have been collected by a number of researchers in recent years in an attempt to understand precisely what wilderness users consider wilderness to be. This article reviews the original works of three researchers, studying three distinct sample populations so that wilderness perception comparisons can be made. The results of this research show striking similarities and differences of perception, between different study samples. They show that many people have a common perception of wilderness, but that they may also hold quite different images of wilderness. A multiple wilderness perception mapping (MWPM) methodology developed by Kliskey (1992) is described and a series of maps presented and discussed. These illustrate the extent of existing wilderness as perceived by different groups within each of the study samples. Further information on these and other wilderness research projects as available at the Wilderness Research Foundation of New Zealand website
Introduction
The concept of wilderness can be defined in physical, legislative and perceptual terms. Each has a different application and it can be argued that for the purpose of visitor management, domestic recreation and tourism, an understanding of perceptions of wilderness is most relevant. It has been suggested that recreationists may achieve wilderness experiences in any natural environment that they perceive to be wilderness (Kearsley 1990). Such perceptions may comply with, or be far removed from legislated and designated Wilderness Areas. It is, therefore, likely that the majority of wilderness experiences can be accommodated in non-wilderness areas. In other words, wilderness experience for many people can be satisfied in areas somewhat removed from (and possibly buffering) core wilderness designations. Semi-remote areas or areas that have been developed to provide for primitive recreational pursuits (eg developments such as hut accommodation and tracks) provide wilderness experiences for all but the most purist of wilderness adventurers (Kearsley, Kliskey, Higham and Higham 1999).
This article examines and applies this theory to the New Zealand wilderness recreation context. It reports on three studies that examine the wilderness perceptions held by three distinct samples: users or the New Zealand recreational back country, the New Zealand general public and international visitors to the New Zealand recreational back country. All three studies involved the collection of primary data through the administration of questionnaires followed by the analysis of data employing the Wilderness Perception Scaling (WPS) technique (Stankey 1973). This technique allows discrete groups to be identified within each sample based on the wilderness perceptions that they hold. Labels are applied to each to illustrate the extent to which the wilderness perceptions common to each group comply with, or are increasing removed from legislative definitions of wilderness in New Zealand. The article presents a detailed analysis of the qualities of wilderness sought by the members of each purism class is then discusses the similarities and differences between them employing a series of maps created utilising ARC INFO software.
The New Zealand Wilderness Resource
An important part of New Zealand's tourism product is its range of natural environments and wild places. Wilderness can be found in Alpine ranges, volcanic peaks, native forests and mountain grasslands and sub-alpine fields. Most wilderness is protected in a system of National Parks, Forest Parks and other reserves that is over a hundred years old and that covers nearly a third of the country's land area. But for a small number of specially protected areas, these designations, know generically as the conservation estate, are open to unrestricted public access and use.
The conservation estate has long played a part in New Zealand's economic development. New Zealand National Parks have generally been designated in areas considered to otherwise have no economic value. The gazettal of National Parks has commonly been justified as a resource for regional economic development through tourism. The first National Parks in New Zealand were alpine parks in regions offering no potential for agriculture (Hall and Higham 1998). This scenario still applies with New Zealand's most recent park designations (eg Paparoa and Kahurangi National Parks) providing a tourism resource base for remote communities. The same is the case for proposed additions to the National Park system in the Catlins region and Stewart Island. These gazettals have been advocated on the grounds that they would serve the tourism development interests of economically marginalised regional and remote communities. The philosophy of 'economic conservation' (Hall and Higham 1998) is deeply entrenched in contemporary New Zealand. In 1993 the New Zealand Tourism Board (NZTB) and Department of Conservation (DOC) established a policy aimed at tripling or doubling annual international tourist arrivals to New Zealand. Wilderness images have become a key resource in the promotion of New Zealand as an international destination. For example, the 1999 '100% Pure New Zealand' promotion (NZTB 1999) relies almost wholly on natural imagery.
