Backcountry visitors’ Leave No Trace attitudes.

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.

Full text

DECEMBER 2010 • VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 21
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
balance resource pro-
tection and visitor
enjoyment while addressing challenges including incompat-
ible adjacent land use, invasive species, climate change, and
improper human behavior, among others. Managing visitor
behaviors is further compounded, as sensitive environments
found in many protected areas may be vulnerable to signifi-
cant degradation from nominal recreational use (Leung and
Marion 2000) and cumulative impacts can be substantial
(Hammitt and Cole 1998).
To help mitigate negative impacts, natural resource
managers typically employ a multipronged strategy of edu-
cation and/or enforcement to help meet management
objectives (Hendee and Dawson 2002; Lucas 1983;
Manning 2003). Education is usually preferred over
enforcement, as it provides managers “light-handed”
options for lessening visitor-induced impacts and is con-
sidered to be more in line with the spirit of the Wilderness
Act (Hendee and Dawson 2002). Further, research has
shown that education-based programs are preferred by
both managers (Washburne and Cole 1983) and visitors
(Hendee, Stankey, and Lucas 1990) for protecting resources
and reinforcing appropriate visitor behavior over enforce-
ment. Yet the task of effectively educating the public
regarding appropriate behaviors can be a complex assign-
ment, with challenges including noncaptive nature of
audiences, limited contact time between park personnel
and the public, and others (Orams 1997). To assist in over-
coming these impediments, agencies have employed social
marketing and educational campaigns such as Woodsy
Owl’s “Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute,” Smokey Bear’s “Only
You Can Prevent Forest Fires,” and Leave No Trace.
Wade and Brooke Vagias kayaking in western
Maryland. Photo courtesy of Wade Vagias. Robert Powell
in the Everglades.
PEER REVIEWED

