Meanings and implications of acceptability judgements for wilderness use impacts

Abstract

While the concept of “acceptability” is central to the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) framework, there is inadequate understanding of how “acceptability” is judged and how unacceptable conditions affect visitor experiences. To address this knowledge gap, visitors to nine wilderness areas were interviewed. Judgments of social and environmental conditions fell into three categories: acceptance, nonacceptance, and conditional acceptance (in which visitors were not entirely satisfied but felt that achieving a more acceptable condition might have negative consequences). Persons expressing conditional acceptance used one or more of three coping strategies: rationalization, within-setting displacement or remediative behavior. Environmental impacts were more likely to be judged unacceptable than social impacts, especially in urban-proximate settings.

Parent Publication

• Wilderness science in a time of change conference-Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management; 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT

Citation

Hoss, Amy F.; Brunson, Mark W. 2000. Meanings and implications of acceptability judgements for wilderness use impacts. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 128-133