In recent years there has been a rise in domestic demand and recreational use of wilderness. This trend has been compounded by growth in demand for wilderness experiences from overseas visitors to New Zealand (Higham 1996). Coupled with this has been increasing evidence of ecological impact, crowding and displacement (Kearsley 1990, 1997, Higham 1996, Higham and Kearsley 1994, Kearsley, Coughlan, Thyne and Higham 1996, Kearsley and O'Neill 1994). Wilderness areas are recreational environments that are vulnerable to physical impact. Crowding is experienced by all types of users and, for many, diminishes the wilderness experience. Where visitor experiences are being compromised by ecological or social impacts, New Zealand's wilderness values are also being degraded.
This scenario presents a challenge for New Zealand's Department of Conservation, which is charged with the management of the conservation estate. In meeting this challenge, the Department can draw selectively from the North American wilderness management context. A comparison of wilderness designation and management practice in New Zealand and North America provides a range of common issues and interests. These include visitor management, physical impact management and tourism and community development issues. However, a number of widely researched wilderness management issues in North America do not apply to the same field in New Zealand. The definition of designated Wilderness Areas in New Zealand dictates that they should be remote and so situated to preclude day visitation. Wilderness Areas in New Zealand are also designated and managed to remain free of any form of construction (huts, bridges, walk wires, tracks), natural resource development, commercial recreation, mechanised access or over flight and non-native stock or introduced (exotic) fauna. The latter includes a complete prohibition on the use of any forms of pack animals or even horse riding. These areas are buffered to protect their largely natural and relatively pristine condition. For these reasons a number of widely researched wilderness management issues in the North American context do not apply, or apply less so, in New Zealand (eg. managing day visitors and vehicle access and use regulation). Managing the New Zealand wilderness resource (Wilderness Areas and adjacent lands offering qualities of wilderness experience) centres on the need to manage qualities of remoteness, solitude and challenge in the face of increasing levels of demand and diversifying demographic and motivational profiles.
Wilderness images
Wilderness can be defined in several ways. One approach is to define wilderness as a pristine environment free from any human impact. Vitousek (1999) confirms that by this definition wilderness no longer exists, least of all in the Northern Hemisphere where agricultural chemicals act as an agent of environmental change. Kearsley (1997) has noted the almost universal and substantial impact of introduced species, such as deer, ferrets, rats and oppossums, on natural flora and fauna. Wilderness may also be defined in Legislative terms. This approach recognises wilderness as an area of the earth that is affected primarily by the forces of nature. By this definition wilderness is an area of unmodified naturalness that is of a size and remoteness that makes practical is protection from agents of change. In New Zealand legislated areas of Wilderness have been defined and designated by the Wilderness Advisory Group (1985).
This article adopts the third approach to wilderness definition which is based on personal perception. Wilderness is a personal construct that can be defined as an image that varies from person to person. This allows wilderness to be found in different environments by different people. If so, the most fragile places can be protected by directing people to the environments where their wilderness expectations may be satisfied. Just as attitudes to wilderness have varied over time by culture and society (Glacken 1967, Nash 1980, Oelschlaeger 1991, Shultis 1991, Hall 1992 and Kearsley 1997), so too have individual perceptions of wilderness. While wilderness environments have an objective reality as physi laces, but, for each of them, wilderness exists in that place, although it might not for others.
Many attempts have been made to explore the dimensions of the wilderness image (for example, Lucas 1964; Hendee, Catton, Marlow and Brockman 1968; Stankey 1971; Heberlein 1973 and Beaulieu 1984). In New Zealand, Wilson (1979) showed that the general public and regular back country users held similar views as to how wilderness might be described. Both groups generally considered wilderness to be natural and unspoiled, wild and challenging. However the two groups diverged when their views about what activities are permissible in a wilderness environment were analysed. Among trampers, purists did not believe it possible to have wilderness where there was any sign of people or their artefacts, whereas the public exhibited a much broader range of tolerance. Most of them, and, indeed, some trampers, believed that there was no inconsistency between a wilderness experience and the presence of such facilities as huts, tracks, swing bridges and even toilets and picnic sites. Both samples generally agreed that vehicular access or any evidence of overt commercialisation are unacceptable in wilderness. Thus, it appears that the highly purist required a pristine ecological wilderness, but that the majority could find wilderness values in places that had been developed in part. Clearly many of those seeking to experience wilderness may find satisfaction in areas unacceptable to the purist minority. It is necessary, therefore, for wilderness managers to understand the quality of wilderness sought by different groups of users, and the extent to which those experiences can be achieved in lands buffering core Wilderness Areas.
