Subject variability in estimates of impact saliency and impact acceptability for wilderness conditions

This study examined sources of subject variation in user estimates of impact saliency and the acceptability of impacts on ecological and social conditions found in wilderness. Data collected in a questionnaire sent to visitors to the Spruce Lake Trails Area in British Columbia, Canada were used to test six research hypotheses. The influence of impacts on visitors' wilderness experiences were compared among three sub-groups of the study sample characterized by: 1) how their trip was organized (commercially outfitted vs. privately outfitted); 2) their length of stay (one day vs. two to four days vs. five or more days); and 3) their place of origin (BC residents vs. US residents), respectively. Variations in impact acceptability levels were also compared for the above three sub-groups. The results of hypotheses testing indicated that, overall, the three variables examined (trip organization, length of stay and place of origin) offered little explanation for subject variation in impact saliency and impact acceptability by respondents to the Spruce Lake Trails Area Visitor Study. By and large, survey respondents agreed on the relative influence of most of the impacts evaluated. Behavioral impacts (e.g., discourteous behavior) were judged by all respondents as most important in determining the quality of their wilderness experience. Respondents tended to ignore the social setting (i.e., where the impact occurred) when evaluating the effect of the impacts. Survey respondents had the most difficulty in quantifying an acceptable level of vegetation loss and bare ground at campsites and on or beside trail. They had the least difficulty in quantifying acceptable levels of litter at all locations.Forestry, Faculty ofGraduat