Adventure Recreation: What's New for Resource Managers, Public Policy Analysts, and Recreation Providers.

In 1996, people in many countries were riveted to televisions, Internet sites, radios or other forms of media trying to piece together information on an unfolding tragedy on the world's highest peak -- Mt. Everest. It was in this year that a sudden storm appeared, seemingly out of nowhere, and ultimately snuffed out the lives of 11 climbers. Of noteworthy interest to the field of recreation and park management was the lack of a public outcry to ban these obviously foolhardy and dangerous recreational activities. Indeed, despite the occasional fatality or high publicity injury, recreational endeavors that inherently contain elements of risk and danger have now assumed a place in the lexicon of legitimate recreational activities. Most of these activities are well-known and include wilderness backpacking, rock climbing, mountaineering, whitewater boating, some forms of mountain-biking, caving, backcountry skiing, and similar types of engagements. Collectively, these activities fall under a variety of terms including risk recreation, challenge activities, extreme sports, and adventure recreation. Whatever the term, when participation in these activities is aggregated, they represent one of the fastest growing tourism and recreational sectors in North America, and the world (CDTC, 1995).

This research update describes the phenomenon of risk-taking in and through recreational activities and provides an overview of the use of adventure in recreation, a summation of salient research findings within the past decade, and some concluding remarks relating what we know and don't know.

Adventure Recreation: An Overview

Ask anyone what an adventure recreationist is and a number of different images are likely to arise, including: thrill-seeker, adrenaline-junkie, explorer, dare-devil, etc. Whatever the label, the history of deliberately engaging in recreational activities that contain danger and risk is quite extensive and contains the foundation of our current research efforts. For example, while adventuring during the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods was primarily an offshoot of efforts to acquire wealth, spread a particular brand of religion, or exploration for King and Queen, it was not until the 1700's and the "Golden Age" of mountaineering that specific recreational activities such as mountain climbing, were pursued, not in spite of the risk but, in large measure, because of the risk (Roberts, 1985; Scott, 1974).

By the 1940's, however, two additional areas of interest emerged related to adventure recreation. While the advent of mountaineering heralded in the combining of risk into recreational activities, two separate but related pathways also developed: (a) the use of adventure activities for therapy and (b) using adventure for educational purposes. The forerunner of these movements and still the most widely recognized adventure-based program being Outward Bound.

Thus, these three areas of development (adventure for recreation, therapy and education) have shaped the way society now uses adventure activities. Not surprisingly, these three approaches have also dictated the research efforts that have been directed toward the use of adventure activities and experiences. As a result, much of the research literature can be categorized as adventure for recreation, therapeutic intent, or achieving educational purposes. In the interest of space this discussion is limited to research on the adventure recreation experience rather than inquiry deemed to be of therapeutic or educational intent.

For the purpose of this update, adventure recreation can be defined in the following way:

Recreational and/or educational activities utilizing a close interaction with the natural environment, that contain elements of real or perceived risk and danger, in which the outcome, while uncertain, can be influenced by the participant and circumstance." (Ewert, 1989)

Within the context of this definition, adventure recreation has most often been studied from the perspectives of the effects of risk on the participant, what recreational, therapeutic, or educational outcomes have been realized, levels and types of involvement in adventure recreation activities, and how does participation in adventure programs impact the self-system of the individual (e.g., self-esteem, group membership, etc.). The following provides a synopsis of some of those research efforts.

A Decade of Research on Adventure Recreation

Attarian (1991) provided the most recent review of research on adventure recreation, in which the findings were divided into social and individual benefits; wilderness centered, activity oriented; therapeutic benefits; and professional issues. Research since that time has followed similar lines, but also includes research into other aspects of the experience such as perceived risks, involvement and population specific research. In the interest of continuity, this paper will review research published after Attarian's 1991 review.

Perceived Risk

A study by Brannan et al. (1992) examined public perceptions of risk in recreational activities utilizing a stepwise multiple regression analysis and found that physical and psychological risk were the most common predictors of perceived risk, while five other components of risk (financial, functional, satisfaction, time and social) were less frequent predictors. This research also found overall perceived risk to be negatively correlated with level of experience.

Priest (1992)developed the Dimensions of an Adventure Experience (DAE) instrument to test the factors of perceived risk and personal competence. Using factor analysis he found support for three factors related to risk (fear, eustress, and distress) and two factors related to competence (abilities and attitudes).