The notion that wilderness can be encountered by various people in environments that are more or less developed has been advanced in a number of subsequent studies (Kearsley 1982, Shultis and Kearsley 1988, Kearsley 1990, Shultis 1991, Higham 1996, Kearsley 1997). These have provided a detailed appreciation of the perceptions of wilderness held by users, the general public and international visitors to the Conservation Estate. Members of these groups were asked to state the extent to which they accepted various developments or specific attributes in wilderness environments. These included physical facilities such as huts, tracks and bridges, attributes such as remoteness and solitude, or physical developments, including exotic forests and mining, in wilderness areas. Kliskey (1992) and Kliskey and Kearsley (1993) show how responses to such a question may be used to group people into discrete purism classes and to plot the extent to which specific environments provide wilderness for those groups.
Methodology
Three studies are included in this article, the first of which is the sample used by Kliskey in his original analysis. In this, he used data collected by Shultis in the late 1987 (Shultis 1991, Shultis and Kearsley 1988). This was a sample of 233 back country users, collected via the administration of an on-site survey in natural areas throughout New Zealand. The second sample was collected by Higham in 1994 (Higham 1996) and is composed of 336 international back country users. The final group is derived from 250 members of the general public whose views on wilderness were collected by Kearsley in 1995. This article reports on the key findings of each study and compares and contrasts the results generated from each sample.
All three studies collected data that could be analysed employing the Wilderness Perception Scaling (WPS) technique (Stankey 1973). WPS measures the extent of a persons' perceptions of wilderness and makes possible a classification of wilderness users based on their levels of perception. This methodology involves four stages, as follows:
- The development of a twenty-one variable list that functions as a list of indicators for the delineation of wilderness.
- The collection of quantitative data that allows respondents indicate the acceptability of each variable (based on their personal perception of wilderness) on a five point Likert scale.
- The aggregation of responses (1-5) to provide a total purism score ranging from 21-105 (twenty-one variables)
- The clustering of the sample into four purism classes, the membership of each sharing common perceptions of wilderness.
All three studies were able to identify four discrete purism classes confirming that a graduation of wilderness perception do exist. In each study, the respective wilderness perception classes were labeled non-purists, neutralists, moderate purists and strong purists. The ways in which the members of each purism class perceive wilderness are set out in Table 1.
Table 1.' Comparison of Wilderness Perceptions: '
Domestic and International Users and the General Public'
| Wilderness Perceptions Variable list |
Domestic tourists
(Shultis 1991; Kliskey 1992). |
International tourists (Higham 1996). | General Public
(Kearsley 1995). |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NP | N | MP | SP | NP | N | MP | SP | NP | N | MP | SP | |
| Campsites | + | + | - | - | + | / | / | - | + | / | - | - |
| Exotics | / | / | - | - | + | + | + | - | - | - | - | - |
| Road access | + | + | + | - | + | + | / | - | + | + | / | - |
| Commercial recreation | + | / | - | - | + | - | - | - | + | / | - | - |
| Maintained tracks | + | + | + | - | + | + | / | - | + | + | / | - |
| Bridges | + | + | + | - | + | + | / | - | + | + | / | - |
| Hunting | + | + | / | - | / | - | - | - | / | - | - | - |
| Logging | / | / | / | / | / | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Motorised travel | / | - | - | - | + | / | - | - | / | - | - | - |
| Huts/shelters | + | + | + | - | + | + | / | - | + | + | - | - |
| Hydro | / | - | - | - | / | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Mining | - | - | - | - | / | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Solitude | - | + | + | + | / | / | / | / | + | + | + | + |
| Remoteness | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
| Little human impact | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | + | + | + | + |
| Size | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
NP = Non-Purists, N = Neutralists, MP = Moderate Purists, SP = Strong Purists.
