Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality
The objective of monitoring the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality is to assess whether management of a wilderness is trending over time towards protecting outstanding opportunities for specific, unique recreational experiences. This monitoring focuses on three aspects of the quality:
- Solitude
- Primitive recreation
- Unconfined recreation
Wilderness is the only public land designation that mandates federal land managers protect outstanding opportunities for a unique recreational experience, namely “solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation” (Wilderness Act, Section 2[c]). Although the Forest Service cannot ensure that visitors will have such experiences, the agency must protect conditions that promote such opportunities and keep them from declining over time. Thus, wilderness should provide opportunities for introspection, natural quiet, challenge, and freedom from societal obligations. Visitors may desire other experiences than those described in the Wilderness Act, but those experiences are not part of the legislated requirement to preserve wilderness character.
Forest Service managers must protect all three aspects of this quality that include (1) solitude, (2) primitive recreation, and (3) unconfined recreation. There are subtle differences in the three aspects of this qualities’ meanings (Seekamp and Cole 2009) and they can change independently of each other, which makes it necessary to monitor all three aspects to understand change in the overall quality. For the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality, two monitoring questions provide the broad context and four indicators provide the structure for this monitoring (as summarized in table 1.5.1).
| Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality | ||
|---|---|---|
| Monitoring question: What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for solitude? | ||
| Indicator | Measure | Measure type |
| Remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity inside wilderness | Index of encounters | Required |
| Index of recreation sites within primary use areas | Required to select at least one | |
| Acres of wilderness away from access and travel routes and developments inside wilderness | ||
| Miles of unauthorized trails | ||
| Remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity outside the wilderness | Acres of wilderness away from adjacent travel routes and developments outside the wilderness | Required |
| Monitoring question: What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation? | ||
| Indicator | Measure | Measure type |
| Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation | Index of NFS developed trails | Required to select at least one |
| Index of authorized constructed recreation features | ||
| Management restrictions on visitor behavior | Index of visitor management restrictions | Required |
5.1 Monitoring Questions
Two monitoring questions are used in monitoring the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality:
- What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for solitude?
- What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation?
The first monitoring question addresses the experience of solitude. The Wilderness Act recognizes that wilderness, protected from human development or settlement, can provide an opportunity for solitude not available other places. A review of wilderness writings suggests that solitude encapsulates a range of experiences, including privacy, being away from civilization, inspiration, self-paced activities, and a sense of connection with times past (Borrie and Roggenbuck 2001; Cole 2012). Both the presence of other visitors in wilderness and characteristics of the setting degrade opportunities for solitude (Seekamp and Cole 2009). Specifically, encountering other visitors in wilderness and seeing or hearing signs of modern civilization detract from the experience of solitude. Increasing visitation, population growth (especially near wilderness), and areas of concentrated use within wilderness all have the potential to degrade opportunities for solitude.
The second monitoring question addresses the primitive and unconfined nature of wilderness experiences. The Wilderness Act acknowledges rapidly disappearing opportunities for these types of recreation and it defines wilderness as a place where these opportunities should exist. The inclusion of primitive and unconfined recreation as a separate monitoring question recognizes the importance of non-motorized and non-mechanized travel, self-reliance and self-discovery, and the need for places where people can be free from social constraints.
Primitive recreation encompasses types of recreation that require primitive travel and living in an environment with minimal facilities (Hall and Davidson 2013; Johnson et al. 2005; Seekamp and Cole 2009). The founders of the wilderness idea referred to primitive travel, such as canoeing, horse packing, and hiking, as appropriate activities in wilderness. Because primitive recreation requires self-reliance and demonstration of skills in wilderness travel, opportunities for such experiences are degraded by the presence of facilities that make wilderness travel easier, such as bridges and highstandard trails. Opportunities are greater in wildernesses with areas suitable for offtrail exploration.
Unconfined recreation encompasses the sense of discovery, adventure, and mental challenge presented by large wildernesses in which visitors can travel widely and explore unique and unknown environments on their own without having to conform to society’s norms or rules. Outstanding opportunities for unconfined recreation may be associated with large expanses of land suitable for off-trail exploration, as well as places that have relatively low levels of use and are free from management restrictions over visitor activities. Research shows that visitors associate unconfined recreation with the “freedom to roam” and an absence of highly restrictive regulations (Seekamp and Cole 2009).
The first monitoring question “What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for solitude?” is addressed through two indicators:
- Remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity inside wilderness.
- Remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity outside the wilderness.
Using two indicators for remoteness allows managers to assess conditions that are subject to management control (inside wilderness) separately from those that are outside of management control (outside wilderness).
The second monitoring question “What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation?” is addressed through two indicators, one focused on primitive recreation and the other on unconfined recreation:
- Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation.
- Management restrictions on visitor behavior.
5.2 Indicator: Remoteness from Sights and Sounds of Human Activity Inside Wilderness
This indicator assesses wilderness visitation and the capacity of a wilderness setting to allow for escape from the sights and sounds of human activity. The opportunity to achieve solitude is addressed as a function of both the density and location of visitors within wilderness—most of whom stay near established trails, destinations, and preexisting campsites—as well as the opportunity to get away from those visitors and their impacts by accessing more remote areas.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary (Merriam-Webster 2016) defines solitude as “the quality or state of being alone or remote from society.” The presence of other visitors, particularly visitors outside one’s own group, directly impacts the experience of solitude. Additionally, recreational activities lead to visible signs that remind people of the presence of others, and thereby detract from a feeling of solitude (Seekamp and Cole 2009). Recreation impacts at campsites and other locations where visitors congregate are one of the most prevalent and obvious human impacts that wilderness visitors may encounter.
Remoteness, meaning distance from the sights and sounds of civilization, is important for achieving a sense of solitude (Dawson 2004). Research shows that most wilderness visitors stay on developed trails and most wilderness use concentrates within a few miles of trailheads and access points, especially where day use makes up most of the visitation. Therefore, remote locations away from trails within a wilderness provide opportunities for visitors to find solitude.
5.2.1 Measure: Index of Encounters
This measure monitors encounters by assessing one of the following, listed in order of preference: (1) an index evaluating traveling and camp encounters; (2) the number of traveling encounters or camp encounters (but not both); (3) the number of visitors; or (4) the trend in visitation. Given the centrality of encounters to the experience of solitude, combined with the absence of good data for most wildernesses, these alternatives involve a preferred hierarchy of data sources.
There are two preferred direct metrics for encounters that should be used together if data are available for both:
- Traveling Encounters—The average number of other groups (or people) seen per standardized unit of time (typically an 8-hour day) while in wilderness during the primary use season.
- Camp Encounters—The daily average number of camping groups visible or audible from a visitor’s campsite during the primary use season.
These definitions are from the national minimum protocol for monitoring solitude (USDA Forest Service 2016). However, wildernesses may use local protocols that tailor these definitions to local circumstances (for instance, including sightings of people outside wilderness, or overflights). The national minimum protocol explains how to include other information. Using these direct metrics captures the two important types of encounters: (1) meeting other people while traveling through an area and (2) seeing or hearing other campers. Research shows that camp encounters are highly salient to campers (Borrie and McCool 2007) and more impactful than traveling encounters (Hall and Irizarry 2014). Ideally, wildernesses will report on both metrics and combine them into an index. However, in many wildernesses, most visitors are on single day trips and camp encounters are not pertinent. In this case, only traveling encounters will be used.
If data are not available for the direct metrics of encounters, other data that provide an indirect metric of encounters may be used. Specifically, visitation data may be collected for all, or part, of a wilderness and may be used to determine trend over time. These data may be derived from mandatory permits, self-issue permits, trailhead registers, car counts at trailheads, or traffic counters. Using the indirect metrics, the measure would be the total count (number of visitors or number of groups) generated during the primary use season.
If visitation data are not available, professional judgment of the trend in visitation or encounters may be used as a last resort. Local units are not asked to make estimates of encounters or visitation, but simply to report their judgment about overall trend and provide additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) about their basis for this judgment. It is possible (even likely) that a variety of types of data would be available for a given wilderness. In this case, rather than trying to develop a new measure option, a wilderness would report the trend as professional judgment and provide documentation of the types of data that support the overall conclusion.
This measure is required for all Forest Service wildernesses. A 10-percent change in the measure value, number of encounters, or number of visitors will result in a change in trend for this measure. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis, and statistical significance will determine the trend in the measure. If professional judgment is used, any change in defined categories will result in a change in trend. An increase in the number of encounters or visitors corresponds with a degrading trend.
Refer to part 2, section 5.2.1, for more detailed guidance on data sources and compilation protocols, analysis, data adequacy, and interpreting the threshold for meaningful change.