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

DECEMBER 2010 • VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 23
resulting in the reduction of visitor-
induced recreation impacts (Ham et
al. 2007).
Methods
Three NPS units were selected for
inclusion in this research:
Cumberland Island National
Seashore (CINS), Georgia; Glacier
National Park (GNP), Montana; and
Olympic National Park (ONP),
Washington. The three study loca-
tions were selected because all contain
wilderness/de facto wilderness areas,
are popular NPS backpacking desti-
nations that attract a significant
volume of overnight backcountry
visitors annually, require permits for
all overnight backcountry visitors,
and mandate pretrip check-ins with
ranger staff.
A systematic sampling strategy
was employed to ensure both represen-
tativeness and a more accurate estimate
of the error (Babbie 2005). Individuals
and groups were intercepted as they
registered/picked up their backcountry
permits at the backcountry offices/
ranger stations within the three respec-
tive NPS units. All adult group
members present were asked to pro-
vide their contact information. This
strategy allowed for the sampling of all
party members, not just the registered
trip leader, as past studies have shown
that less experienced backcountry trav-
elers rely on more experienced
individuals as sources of information
(Ramthun 1998). Questionnaires were
subsequently mailed approximately
one month after contact and followed
a modified Tailored Design Method
(Dillman 2007). An adjusted response
rate of 65% (N = 162) for CINS, 68%
for GNP (N = 279), and 73% (N =
312) for ONP was achieved.
Our principle interest in con-
ducting this study was to explore the
mean scores of respondents’ attitudes
regarding the behaviors of interest as
well as the variability (spread in
scores) as evidenced by standard devi-
ations (SD). Global perceptions of
LNT as a program were measured via
two Likert-type statements anchored
from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 =
strongly agree. The appropriateness of
specific LNT practices were measured
using 22 Likert-type statements
anchored from 1 = very inappropriate
to 7 = very appropriate. Only atti-
tudes pertaining to LNT Principles
2–7 were investigated, because LNT
Principle #1 addresses behaviors that
occur prior to the wilderness recre-
ational experience. Each item was
written to solicit maximum variation
in responses. For example, one item
reads “having a campfire.” Having a
campfire in the backcountry has been,
and will likely continue to be,
common practice among many back-
country campers, yet LNT principles
recommend foregoing a fire to lessen
environmental impact (www.lnt.org).
In fact, all 22 of the specific items are
considered inappropriate backcountry
behaviors under strict interpretation
of LNT.
Results
Greater than 63% of the GNP sample
was male, with a mean age of 36.2
years; approximately 60% of ONP
respondents were male, with an average
age of 41.4; and 62% of CINS respon-
dents were male, with an average age
of 40.3 years. More than 95% of the
total sample was white, and more than
90% of the respondents in each unit
reported having a college degree or
higher. Slightly more than half of
respondents were registered as the trip
leader. For 76% of GNP respondents
and 63% of CINS respondents, this
was their first trip to the respective
NPS unit. This contrasts sharply with
ONP, where 66% of respondents indi-
cated visiting ONP at least once prior
to being contacted for participation in
this study.
Awareness and Global
Perceptions of Leave No
Trace
The majority of GNP, ONP, and CINS
respondents reported they had heard
of LNT (94%, 97%, and 89%, respec-
tively). As a follow-up, respondents
who answered yes were asked to indi-
cate the year they first heard of LNT.
ONP respondents indicated having
heard of the LNT in 1992.5 (mean
year), and GNP and CINS respon-
dents both indicated 1995.
Overall, support for the LNT pro-
gram appears high, with a majority of
GNP, ONP, and CINS respondents
answering either “6” or “7” to the item
“it is important to use minimum-
impact/LNT techniques when in the
backcountry” (91%, 93%, and 89%,
respectively). Likewise, a predomi-
nance of respondents indicated that
they believe the LNT practices help
reduce environmental harm.
Approximately 68% of GNP respon-
dents (M = 1.65), 69% of ONP
respondents (M = 1.56), and 62% of
CINS respondents (M = 1.74) “strongly
disagreed” with the statement:
“Minimum-impact/LNT techniques
do not reduce the environmental harm
caused by backcountry travel.”
Attitudes Regarding
Specific LNT Principles
Attitudes toward LNT Principle #2,
Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces,
were evaluated by eight statements (see
table 1). Mean scores as well as stan-
dard deviations varied widely. For
example, “moving rocks and/or logs to
make a campsite more comfortable” is
viewed by GNP respondents as slightly
inappropriate (M = 3.59), but slightly
appropriate by both ONP and CINS

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

DECEMBER 2010 • VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 25
Campfire Impacts, suggest widespread
variation across individuals and the
three units (see table 3). Campfires
have long been a part of the back-
country experience, and the results of
this study show general acceptance for
fires, with more than 50% of individ-
uals from the three units indicating a
neutral to very appropriate response
for the item “having a campfire” and
relatively wide variation on scores
within the unit. Results regarding the
three other campfire attitudinal items
were similar (see figure 2). The item
“building a fire ring if one is not
present” received the lowest mean
scores across all units with scores below
4. However, 33.4% of CINS respon-
dents, 16.9% of GNP respondents,
and 22.7% of ONP respondents indi-
cated this behavior was appropriate (5
or higher).
The appropriateness of leaving
what is found in the backcountry
(Principle #5) was evaluated via the
item “keeping a single small item like
a rock or feather as a souvenir.” A
majority of individuals across the three
units indicated that the behavior was
slightly inappropriate to very inappro-
priate. However, 19% of GNP
respondents, 28% of ONP respon-
dents, and 36% of CINS respondents
indicated that this behavior was slightly
appropriate to very appropriate (M =
2.91, 3.52, and 3.70, respectively).
Principle #6, Be Considerate of
Other Visitors, was evaluated with the
statement: “camping with large groups
(8 or more people) in the backcountry.”
The LNT message espouses that
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
The purpose of this study was to
examine overnight backcountry visi-
tors’ attitudes regarding the
“appropriateness” of 22 common back-
country behaviors. Each investigated
behavior corresponded directly with a
specific LNT Principle for Responsible
Recreation. A number of important
findings emerged that transcended
study sites and are worthy of further
discussion. At a global level, respon-
dents were very positive and supportive
of using LNT techniques. This sug-
gests they are largely supportive of the
Figure 1—Braided trail made by users avoiding a muddy trail tread. Photo by Ben Lawhon.
Table 3—Means and standard deviations of attitudes under
LNT Principle #4: Minimize Campfire Impacts.
Having a campfire
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
GNP 269 4.15 1.7
ONP 305 4.10 1.8
CINS 158 4.37 1.8
GNP 274 3.84 1.9
ONP 308 3.72 1.9
CINS 159 4.21 1.8
GNP 273 2.41 1.9
ONP 308 2.80 2.0
CINS 159 3.25 2.3
GNP 272 3.88 1.9
ONP 307 4.13 1.9
CINS 157 4.55 1.7
Item Unit N Mean1, 2 SD
Cooking over a campfire in the back-
country
Building a fire ring if one is not
present
Leaving charred wood contained in
the fire ring