+ = acceptable, / = neutral, - = unacceptable.
The results presented in Table 1 can be examined in two ways. First, column (vertical) analysis within each of the three samples confirms that clear differences in perception differentiate each wilderness purism class. It is apparent, for example, that non-purists (NP) generally consider most listed variables to be consistent with the images of wilderness that they hold. At the opposite end of the wilderness purism scale, strong purists (SP) see the same variables to be unacceptable in wilderness. In between the poles of the scale, neutralists (N) and moderate purists (MP) are also distinguished on the basis of their wilderness perceptions, particularly when considering aspects of artefactualism (human constructs in wilderness environments, such as campsites, road access, tracks and bridges). The former tend to be accepting or neutral when considering these variables, whereas the latter are more likely to be neutral or unaccepting.
Alternatively, row (horizontal) analysis (Table 1) allows similarities and differences in perceptions across purism classes and samples to be identified. So, for example, most agree that the term wilderness describes extensive (size) and remote natural environments. A general consensus is achieved when respondents consider the acceptability of commercial developments (eg mining, hydro-electric, logging) and commercial recreation in wilderness. These were seen to be unacceptable by most. The same applies to perceptions of hunting and motorised transport which, but for one or two exceptions, are seen to be contrary to the image of wilderness.
Row analysis also allows the identification of variables towards which the views of various purism groups are substantially different. Most particularly, differences in wilderness perceptions relate to human developments in wilderness areas. Road access, maintained tracks and campsites, bridges and walk wires, huts and shelters are viewed quite differently by the members of different purism groups. Non-purists are most accepting of these developments and many consider them essential to the wilderness experience. Indeed some of the more extreme members of this group considered further developments such as flush toilets and hot water consistent with their personal views of wilderness. By contrast, neutralists tend to be generally accepting of facility development, moderate purists selective, but generally neutral, and strong purists wholly opposed to any such facility developments. These variables most clearly differentiate between the membership of different wilderness purism classes. Wilderness purism groups can also be distinguished on the basis of the perceptions of solitude that they hold. New Zealanders (both domestic wilderness users and the general public) agree that solitude is an important aspect of the wilderness experience. International visitors to New Zealand are, by contrast, neutral towards solitude as a quality of wilderness experience. It is important to note that these results tell only of perceptions of solitude, without identifying precisely what sample units consider solitude to be (ie it is possible that different respondents have quite different feelings about what solitude).
These results serve to illustrate that different purism groups are not necessarily in accord with the views of wilderness held by other groups, or those samples. However, while contrasts exist within each sample, the fact that the relative size of purism classes varies between samples is also noteworthy. Table 2 illustrates that purism class membership varies considerably, with the general public, perhaps unsurprisingly, tending to be much less strict in their perceptions than either of the other two groups. Some 83.3% of Kearsley's public sample are neutral or non-purist, compared with 48.0% of domestic wilderness users and only 33.1% of international visitors. By contrast, over half of back country users (52.0%) fall into the moderate and strong purist classes and fractionally over two thirds (66.9%) of international visitors. Again, it is clear that there are wide divergences in wilderness perception among differing groups.
Table 2. Purism class memberships: New Zealand backcountry users, New Zealand general public and New Zealand international tourists (%).'
| Sample. | Non-Purists | Neutralists | Moderate Purists | Strong Purists |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Backcountry users (Shultis 1991; Kliskey 1992) |
11.0 | 37.0 | 34.0 | 18.0 |
| General public (Kearsley 1995). |
40.4 | 42.9 | 15.9 | 0.8 |
| International tourists (Higham 1996). |
4.4 | 28.7 | 45.0 | 21.9 |
Wilderness image mapping
Wilderness perception maps are produced by 'buffering' or excluding those areas of a specific environment that do not accord with a particular group's view of wilderness (Kliskey 1992). This research employs a multiple wilderness perception mapping (MWPM) methodology that was developed by Kliskey (1992) in the production of a doctoral thesis. This is a multiple step methodology that involves:
- The collection of wilderness perception data from distinct user and non-user samples (New Zealand wilderness users, the New Zealand general public and international visitors to New Zealand)
- Data analysis using wilderness perception scaling (WPS) (Stankey 1973) to segregate each sample into four discrete classes based on personal perceptions of wilderness that are common to the members of each class.