5.2.2 Measure: Index of Recreation Sites Within Primary Use Areas
This measure is an index that assesses the number of recreation sites and their condition, based on the national minimum protocol for recreation site monitoring. A recreation site is a place where visible impacts to vegetation or soil from recreational use are documented. The intent of this measure is to include user-created sites, not facilities provided by the agency. However, designated sites such as designated campsites are included in this measure. Administrative recreation facilities, such as bridges or toilets, are not included under this measure because they are captured under a different indicator (see section 5.4.2). Often recreation sites are campsites, but they may also include viewpoints and day use areas. Locally unique situations, such as impacts at the base of climbing routes, may be included at the discretion of local units. The important point is to use consistent guidelines in each monitoring cycle.
It also is important to train field staff to properly measure site impacts and, ideally, to use the same staff over time to conduct the monitoring. Different observers may be more or less thorough in searching for recreation sites, and may judge the same conditions in different ways. When this happens, it is possible that what appear to be changes from one monitoring cycle to another may simply be a reflection of different judgments made by different observers.
If conducted by well-trained staff, monitoring should document accurately the increases and decreases in the number of recreation sites. Detecting significant change in the mean condition of recreation sites is more difficult, in part, due to some inherent subjectivity and because heavily impacted sites can undergo deterioration that will not be captured during subsequent monitoring (i.e., when they were in the maximum impact categories during the initial inventory).
Local units are required to select at least one of the following measures: Index of Recreation Sites Within Primary Use Areas (section 5.2.2), Acres of Wilderness Away from Access and Travel Routes and Developments Inside Wilderness (section 5.2.3), or Miles of Unauthorized Trails (section 5.2.4); units may select more than one measure if relevant to the individual wilderness. A 5-percent or greater change in the measure value will result in a change in trend for this measure. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis, and statistical significance will determine the trend in the measure. An increase in the measure value corresponds with a degrading trend.
Refer to part 2, section 5.2.2, for more detailed guidance on data sources and compilation protocols, analysis, data adequacy, and interpreting the threshold for meaningful change.
5.2.3 Measure: Acres of Wilderness Away from Access and Travel Routes and Developments Inside Wilderness
This measure assesses the total number of wilderness acres located more than ½ mile from access points, travel routes (e.g., authorized trails and roads, aircraft landing sites), and developments inside wilderness. The distance of ½ mile is somewhat arbitrary because the visual and audible impacts of roads and developments depend on the topography and vegetation of a wilderness, among other factors. Also, because a central data analyst computes this measure, it is not possible to customize it for each wilderness. However, this distance is consistent with the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (Clark and Stankey 1979), and using a consistent buffer allows for the determination of trends over time. The total number of acres is preferred over the percentage of wilderness.
One limitation to this measure is that the area away from access and travel routes and developments inside wilderness is unlikely to change because trails, roads, and structures are rarely built or removed in wilderness. Nevertheless, there is potential for change resulting from the addition or removal of recreational sites or other development in a wilderness. For example, conversion of a user-created trail to a NFS system trail would decrease the number of acres away from travel routes and developments.
Local units are required to select at least one of the following measures: Index of Recreation Sites Within Primary Use Areas (section 5.2.2), Acres of Wilderness Away from Access and Travel Routes and Developments Inside Wilderness (section 5.2.3), or Miles of Unauthorized Trails (section 5.2.4); units may select more than one measure if relevant to the individual wilderness. A 3-percent or greater change in the total number of acres away from access and travel routes and developments will result in a change in trend for this measure. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis, and statistical significance will determine the trend in the measure. A decrease in the acreage corresponds with a degrading trend.
Refer to part 2, section 5.2.3, for more detailed guidance on data sources and compilation protocols, analysis, data adequacy, and interpreting the threshold for meaningful change.
5.2.4 Measure: Miles of Unauthorized Trails
This measure assesses the number of linear miles of unauthorized (non-system) trails within wilderness. This includes user-created trails as well as other unauthorized routes (e.g., decommissioned roads or trails) that are currently in use. It may also include climbing routes. Many wildernesses face the potential for rapid expansion in the quantity of user-created trails due to the increasing use of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology for cross-country travel and social networking to share those data. It is extremely difficult to eradicate these trails once created, and unauthorized trails can introduce new use into previously pristine areas.
If a wilderness collects data on unauthorized trails, it is strongly recommended that they select this measure, as it is more sensitive to change than the other two measures included under this indicator. As the ability to monitor unauthorized trails improves (with new types of technology and imagery), local units need to verify that apparent change over time reflects the creation of new trails, and not simply the level of effort applied to detect trails.