Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a world where populations and resource demands continue to grow, there is a long history of concern about the capacity of the environment to support human uses, including timber, rangelands, fish and wildlife, and recreation. In the context of recreation, work on visitor capacities has evolved considerably since the late 1960s as a result of environmental planning, court proceedings, recreation management practice, and recreation research. This paper documents the state-of-knowledge understanding of capacity among our group of long-term professionals, who represent a wide range of experience and perspectives. The paper defines capacity as the amount and type of use that is compatible with the management prescription for an area, and elaborates on the elements of that definition. The main body of the paper describes 34 agreements about the larger planning context, the definition of capacity, benefits of capacity, indicators and standards, and the roles of these concepts in resource planning and management. The final section identifies issues needing resolution, including four differences we resolved and five differences that remain, and also includes our individual perspectives on these issues. This paper is not the definitive statement, on visitor capacity, and we trust others will contribute to this on-going dialogue as agencies, the courts, academics, and resource professionals work to resolve capacity issues. We hope our work adds clarity, advances understanding, helps guide application of efforts designed to address capacity, and encourages others to contribute their ideas.

Evaluative information about appropriate use conditions is a necessary component of managing impacts in recreation settings. Social norm theory, which suggests there may be group agreement about appropriate conditions, can be applied to help establish standards. Information was collected regarding boaters' standards for a variety of social and ecological impacts on the Deschutes River in Oregon. Results suggest norms can be identified and appear to conform to three different types. A \"no tolerance\" norm exists when most users agree that any level of impact is unacceptable, a \"single tolerance\" norm exists when users show similar agreement at impact levels greater than zero, and a \"multiple tolerance\" norm exists when two or more groups of users have different standards for acceptable impact levels. These norm types help in understanding differences in acceptable impact levels and group agreement. Implications are discussed for establishing management standards from normative information.

Peak season visitors to Yosemite Valley knows first hand that use levels can affect the quality of theft experiences in the park. The sheer volumes of vehicles and people sometimes produce long lines at entrance gates, traffic jams at intersections, full parking lots, and congested trails or viewpoints. These problems have been challenging the park's infrastructure and operational staff for decades, but more frequently in recent years. Whittaker et al review the process used to develop capacities, and describes how Yosemite's Integrated Transportation and Capacity Assessment information helped develop plan alternatives that represent tradeoffs between transportation infrastructure, visitor numbers, and the conditions that affect visitor experiences.

/ Norms are defined as evaluative standards regarding individual behavior or conditions in a given context. They define what behavior should be, rather than actual behavior. Norm prevalence refers to the proportion of individuals in a population who can articulate a norm in a given evaluation context. This paper empirically examines the prevalence of encounter norms in 56 evaluation contexts. Data for this comparative analysis were obtained from 30 studies that used a single-item question asking recreationists to indicate the highest number of encounters they would tolerate before the experience changed. Four predictor variables were examined: (1) type of resource, (2) type of activity, (3) type of encounter, and (4) question response format. As anticipated, norm prevalence varied by type of resource (backcountry or frontcountry), type of encounter (no conflict versus conflict), and question response format (two-category implicit, two-category explicit, and three-category). These three independent variables explained 64% of the variance in norm prevalence. Also as hypothesized, there was no relationship between type of activity (consumptive or nonconsumptive) and norm prevalence. Implications for future research and management are discussed; it is argued that prevalence is an important characteristic of social norms.

Although wildlife responses to humans vary, it is possible to broadly describe 3 classes of wildlife responses as attraction, avoidance, and habituation. These wildlife responses are discussed.

Using hunting as a management tool in urban areas is often controversial and contrasts with many hunts in rural or wildland settings. Faced with contentious decision-making environments, managers increasingly want to understand public acceptability of hunts before implementing them. A survey of Anchorage residents about acceptability of a nearby moose (Alces alces) hunt offered an opportunity to apply attitude theory to this issue. Results showed majority (51%) support for the hunt, although 34% were opposed and 15% were undecided. There also was considerable divergence in the underlying beliefs of those who supported and opposed the hunt. Support was based primarily on beliefs that it would reduce moose-vehicle accidents, reduce potentially dangerous human-moose encounters, prevent moose overpopulation, and provide good hunting opportunities. Opposition was based on beliefs that the hunt would be expensive to administer, generate conflict between pro-hunters and anti-hunters, prevent nonhunter use of the area, and potentially injure a hunter or someone else. Respondents unsure about the hunt generally held beliefs that were intermediate between those for and against the hunt, offering an explanation for their neutrality. Belief differences among the groups suggest that there may be opportunities to create greater consensus for hunt-related decisions, and that some beliefs are value-based and may be relatively resistant to change. Findings also highlight the utility of the attitude model.