- The analysis of variables that are considered to violate wilderness conditions as perceived by each purism class, within each study sample
- The designation of buffers that are used to in the mapping methodology of demarcate areas that are viewed as non-wilderness.
- The creation of a series of maps each illustrating areas perceived to provide qualities of wilderness experience, based on the personal perceptions held within the four discrete purism classes within each of the three study samples.
This methodology provides much scope for analysis and interpretation. In the first instance, as discussed above, it allows the detailed appreciation of distinct wilderness perceptions, both within and between study samples. Secondly, these data outline the environmental qualities that are considered appropriate or inappropriate to the experience of wilderness. These are shown to vary significantly within samples and between them. Multiple perceptions of wilderness can then be transposed onto a series of maps that illustrate both the extent of remaining wilderness (as perceived by the members of each sub-sample) and the grounds on which areas that are seen to lack wilderness quality are viewed thus. Clearly, the more purist the perception, the less extensive the perceived wilderness.
Using the buffers outlined in Table 3, a series of maps were created utilising ARC INFO mapping software. This process was initially applied to the Kahurangi area of Northwest Nelson. This area was the subject of Kliskey's original (1992) study. Using the input derived from the previous Tables, maps were drawn for each of the purism classes in each of the three samples. When the resulting maps, (Figure 1), are compared, it emerges that both similarities and differences exist within the study samples. Wilderness perceptions among both groups of non-purists are identical, in spite of the rather different criteria that are used. Again, neutralists in both groups have very similar, but not quite identical, perceptions of where wilderness can be found. By this measure, some 49 percent of Shultis' users and 33 percent of Higham's agree that extensive areas would constitute wilderness for them, and find wilderness in virtually the same places.
Table 3 Wilderness Perception Buffers'
| Wilderness Perception Variables. |
Domestic tourists' (Shultis 1991; Kliskey 1992). |
International tourists' (Higham 1996). |
General public (Kearsley 1995). |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NP | N | MP | SP | NP | N | MP | SP | NP | N | MP | SP | |
| Campsites | - | - | 1km | 2km | - | 1km | 1km | 2km | - | 1km | 2km | 2km |
| Exotics | - | 1km | 1km | 2km | - | - | - | 1km | 1km | 2km | 2km | 3km |
| Road access | 1km | 1km | 2km | 3km | 1km | 2km | 3km | 3km | - | - | 2km | 3km |
| Commercial Recreation * |
||||||||||||
| Maintained tracks | - | - | - | 1km | - | - | 1km | 2km | - | - | 1km | 2km |
| Bridges | - | - | - | 1km | - | - | 1km | 2km | - | - | 1km | 2km |
| Hunting * | ||||||||||||
| Logging | 1km | 1km | 2km | 3km | 1km | 2km | 3km | 4km | 2km | 2km | 3km | 4km |
| Motorised travel | 1km | 1km | 2km | 3km | - | 1km | 1km | 2km | 1km | 2km | 2km | 3km |
| Huts/shelters | - | - | - | 1km | - | - | 1km | 2km | - | - | 2km | 3km |
| Hydro | - | 1km | 2km | 3km | - | 1km | 2km | 3km | 1km | 2km | 2km | 3km |
| Mining | 1km | 1km | 2km | 3km | - | 1km | 2km | 3km | 2km | 2km | 3km | 3km |
| Solitude | - | 1km | 1km | 1km | 1km | 1km | 1km | 1km | 2km | 2km | 3km | 3km |
| Remoteness * | ||||||||||||
| Little human impact * | ||||||||||||
| Size * | ||||||||||||
NP = Non-Purists, N = Neutralists, MP = Moderate Purists, SP = Strong Purists.
