Rethinking the Woods: A New Study Challenges the Ideal of Solitude in National Parks

The prevailing wisdom among hikers and land managers alike has long been that the fewer people encountered in the wilderness, the better the experience. This deeply ingrained belief, that solitude is the ultimate measure of a quality outdoor excursion, is now being questioned by a groundbreaking new study that suggests we may have been fundamentally misunderstanding the value of shared experiences in our natural spaces. The research, published in the esteemed journal Tourism Management, posits that a singular focus on minimizing human encounters risks overlooking the potential for profound community building and a more inclusive understanding of how diverse groups engage with the outdoors.

The visceral reaction to crowded national parks is a sentiment many can relate to. For instance, the author recounts early career experiences in Moab, Utah, witnessing the frustrating, miles-long queues of vehicles inching their way into Arches National Park, a stark visual representation of burgeoning visitation. Later, in Colorado, similar scenes unfolded at Rocky Mountain National Park, where the author often found themselves creeping towards entrance stations, contemplating whether the anticipated hours of nature immersion justified the significant wait. The crowds didn’t dissipate once inside; rental cars were frequently parked haphazardly to facilitate wildlife photography, and popular overlooks became a sea of visitors vying for the perfect snapshot. This led to a personal strategy of arriving at trailheads at obscenely early hours, often before dawn, simply to escape the inevitable congestion.

This personal anecdote is emblematic of a broader trend. Over the past two decades, visits to U.S. national parks have surged, reaching an unprecedented peak of 331.9 million in 2024. This dramatic increase in visitation has understandably amplified concerns about overcrowding, a persistent topic in both media coverage and governmental discourse. Publications like Backpacker frequently feature articles exploring the quest for solitude in and around popular park destinations, while the U.S. Senate has even convened hearings to discuss technological solutions aimed at better distributing visitors. The underlying assumption in all these discussions is that crowding is an inherent negative, an experience to be avoided at all costs.

However, the new research from Bing Pan and William L. Rice, scholars at Pennsylvania State University and the University of Montana, challenges this very assumption. Their paper, titled "National parks as a collective experience," dares to ask: what if the presence of other people in a national park doesn’t degrade the visitor experience, but rather enhances it? They argue that by adhering to solitude as the default ideal for park visitation, we are missing opportunities to foster a sense of community and to recognize and support diverse ways of engaging with natural environments.

Pan and Rice acknowledge the tangible downsides of excessive park crowding, including potential environmental degradation and visitor frustration. Yet, they critically observe that our perception of what constitutes "crowded" doesn’t always align with the ecological or infrastructural carrying capacity of a given landscape. They delve into the concept of "recreational carrying capacity," a foundational idea introduced in 1964 by Forest Service researcher J. Alan Wagar. This concept has historically guided land management plans for public lands, resting on the assumption that the average visitor prefers solitude and experiences diminished happiness with increased human encounters.

The authors contend that this foundational assumption is, in fact, flawed. While it is undeniable that some visitors, particularly those from highly individualistic cultural backgrounds, deeply value the opportunity for solitary communion with nature, others actively seek what Pan and Rice term "communitas." Communitas refers to the profound, shared feeling of community and connection that can arise from mutual encounters with others as temporary co-visitors. A quintessential example, they suggest, is the communal campfire. Its appeal often transcends its practical functions of providing warmth and light; it serves as a powerful catalyst for social gathering and shared experience among campers.

While the imperative to manage visitor density for the protection of natural resources will undoubtedly remain a critical aspect of park management, Pan and Rice advocate for a paradigm shift. They propose that public land agencies should actively incorporate the goal of fostering communitas into their management decisions. This recommendation is particularly salient when considering the broader objective of making national parks and other public lands more accessible and welcoming to a diverse populace. The researchers highlight existing studies indicating that certain demographic groups, including many Black and Latino hikers, tend to place a greater emphasis on community when deciding where and how to engage in outdoor recreation.

"For these ‘sociocentric’ visitors," the authors explain, "an empty trail might not feel ‘pristine’—it might feel unsafe or lonely, devoid of camaraderie. For them, the presence of others may provide a sense of safety, shared joy, and validation of their outdoor leisure identity." This perspective directly counters the ingrained notion that emptiness equates to a superior wilderness experience, suggesting that for some, a sense of shared presence is paramount for comfort and enjoyment.

For seasoned hikers accustomed to the pursuit of solitude, the idea of embracing a more populated trail may indeed be a difficult concept to readily accept. The author confesses to this personal challenge, admitting that while generally a social individual, the quietude of a forest or the summit of a peak has always offered a vital space for personal reflection and recalibration. This sentiment underscores the deeply personal and varied motivations that draw people to the outdoors.

However, even the most dedicated proponents of solo excursions have undoubtedly experienced moments of genuine connection in natural settings. This is perhaps why accounts from hikers on long trails, such as the Appalachian Trail, often feature reminiscences about their "tramily" (trail family) rather than complaints about crowded shelters. It also explains the enduring appeal of campfires, even when gas stoves offer a more efficient alternative, provided regulations permit their use. As Outside magazine’s Graham Averill has previously observed, iconic national park locations like Old Faithful and Cades Cove attract immense crowds not by accident, but because they offer truly spectacular experiences. Furthermore, in an era where American public lands face unprecedented pressures from mining, drilling, and governmental budget constraints, this popularity can serve as a crucial bulwark for their protection. At the very least, the shared appreciation for these places represents a rare common ground, a collective value that, in itself, may be worthy of celebration and thoughtful management that acknowledges all forms of outdoor engagement.