Using the DAE, Priest and Carpenter (1993) examined changes in perceived risk and competence during resulting from participation in an adventure activity and found support for the theory that perception of risk and of personal competence change as a result of participation in adventurous activities. Analysis of the main effects indicated that perception of situational risks did decrease across subjects and perception of competence did increase with participation. The same year, Priest and Bunting (1993) found that participation in a three-day whitewater canoeing trip resulted in decreases in perceived risk, as well as increases in perceived competence. The greatest change occurred in terms of diminished fear and enhanced ability, while eustress, distress, and attitudes showed less change over the course.

Research has also investigated methods for attenuating the anxiety generated by perceived risk and competence. In a study of anxiety in novice rock climbers, Maynard et al. (1997) found support for the theory that stress management techniques should be matched to the type of anxiety (cognitive or somatic) manifested by the individual.

The effect of adventure or perceived risk from a physiological perspective has also been investigated. Using a ropes course environment to induce perceived risk, Jones and Ellis (1996) tested the theory that secretion of plasma beta-endorphin (a naturally occurring opiate-like peptide theoretically linked to pleasure) as a result of arousal through perceived risk would reinforce risk-taking behavior.

Although levels of beta-endorphin were increased due to exposure to a high-perceived risk condition and the means showed a tendency toward the hypothesized tail of the distribution, post hoc tests did not support significant differences between low and high risk conditions desire to repeat the experience.

Bunting et. al. (2000) studied the influence of aerobic fitness in adult responses to various outdoor adventure tasks by measuring urinary epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol. They found that advanced rock climbing and whitewater canoeing days resulted in higher neuroendocrine responses and that participants with lower levels of fitness had higher neuroendocrine responses than more fit participants. These findings suggest that outdoor adventure experience provides specific health and wellness benefits and that those who are more aerobically fit experience less stress during adventure pursuits.

Individual Involvement

Several studies have focused on the individual's involvement in the adventure recreation experience. Robinson (1992b) proposed a five phase model of enduring risk recreation involvement that consists of (1) the dominant psycho-social antecedents which underlie attraction to risk recreation, (2) the perceptual process involved in determining situational risk, (3) the decision making process in determining risk engagement, (4) the psychological processes which determine optimal experience, and (5) the post-performance appraisal processes which influence positive self expression and enduring involvement. Robinson (1992a) compared the risk recreation experiences with work experiences in terms of their ability to generate psychological well-being and the transference of these gains to other areas of life. Robinson found that for those individuals who achieve enduring levels of risk recreation involvement, the "expressive and processual nature of risk recreation" tends to enhance psychological well-being and optimal experiences more than those experiences associated with everyday life.

Paxton (1999) utilized a mixed method approach to measure the transference of self-efficacy gains from the adventure program environment to the participant's everyday lives. Paxton found that participant self-efficacy continued to increase as much as one year following their participation in adventure programs. Using a means-end analysis, Goldenberg et. al. (2000) investigated the outcomes sought by participants in ropes course experiences. Participants, it was found, generally seek positive self-improving goals and benefits. Teamwork was associated with benefits such as building positive relationships, encouraging others, brainstorming, and being more effective. All of these desired outcomes were linked with the benefit of task accomplishment.

Ewert & Hollenhorst (1994)conducted canonical correlations on individual and setting attributes of the adventure recreation experience using rock climbers and whitewater boaters. They found that as involvement in rock climbing increases, participants become less dependent on remote natural conditions. They also found that most boaters use equipment to optimize performance, however a parallel group who view equipment as safety apparatus or as a way to limit exposure to risk. Ewert & Hollenhorst (1994) also conclude that as specialization increases two groups of adventure recreationists come to exist. There are those individuals who attach importance to equipment, have a greater life centrality of the activity, and a greater dependency on a specific resource. The second group experiences high degrees of skill and experience, values autonomy, personal decision making, and prefers to recreate with friends rather than as part of a guided group. It is interesting to note about this second group is that they do not appear to become more involved with the activity over time, and may actually become less involved (pp. 188).

In a study of sensation seeking and risk-taking among climbers on Mount Everest, Breivik (1996)concluded that a definite high-risk athlete profile could be identified. This profile includes strong drive factors, weak stop factors, good stability, and very high sensation-seeking scores on Zuckerman's Sensation Seeking Scale.

Freischlag & Freischlag (1993) tested the flow paradigm (Csikszentmihalyi, 1977) with 102 rock climbers and found a distinct demographic profile, an orientation to related activities, and adherence to supplemental training regimens. These climbers demonstrated more positive self-assessments as their ability to climb increased, which confirms the flow paradigm in this study.