* = these are not features and therefore can not be mapped.
When moderate purists are compared, though, significant differences occur. Kliskey's mapping of Shultis' wilderness users in the moderate purist category shows that a large core wilderness is still perceived, although the larger buffers around peripheral areas reduce its size a little compared with the wilderness perceived by less critical groups. By contrast, Higham's moderate purists see the core wilderness broken up by the presence of visitor numbers on a series of relatively popular tracks, especially the Heaphy, which runs through the heart of the Kahurangi region. Indeed, closer inspection shows that Higham's moderate purists perceive a similar pattern of wilderness to that recognised by Kliskey's strong purists. It would seem that either users have become stricter in their definitions of wilderness over time, or else overseas users have stricter definitions than domestic New Zealanders. Of course, further analysis and statistical testing for significance of difference are required to determine this point. Finally, the strictest definition and thus the least extensive wilderness comes with Higham's strong purists. Their spatial patterns reflect those of moderate purists, although larger buffers decrease the wilderness areas that remain.
Figure 1.
Wilderness perceptions: Kahurangi National Park
Kearsley's 1995 study of the general public provides a domestic contrast with Higham's overseas sample from much the same time period. As has been indicated, the purism classes derived from this sample are very different in their proportions than those in the other two studies. When non-purists are compared, the wilderness perceived is almost identical and the same is true for neutralists, so that all of the more tolerant purism class members agree as to where wilderness exists, in all three studies. In the case of Kearsley's sample, however, fully 83 percent fall within the first two categories. Moderate purists are again similar to Higham's non-purists and thus are also similar to Kliskey's strong purists. The map for strong purists in Kearsley's sample is based upon the perceptions of less than one percent of the sample and thus cannot be regarded as any more than illustrative. In fact, this group's perceptions closely parallel Higham's equivalent class again.
Wilderness images of Fiordland
The maps discussed show interesting variations between different groups, as well as some striking similarities. As to how much these are a reflection of the particular spatial characteristics of the study area, however, is not at all clear. Some light can be shed on this through an inspection of the perceptions of the same groups for other places, and similar mapping has been carried out for a substantial part of the Southwest of the South Island, especially the Fiordland and Mount Aspiring regions and adjacent areas. As an illustration of this, non-purist perceptions of this area are presented in Figure 2. Roads and settlement form the eastern perimeter, while the Te Anau to Milford Sound highway along the Eglinton Valley bisects what would have been a continuous wilderness. Kliskey's and Higham's samples yield similar wildernesses.
Figure 2. Wilderness perceptions:
Fiordland National Park/Te Wahipounamu World Heritage Area.
How wilderness diminishes can be seen in the perceptual maps of strong purists. Here, tracks and other infrastructure reduce wilderness values over large areas, so that only two continuous core wildernesses remain. One is in the north and encompasses the Alpine peaks of the Mount Aspiring area, while the other lies along the coastal flank of Fiordland. It should be noted that the variable lists employed in these studies did not include perceptions of boat traffic. Previous studies confirm that mechanised traffic is widely considered to erode wilderness values (eg., Kearsley 1982). With this in mind, it is quite possible that increasing waterborne traffic in the fiords of Fiordland National Park may threaten the wilderness status of this area. This area is otherwise considered to be wilderness by all three samples, but is least extensive for the very small proportion of strong purists among the general public.
Conclusions
In New Zealand, as in many other countries, difficult decisions regarding the designation of wilderness areas and rights of access need to be made if the resource base is not to be further impaired. While government and tourism organisations such as the New Zealand Tourism Board, continue to focus on encouraging visitation, insufficient attention is being given to maintaining the wilderness resource. This article focuses on the demand-side of wilderness management. It draws together samples from three distinct studies and confirms that different groups of wilderness users can not be viewed or treated by wilderness managers as homogenous. Similarities and differences between study samples are outlined in the first part of this article. Most notably, remoteness was seen by most to be fundamental to wilderness and commercial development, commercial recreation and motorised transport viewed as generally unacceptable. Perceptions of wilderness were also found to vary across purism classes and study samples particularly in terms of facility development. This article also confirms that the relative membership of discrete purism classes varies considerably between samples. These findings serve to emphasise that wilderness perceptions vary among individuals. This fact must be recognised by wilderness managers and reflected in the management of different environments to meet the wilderness interests and demands of different active and latent user groups. The perceptual approach to wilderness management should serve the additional function of protecting designated Wilderness Areas from overuse by meeting the majority of wilderness recreation demand in non-Wilderness environments.
