What to Do About Crowding and Solitude in Parks and Wilderness? A Reply to Stewart and Cole

Recent research by Stewart and Cole (2001) adds evidence that the number of encounters among park and wilderness visitors is negatively, but weakly-to-moderately related to visitor satisfaction. However, their conclusions—1) that there is little empirical evidence to support limits on park and wilderness use, and 2) surveys of park and wilderness visitors contribute little or nothing to resolving the issue of use limits—warrant further consideration. Reliance on global measures of visitor satisfaction is fraught with methodological and managerial problems. Consequently, quality in outdoor recreation might better be defined through a management-by-objectives approach, one that, in the case of parks and wilderness, might include consideration of the social, cultural and legal importance of solitude and concern over crowding-related impacts. Moreover, research on visitor evaluations of crowding and other impacts of recreation, especially as it addresses potential tradeoffs among multiple desirable attributes of park and wilderness experiences, can help inform management policy regarding the appropriateness of use limits. Stewart and Cole admonish us to be cautious about limiting use of parks and wilderness, and this is good advice. But we should be equally cautious about not limiting use when its social and resource impacts diminish qualities important to visitors and threaten objectives for which at least some park and wilderness areas probably should be managed.