26 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2010 • VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3
message and the corresponding behav-
iors in a general sense. However, as can
be seen in the discrepancy in mean
scores between the two global items
and 22 specific items, positive global
attitudes do not necessarily equate to
attitudes congruent with specific rec-
ommended LNT behaviors. For
example, attitudes toward LNT
Principle #2, Travel and Camp on
Durable Surfaces, measured by items
such as “moving rocks and logs to
make a camp more comfortable,” or
“walking around muddy spots on the
trail” (both inappropriate), received
both supportive and unsupportive
responses. The first item, “moving
rocks and/or logs to make a campsite
more comfortable” is viewed by 32.6%
of GNP respondents as appropriate,
19% had a neutral response, and
48.3% felt the behavior was inappro-
priate. Similarly, in CINS, 59% of
respondents felt it was appropriate to
“walk around muddy spots on the
trail,” 22% were neutral, and 19% felt
it was inappropriate.
The relatively high variability (SD)
in scores on certain behaviors suggests
that certain recommended practices
may not be fully understood and/or
supported by backcountry visitors. This
incongruity between visitors’ positive
global support for the LNT message
and the more varied attitudes toward
specific behaviors suggests that oppor-
tunities exist to improve educational
efforts. Social psychological theory and
communication theory suggests that
educational efforts aimed at influencing
behaviors must be targeted and specific
for the context, audience, and behavior
(Ajzen 2005; Ham and Krumpe 1996).
In other words, additional specific and
targeted education efforts that comple-
ment general LNT messaging may need
to target a specific “problem” behavior.
Although a general message may pro-
mote a general philosophy and ethic, it
may not necessarily translate into sup-
port and adoption of specific
behaviors.
Conclusions
Attitudes toward the specific recom-
mended LNT behaviors varied, at times
widely. These results suggest that educa-
tional 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-
tors regarding specific practices may
need to be used to complement the
more prevalent general LNT educa-
tional efforts. This appears particularly
important in areas where visitors mis-
takenly undertake behaviors that
negatively impact valuable resources
due to ignorance or misunderstanding
regarding the application of the LNT
principles.
Acknowledgments
We thank Garry Oye, chief, Wilderness
Stewardship Division, and Rick Potts,
chief, Conservation and Outdoor
Recreation Division, NPS, for their
support. The Wilderness Stewardship
Division of the NPS funded this
research.
Table 4—Means and standard deviations of attitudes under
LNT Principle #7: Respect Wildlife.
Dropping food on the ground to
provide wildlife a food source
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
GNP 275 1.19 0.7
ONP 310 1.19 0.7
CINS 159 1.33 0.8
GNP 273 1.16 0.6
ONP 310 1.21 0.8
CINS 159 1.30 0.7
Item Unit N Mean1, 2 SD
Feeding wildlife
Figure 2—Campfire ring and evidence of past use. Photo by Ben Lawhon.

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