Schuett (1993) found that level of enduring involvement was predicted by skill level, psychological outcomes, gender, frequency of participation and perceived risk. This finding was congruent with earlier work done by Ewert & Hollenhorst (1989).

Schrader & Wann (1999)found that level of sensation seeking and gender accounted for the greatest amount of variation in high-risk recreation involvement. Their hypothesis that death anxiety would be a major predictor of involvement was not supported. Gender, on the other hand, accounted for significant viability among participants and non-participants -- more so than any other variable selected. McIntyre (1992) measured three methods for measuring individual engagement (skill level, self reported experience, and perceived importance of the activity) and concluded that perceived importance provided the most appropriate method for assessing engagement in the context of the Adventure Model (Ewert & Hollenhorst, 1989). Jones et. al. (2000) conducted a validation of the flow theory in an on-site whitewater kayaking setting. This study found that flow and anxiety may be experienced similarly during extreme adventure, and that flow and anxiety have residual effects over the duration of the trip. The authors suggest that multiple extreme challenges, rather than a single challenge, may best facilitate the flow experience.

Summary

The deliberate use of risk and danger, under the rubric of adventure, has a rich and diverse history. Developing into three approaches of research on the recreational, therapeutic, and educational components of adventure, we now know a great deal regarding what the adventure experience is, how it changes over time and experience levels, how individuals perceive risk, how exposure to adventure can impact the personality, cognitive, and emotional characteristics of an individual and how the adventure experience can facilitate the learning experience.

What we know less of is how these effects actually occurs; is there a particularly effective sequence of activities or program components that "works" better than others, how adventure activities can "inform" the other aspects of one's life (e.g., educational, personal, workplace, family, etc.), and how long lasting are these effects? For example, Hattie, Marsh, Neill, and Richards (1997) conducted a meta-analysis examining impacts to a variety of outcomes including self-concept, locus of control, and leadership. Based on 1,728 effect sizes from 151 unique samples they found the average effect size to be .34, equal to or exceeding the effects of most educational programs. These effects were particularly noted in the areas of self-concept, self-control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and decision-making.

Despite these knowledge gaps, what seems increasingly clear is that adventure not only presents an incredibly attractive venue for recreation for millions of our citizens worldwide, but also can produce outcomes within the recreational, educational and therapeutic realms that are particularly noteworthy and meaningful to a person. How the professional recreation organizations will embrace these opportunities and possibilities remain to be seen.

RESEARCH INTO ACTION: ADVENTURE RECREATION

Introduction

The growth in participation in adventure recreation worldwide will continue to demand the attention of resource managers, public policy analysts, and recreation providers. A rapidly growing body of literature continues to point to benefits that are accrued through participation in adventure recreation. Moreover, it seems increasingly clear that the growth of adventure recreation activities will continue to provide challenges for natural resource managers and public policy analysts, as witnessed by the current controversy over the fixed anchors in wilderness areas. Future research in this area holds the potential to clarify the extent of gained benefits, as well as, provide guidance for resource management.

Impact of this Research

Like other areas of recreation-related research, the impact of adventure activities and experiences remains incomplete for a variety of considerations.

First, historical reliance on quantitative research methods leaves open questions regarding the nature of such a complex set of activities. However significant inroads in understanding the phenomenology of adventure recreation appear on the horizon.

Second, while gains in enhanced skill-levels, psychological benefits, and health benefits may be seen; the literature lacks a longitudinal perspective with the existing research appearing to be episodic, providing only snapshots of the experience and outcomes accrued through participation.

Advances in our understanding of perceived risk and involvement/engagement do provide resource managers and adventure programmers with usable information in terms of the likely progression that participants undergo throughout their `adventure career.' Findings that different types of adventure recreationists exist with qualitative differences in terms of their expectations and participation support the position that resource managers must be cognizant of this diversity in order to advance public policy that is sensitive to the needs of all.

How to Use this Research

The existing research raises more questions than answers. In order to gain a deeper understanding of this complex phenomena, it is suggested that:

* Researchers, resource managers and practitioners continue to collaborate in the inquiry surrounding adventure recreation.

* Such collaborations should advance research designs that utilize longitudinal and multimethod approaches to understanding adventure recreation

* Develop a better understanding of the relationship between the adventure experience and the psychological, sociological, and emotional lives of our citizens.

References

Attarian, A. (1991). Research on adventure (risk) recreation. Parks & Recreation. 5, 1923; 65.

