Type II: Leisure-oriented wilderness opponents

The categories diversity and usefulness (in the sense of usefulness for rec­reation purposes) played a main role in distinguishing the style of reason­ing of this type from the others. Their desire to intervene in nature is moti­vated by their belief that nature needs to be looked after. Planned human interventions care for nature to ensure that it remains varied and ecologi­cally valuable (diversity). This type’s understanding of nature is in many ways similar to the understanding associated with traditional nature con­servation. They are opposed to wilderness and its spread because it is asso­ciated with a loss of diversity. They value nature for its usefulness for peo­ple and the opportunities it provides for such leisure activities as sport. The leisure-oriented wilderness opponents tend to see areas that have gone wild as not very attractive. They perceive nature to be more beautiful if it
contains considerable diversity as, for instance, in nature conservation ar­eas where rare species can be observed.

Type III: Wilderness fans

Interviewees belonging to this type tended to see themselves as part of na­ture and to accept both human influence on nature, so long as this is re­stricted to populated regions, and the impact of nature and natural events on humans. They are opposed to human intervention to tend and plan na­ture in the sense of traditional nature conservation. Wilderness is viewed as special primarily because it contrasts with inhabited areas formed through human design but also because it is out in the wild that people are free to experience nature without restrictions. Nature to which wilderness has spread is seen as robust enough to withstand human use for recreation without too much damage. Such wild areas are seen by these people as more beautiful than any systems that have been influenced by humans.