tarian measures, usually with high administrative costs. 

 The impact of such bureaucratic control on a recrea- 

 tional experience, especially a wilderness experience, 

 is likely to be substantial and negative. In some cases, 

 conditions require this trade-off. But indirect manage- 

 ment is generally worth trying first, before resorting to 

 direct regulation. 



Indirect management is usually not obvious to vis- 

 itors. Visitor behavior can be modified by management 

 actions such as changing access to make it easier or 

 more difficult; for example, by changing the last part of 

 an access road to a trail. Providing information to 

 visitors to influence their choices of routes is another 

 indirect visitor management technique. 



Information as a Use Redistribution Tool 



The use of information to redistribute use is a par- 

 ticularly appealing approach (Fazio 1979). It is non- 

 authoritarian and permits the manager to be a helpful 

 guide rather than someone who restricts and regulates. 

 As a result, conflict and controversy can be avoided. 

 Surveys show that wilderness visitors have high educa- 

 tional levels, indicating an ability to understand and use 

 fairly complex information. 



But how effective is information as a tool for use 

 redistribution? This study seeks to help answer this 

 question. 



Information can be provided to visitors in many ways 

 and in varying situations, and previous studies under 

 different conditions have shown varying success in 

 modifying use distribution. The evaluation of informa- 

 tion as a management technique is strengthened by 

 considering the combined results of several of those 

 studies. 



One study showed information can effectively redis- 

 tribute use outside wilderness settings. Brown and Hunt 

 (1969) experimented with roadside signs and substan- 

 tially redirected use of highway rest and viewing areas. 



An attempt to redistribute campers away from trails 

 and previously used campsites in the Great Gulf Wilder- 

 ness in New Hampshire relied more on rules (with some 

 explanation) attached to permits, rather than on infor- 

 mation about the areas. The attempt failed to achieve 

 the desired behavior (Canon, Adier, and Leonard 1 979). 



In Colorado's Rawah Wilderness, Schomaker (1 975) 

 found that a map of "crowded areas" handed out at the 

 trailhead had no appreciable effect on visitors' choices 

 of travel routes. 



In the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota, 

 people who had permits forthe most heavily used entry 

 points during the 1974 season were sent a packet of 

 information in early spring 1975. The packet included 

 information on use patterns, noting heavily used places 

 and times. It provided information on fishing and wildlife 

 observation opportunitiesindifferentareas,and named 

 places where black bear depredations on camps were 

 most common. Rules and regulations and no-motor 

 zones also were presented. Three-fourths of the 

 sampled respondents who visited the area in 1 975 felt 

 the information was useful, and about one-third were 

 influenced in their choice of entry point, route, or time of 

 subsequent visits (Lime and Lucas 1 977). Visitors who 



had less previous experience in the area were most 

 often influenced. 



An experiment in Yellowstone National Park also 

 succeeded in redistributing a substantial amount of use 

 (Krumpe 1 979). A sample of persons applying for back- 

 country camping permits were given a "Trail Selector" 

 that included a map and a brochure with descriptions of 

 lightly used trails. The descriptions were arranged in a 

 decision-tree form. Visitors were asked a series of 

 questions about their preferences for backcountry ex- 

 periences and guided to suggested routes, depending 

 on their answers. They were asked about preferences 

 for travel along streams, to mountain peaks, to lakes, or 

 off-trail, cross-country travel. For each of these possi- 

 bilities, several more questions dealing with length of 

 trip, difficulty of the route, and more detailed aspects of 

 the setting led to a suggestion. A sample of other 

 applicants for permits was used as a comparison control 

 group and did not get the "Trail Selector." Only 14 

 percent of the control group chose one of the routes in 

 the "Trail Selector," compared to 37 percent of the 

 experimental group who received it. Less-experienced 

 visitors more often chose one of the suggested trails. 



A study in the Shining Rock Wilderness in North 

 Carolina tested an effort to modify campsite choices by 

 means of a brochure describing 10 characteristics of 

 each of five alternatives to a heavily used camping area 

 (Roggenbuck and Berrier 1980). Both the brochure 

 alone and in combination with a personal message were 

 tested. The approaches did not differ significantly, and 

 both resulted in asignificantdispersal of camperstothe 

 alternative sites. Visitors with no previous experience in 

 the area were more likely to disperse after receiving the 

 information. Parties who received the personal contact 

 and brochure treatment earlier in the day were more 

 likely to disperse than those who were contacted later. 



THE STUDY AND RESEARCH METHODS 



Study Area and Management Program 



The Stevensville Ranger District of the Bitterroot 

 National Forest manages about 100,000 acres in the 

 northeast corner of the over 1 million-acre Selway- 

 Bitterroot Wilderness. The Wilderness is in both Idaho 

 and Montana, but the Stevensville Ranger District por- 

 tion is all in Montana, on the east slope of the Bitterroot 

 Mountains (fig. 1). 



Most trails in this area lead up narrow, steep canyons, 

 all oriented east-west, to cirque lakes at their upper, 

 western ends. Few connecting trails exist and loop trips 

 are rare. The lakes vary in size and number, but most are 

 about 1 to 12 miles by trail from the road ends. 



The managers were concerned about highly con- 

 centrated use. Three of 1 2 trailheads received most of 

 the use, and there were problems of badly impacted 

 campsites. The other trailheads were considered attrac- 

 tive and capable of absorbing more use. Therefore, the 

 managers decided to try to shift some use from the 

 heavily used trails to similar but lightly used trails. 



To accomplish this, the Ranger District staff de- 

 signed a brochure (appendix 1 ) providing information on 

 relative levels of use at each trailhead, expressed as a 



2 