This article has also demonstrates that images of wilderness can be translated into maps that depict the spatial extent of wilderness for a specific place, according to the standards and expectations of each wilderness purism perception class. This process is applied to Kahurangi and the Fiordland and Mount Aspiring region. The results overall show that there are substantial numbers of people, domestic users, general public and overseas visitors alike, who see wilderness in extensive areas of front country. On the other hand, those who hold more purist perceptions see much less wilderness overall. The management implication of this is that if substantial numbers can be satisfied in their expectations of wilderness in accessible locations (where management can harden and protect well used sites without diminishing their wilderness value), then those people should be encouraged to make maximum use of those places. Those who require more stringent wilderness conditions may choose to access increasingly remote and primitive environments if they are prepared to brave them. This research also provides a detailed insight into what may be considered to degrade wilderness quality in these areas. As such, this work is hoped to provide the basis for the preservation of wilderness on one hand, and the opportunity to maximise wilderness experiences for as many as possible on the other.
References
Anderson D. and Brown P. (1984) The displacement process in recreation. Journal of Leisure Research 6 (1), 61-73.
Beaulieu J.T. (1984) Defining the components of the environmental image for use as a predictor of decision to participate Unpublished PhD thesis, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Booth K. and Peebles C. (1995) Patterns of use. In Devlin, P.J., Corbett, R.A. and Peebles, C.J. Outdoor Recreation in New Zealand. Wellington: Department of Conservation and Lincoln University, 31-62.
Corbett R.A. (1995) Managing Outdoor Recreation. In Devlin, P.J., Corbett, R.A. and Peebles, C.J. Outdoor Recreation in New Zealand. Wellington: Department of Conservation and Lincoln University,191-204.
Fitzharris B.B. and Kearsley G.W. (1988) Appreciating our high country, in Holland P.G., and Johnston W.B. (eds) Southern Approaches, Dunedin, 197-218.
Glacken C.J. (1967) Traces of the Rhodian Shore: Nature and culture in western thought from ancient times to the end of the eighteenth century University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hall C.M. (1992) Wasteland to World Heritage: Preserving Australia's Wilderness. Melbourne University Press, Carlton.
Hall, C.M. and Higham, J.E.S. (1998). Wilderness in New Zealand. Celebrating the Parks: Proceedings of the Park Histories Conference. Mount Buffalo National Park, Victoria, Australia. April, 1998. pp. 177-192
Harris C. (1983). Recreation on the Routeburn Track: Image and Experience. Unpublished Master of Arts Thesis (Geography). University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Heberlein T.A. (1973) Social psychological assumptions of user attitude surveys: the case of the Wildernism Scale Journal of Leisure Research 5 (3) 18-33.
Hendee J.C., Catton W.R., Marlow L.D. and Brockman C.F. (1968) Wilderness Users in the Pacific Northwest : Their characteristics, values and management preferences. Research Paper PNW-61, US Department of Agriculture forest service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.
Higham J.E.S. (1996). Wilderness Perceptions of International Visitors to New Zealand. The perceptual approach to the management of international tourists visiting wilderness areas within New Zealand's Conservation Estate.
Higham J.E.S. and Kearsley G.W. (1994). Wilderness Perception and its implications for the management of the impacts of international tourism on natural areas in New Zealand. In Tourism Down-under: A Tourism Research Conference, 6-9 December, 1994 (pp.505-529). Palmerston North: Department of Management Systems, Massey University.
Kearsley G.W. (1982). Visitor Survey of Fiordland National Park. Lands and Survey Department. Wellington, New Zealand.
Kearsley G.W. (1990) Tourist Development and wilderness management in Southern New Zealand. Australian Geographer 21, 2 127-140.
Kearsley G.W. (1995) Recreation, Tourism and Resource Development Conflicts in Southern New Zealand. Australian Leisure 26-30.
Kearsley G.W. (1996) Managing the Consequences of Over-use by Tourists of New Zealand's Conservation Estate. In Hall C.M., Jenkins J. and Kearsley G.W. Tourism, Planning and Policy in Australia and New Zealand; Issues, Cases and Practice, Irwin, Sydney (in press).
Kearsley G.W. (1997). Wilderness Tourism: A New Rush to Destruction? Inaugural Professor Lecture. Centre for Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Kearsley G.W. and O'Neill D. (1994). Crowding, Satisfaction and Displacement: The Consequences of the Growing Tourist Use of Southern New Zealand's Conservation Estate. In Ryan C. (ed) Tourism Down Under, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand, 171-184.
Kearsley G.W. and Higham J.E.S. (1996) Wilderness and Back Country Motivations and Satisfaction in New Zealand's Natural Areas and Conservation Estate, Australian Leisure (forthcoming).
Kearsley, G.W., A.D. Kliskey, J.E.S Higham and E.C. Higham. (1997). Different People. Different Times: Different Wildernesses? In Trails in the Third Millennium. Proceedings of a Tourism Research Conference. Higham, J.E.S. and Kearlsey, G.W. (eds) 2-5 December, 1997. Cromwell, New Zealand. pp. 197-213.
Keogh C. (1991) Routeburn Track Market Study, unpublished MBA Dissertation, University of Otago.
Kliskey A. and Kearsley G.W. (1993) Mapping Multiple Perceptions of Wilderness in North West Nelson, New Zealand: A Geographic Information Systems Approach Applied Geography, 13, 203-223.
Lucas R.C. (1964) Wilderness perception and use: the example of the Boundary Waters canoe Area Natural Resources Journal 3 394-411.
Moore K. (1995) Understanding the Individual Recreationist: From Motivation to Satisfaction. In Devlin, P.J., Corbett, R.A. and Peebles, C.J. Outdoor Recreation in New Zealand. Wellington: Department of Conservation and Lincoln University.
New Zealand Tourism Board (1993). New Zealand Conservation Estate and International visitors. Wellington, New Zealand.
Nash R. (1982). Wilderness and the American Mind (Third Edition). Yale University Press, New Haven.
Nielson J.M. and Endo R. (1977) Where have all the purists gone? An empirical examination of the displacement hypothesis. Western Sociological Review 8 (1), 61-75
Oelschlager M. (1991) The Idea of Wilderness : From prehistory to the age of ecology Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
Shelby B., Vaske J.J. and Heberlein T. (1989) Comparitive analysis of crowding in multiple locations: results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences 11 (4) 269-261
Shultis J.D. (1991) Natural environments, wilderness and protected areas: An analysis of historical western attitudes and utilisation, and their expression in contemporary New Zealand. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Shultis J.D. and Kearsley G.W. (1988) Environmental perception in protected areas. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Environmental Monitoring in New Zealand. Department of Conservation, Wellington, 166-177.
Stankey, G.H. 1973. Visitor perceptions of wilderness recreation carrying capacity. USDA Forest Service Research Paper. INT-142. Ogden, Utah 84401.
Stankey G.H. and Schreyer R. (1987). Attitudes towards wilderness and factors affecting visitor behaviour : A state of knowledge review Proceedings, National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, state of knowledge and future directions. General technical Report INT-220. Intermontane Research station, Ogden UT. 246-293.
Vitousek, P. (1999). Global Environmental Trends. Plenary Session Presentation. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Missoula, Montana. May 23-27, 1999 (in press).
Wilderness Advisory Group. (1985). Wilderness Policy. Department of Lands and Survey, New Zealand Forest Service. Wellington, New Zealand.
Wilson M.L. (1979) Dimensions of the Wilderness Image Unpublished BA (Hons) dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Otago.