Brannan, L, Condello, C., Stuckum, N., Vissers, N., & Priest, S. (1992). Public perceptions of risk in recreational activities. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 17 (2), 144-157.

Breivik, G. (1996). Personality, sensations seeking and risk taking among Everest climbers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, 308-320.

Bunting, C.J., Tolson, H., Kuhn, C., Suarez, E., & Williams, R.B. (2000) Physiological stress response of the neuroendocrine system during outdoor adventure tasks. Journal of Leisure Research. 42, 32 (2), 191-207.

Canadian Tourism Commission. (1995). Adventure travel in Canada: An overview. Ottawa, ONT: Tourism Canada.

Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Ewert, A. W. (1989). Outdoor adventure pursuits: foundations, models, models, and theories. Columbus, OH: Publishing Horizons.

Ewert, A. W. & Hollenhorst, S. J. (1989) Testing the adventure model: Empirical support for a model of risk recreation participation. Joutmal of Leisure Research, 21, 2, 124-139.

Ewert, A. W. & Hollenhorst, S. J. (1994). Individual and setting attributes of the adventure recreation experience. Leisure Sciences. 16, 177-191.

Freischlag, J. & Freischlag, T. (1993). Selected psycho-social, physical and technical factors among rock climbers: A test of the flow paradigm. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual. 4, 109-122.

Goldenberg, M.A., Klenosky, D.B., O'Leary, J. T., & Templin, T. J. (2000). A means-end investigation of ropes course experiences. Journal of Leisure Research. 42, 32 (2), 208-224.

Hattie, J., Marsh, H.W., Neill, J.T., & Richards, G.E. (1997). Adventure education and Outward Bound: out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research. 67(1), 43-87.

Jones, C. D., Hollenhorst, S.J., Perna, F, & Selin, S. (2000) Validation of the flow theory in an on-site whitewater kayaking setting. Journal of Leisure Research. 42, 32 (2), 247-261.

Jones, C. D., Hollenhorst, S. J., & Schuett, M. A. (1998). Experience quality considerations in managing for risk recreation access. Trends. 35 (1), 2-8.

Jones, R. A. & Ellis, G. D. (1996). Effect of variation in perceived risk on the secretion of beta-endorphin. Leisure Sciences. 18, 277-291.

Maynard, I. W., MacDonald, A. L., & Warwick-Evans, L. (1997). Anxiety in novice rock climbers: a further testing of the matching hypothesis in a field setting. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 28, 67-78.

McIntyre, N. (]992). Involvement in risk recreation: A comparison of objective and subjective measures of engagement. Journal of Leisure Research. 24 (1), 64-71.

Paxton, T. S. (1998). Self-efficacy and outdoor adventure programs: A quantitative and qualitative analyses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota.

Priest, S. (1992). Factor exploration and confirmation for the dimensions of an adventure experience. Journal of Leisure Research. 24 (2), 127-139.

Priest, S. & Carpenter, G. (1993). Changes in perceived risk and competence during adventurous leisure experiences. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 18(1), 51-71.

Priest, S. & Bunting, C. (1993). Changes in perceived risk and competence during whitewater canoeing. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 18 (4), 265-280.

Roberts, D. (1985). The growth of adventure travel: 1000 adventures with tales of discovery. New York: Harmony Books.

Robinson, D. W. (1992a). The risk recreation experience: Subjective state dimensions and the transferability of benefits. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 17 (1), 12-36.

Robinson, D. W. (1992b). A descriptive model of enduring risk recreation involvement. Journal of Leisure Research, 24, 52-63.

Schrader, M. P. & Warm, D. L. (1999). High-risk recreation: The relationship between participants characteristics and degree of involvement. Journal of Sport Behavior. 22 (3), 426-443.

Schuett, M. A. (1993). Refining measures of adventure recreation involvement. Leisure Sciences. 15, 205-216.

Scott, D. (1974). Big Wall Climbing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Alan Ewert, Ph.D., is currently a Professor and holder of the Patricia and Joel Meier Endowed Chairship in Outdoor Leadership in the Department of Recreation and Park Administration, Indiana University. He is also an instructor for Outward Bound and the National Outdoor Leadership School. Shayne Galloway is an assistant instructor and research assistant in Indiana University's School of Health Physical Education and Physical Education. He will complete his doctoral course work in the spring.

Research Update is edited by Cheryl A. Estes, Ph.D., assistant professor in recreation and leisure studies at East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina.