Research has shown that wilderness visitors are 

 overwhelmingly urban. 5' In addition, research shows 

 that (1) wilderness visitors have high education levels, 



(2) most are white-collar workers, primarily in the 

 social service and educational occupations, and 



(3) they are somewhat above average in income. 

 Young adults are the most common visitors, although 

 children and older adults are well represented. 

 Although this youthful segment of the population has 

 grown enormously in the last 30 years, it will grow 

 more slowly in the decades immediately ahead and 

 eventually decline at a proportion relative to older 

 persons. ^2 



Considering the various factors affecting demand, 

 such as population, income, and education, it is esti- 

 mated that recreational use of wilderness will con- 

 tinue to grow in future decades, although the rate of 

 that growth will decrease. If no acreage is added to 

 the National Wilderness Preservation System, its 

 recreational use is expected to grow approximately 2 

 percent each year for the next several decades." 

 Larger increases are expected, however, if significant 

 acreage is added to the National Wilderness Preserva- 

 tion System. 5'' 



Nonrecreational uses of wilderness — Although 

 recreational activities are the most common uses of 

 wilderness, other wilderness and resource values have 

 important implications for assessing demands for 

 future wildernesses and preparing management plans 

 for existing ones. 



Several research studies have suggested that many 

 people enjoy wilderness vicariously, rather than on- 

 site. ^^ Some of these people have made, or will make, 

 on-site visits and value the option to visit wilderness, 

 while others never set foot in wilderness. However, all 



51 Hendee. John C, George H. Stankey, and Robert C. Lucas. 

 Wilderness management. USDA For. Serv. Misc. Publ. No. 1365. 

 Washington, D.C. (see ch, 13). 1978. 



52Marcin, Thomas C, and David W. Lime, our aging pop- 

 ulation structure: What will it mean for future outdoor recreation 

 use? p. 42-53. In Proc. of the Nat. Symp. on the Econ. of Outdoor 

 Recreation, New Orleans. Nov. 11-13, 1974. Comp by Jay M. 

 Hughes, and R. Duane Lloyd. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-2. 1977. 



"Jungst, Steven E. projecting future use of the National Forest 

 Wilderness System. Iowa State University, Doctoral dissertation, 

 1978. 



^'^Ibid. 



"Fisher. Anthony C, John V. Krutilla and Charles J. Cicchetti. 

 The economics of environmental preservation: a theoretical and 

 empirical analysis. Am. Econ. Rev. 62(4):605-619. 1972: and Tom- 

 baugh, Larry W., External benefits of natural environments. 

 Recreation Symp. Proc. USDA For. Serv., Northeast. For. and 

 Range Exp. Sta., Upper Darby, Pa. 1971: and Cicchetti, Charles 

 J., and A. Myrick Freeman 111. Option demand and consumer 

 surplus: further comment. Q. J. Econ. vol. 85, p. 528-539. 1971. 



these individuals value the existence of designated 

 wilderness. 



Other wilderness uses include scientific, educa- 

 tional, therapeutic, and cultural activities. For in- 

 stance, ecologists, biologists, and scientists in other 

 related fields use wilderness as a natural laboratory. 

 The contrast between the natural wilderness ecosys- 

 tems found in most other places helps scientists 

 understand each kind of system better. '^ 



Equally significant, the relatively large size of most 

 wildernesses permits many ecological processes to 

 work more freely and with less interference than in 

 small Research Natural Areas. This is particularly 

 important for endangered species and some mammals 

 with large ranges, such as grizzly bears and mountain 

 hons, both of which have been studied in wilderness. 

 In addition, wilderness serves as a potential gene pool 

 for indigenous species of plants and animals. 



Educational use is another input of the wilderness 

 use. Specific data on this activity are unavailable, but 

 it clearly is substantial and growing, enough so that it 

 may be a significant source of use pressures in a few 

 places. A study of the use of wilderness by seven edu- 

 cational organizations in the Pacific Northwest esti- 

 mated 13,000 recreation visitor days of educational 

 use of eight wildernesses in Washington and Ore- 

 gon." This accounted for about 5 percent of all use of 

 these areas. 



Other uses are part educational and part therapeu- 

 tic. For example, Oregon mental hospital patients 

 have been taken on wilderness trips with impressive 

 success in patient improvement. Several studies have 

 shown that the isolation and challenge of a wilderness 

 setting have beneficial effects on delinquent or dis- 

 turbed young people. 58 



In addition, other activities may appear to some to 

 be inconsistent with the special qualities of wilder- 

 ness, but take place in wilderness because of special 

 provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964. For exam- 

 ple, the Wilderness Act permits the staking of mining 

 claims until the end of 1983. However, presently only 

 a few small mines are in operation within the Wilder- 



5* Craighead, John J., Joel R. Verney, and Frank C. Craighead. 

 A population analysis of the Yellowstone grizzly bears. Mont. For. 

 and Conserv. Exp. Sta., School of Forestry, Univ. of Montana. 

 Bull. No. 40. 1974; and Hornocker, Maurice G. Mountain lion. 

 Naturalist. 22(3):27-32. 1971. 



"Dick, R. J., Oltremari, D. Shepard, and A. Wilcox. Wilder- 

 ness as a classroom — a preliminary report. (U'npbl. rep. on file at 

 Pac. Northwest. For. and Range Exp. Sta., Seattle, Wash.) 1972. 



5*Thorstenson, Clark T., and Richard A. Heaps. Outdoor sur- 

 vival and its implications for rehabilitation. Therapeutic Recrea- 

 tion J. 6(4):16-161, 185. 1972; Kaplan, Rachel. Some psychological 

 benefits of an outdoor challenge program. Environ, and Behav. 

 (1):101-106. 1974; and Hanson, Robert A. Outdoor challenge and 

 mental health. Naturalist, 24(1):26-31. 1973. 



104 



