Conflict in the great outdoors.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Dr. Williams is assistant professor in the Department of Forestry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. His current research interest is understanding place attachment; the emotional and symbolic bonds that develop between recreation participants and the places they use for outdoor recreational activities.

Popular images of outdoor recreation present two contradictory impressions. In the ideal world, outdoor recreation is a peaceful, relaxing escape from the stresses of modern urban living. A weekend in the great outdoors promises a brief respite from the daily struggle to survive rush-hour traffic, to measure-up to the inflated expectations of bosses and neighborhood standard-bearers, or to respond to untimely solicitations of tele-marketers and the PTA playground fundraising committee. The real-world image, also overdrawn, evokes the specter of disgruntled, bedraggled suburbanites confronting insensitive campers holding all-night parties or choking on dirt-bike dust in their quest for the wilderness experience.

Because conflict is so inimical to outdoor recreation, it is a prominent topic in outdoor research. Conflict research began to appear in the mid 1960s when alarming statistics showed dramatic increases in the number of people using outdoor recreation resources. Though this explosive growth in participation has since subsided, the potential for conflict continues to grow for two reasons: advances in recreational technology and diversification of the lifestyles and values of participants.

First, technology has made simple forms of recreation more convenient, comfortable, and therefore popular. Improved backpacking equipment has made wilderness travel less strenuous. The era has also witnessed myriad motorized recreational gadgets from snowmobiles to jet skis. More recently we have seen technological conflicts in the form of nonmotorized mechanization. Traditional trail users compete with everything from mountain bikes to in-line skates. On the ski slope one now finds cross-country skiers and snow-boarders challenging the preeminence of traditional alpine skiers.

The other potential source of conflict is diversity in lifestyle and values. Recreation managers can no longer plan outdoor recreational facilities on the old assumptions of shared, middle class suburban values. The arena of conflict has expanded from documenting the difference between blue- and white-collar recreation styles to understanding the varying styles and meanings of participation across ethnic groups. Whatever the reasons, managers continue to face the prospect of recreators unwilling or unable to get along.

The focus of this research update is on inter-activity, inter-recreationist conflict, and excludes the sometimes related issues of crowding and carrying capacity. Conflict research can also go well beyond inter-activity subgroups to include the larger arena of agency, community and interest group politics (cf Saremba and Gill, 1991). These topics are important on their own, but most research to date on recreational conflict has focused on attitudes and interactions among activity subgroups at a given site.

Evolution of Conflict Research

Conflict research began to emerge in the 1960s in response to the rapid increase in demand for outdoor recreation (Owens, 1985). Conflicts between recreational user groups competing for the same space were studied for several competing activity groups, including canoe paddlers versus motorized boaters, motorized versus nonmotorized rafts, cross-country skiers versus snowmobilers, and hikers versus other trail users. One consistent finding of this early phase was the one-way nature of many conflicts (e.g., cross-country skiers experience it but snowmobilers do not), suggesting that if only one group experienced conflict, then competition for scarce resources was not sufficient to account for conflict (Hammitt, 1989). Another important finding was that conflict often involved the technologies of outdoor recreation, particularly motorized versus nonmotorized forms, and were accompanied by differences in socioeconomic status (Adelman, Heberlein and Bonnickson, 1982; Noe, Wellman and Buhyoff, 1982).

Beginning in the mid 1970s the focus shifted to definitional problems and the development of a theoretical account of recreational conflict. With a number of studies showing little connection between density and satisfaction, density-dependent notions of conflict began to give way to more subjective views that emphasized understanding the underlying meaning of conflict (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980; Owens, 1985). Jacob and Schreyer (1980) defined conflict as "goal interference attributable to another's behavior." The attribution of cause was critical to the definition. One could find a campground filled to capacity and not experience conflict if one attributes the lack of goal fulfillment to personal ignorance, bad luck, or poor planning. From the goal interference perspective, conflict no longer included different groups striving for the same scarce resources (i.e., competition and crowding) as had often been the case to that point (Owens, 1985).

Theoretical development continued in early 1980s with attempts to test goal interference models. These tests only lent mixed support for goal interference views (Gramann and Burdge, 1981; Noe et al., 1982). One important contribution during the mid 1980s was Owens' (1985) detailed review of conflict research. Owens was concerned that definitions of conflict failed to give managers the means to understand and anticipate conflict. He suggested two revisions to the goal interference definition. First, he argued that conflict arises out of the failure of an individual or group to restore conditions to a desirable state. Conflict arises not because of goal interference but the inability to adopt to the interference. Thus, conflict was limited to situations where rules for the setting which might serve to promote resolution were either lacking or had failed. The second idea was to add a time dimension. Owens suggested that conflict was a cumulative process of social interaction which, once established, becomes an enduring state. This idea served to distinguish crowding (which applied to a more immediate and transient social interaction) from conflict.

Summary of Current Findings

Current findings about conflict can be organized around three issues: definitions, magnitude and causes. One of the major tasks of research has been to separate definitions of conflict from related concerns of dissatisfaction and crowding. It is a bit ironic, therefore, that actual questions used in surveys to measure conflict seem to have little resemblance to the theoretical definitions of conflict. Furthermore, this lack of correspondence may explain the weak support for the goal interference theory.

Many approaches have been used. Often participants are asked to rate the degree to which they like/ dislike meeting certain types of users (Adelman et al., 1982; Watson, Niccolucci and Williams, in press; Watson, Williams and Daigle, 1992). Negative feelings toward users participating in a different activity are classified as conflict. Less common are direct questions about inter-activity conflict. In a number of river studies, respondents have been simply asked "Do you feel there are conflicts between different groups of river users?" followed by a request to elaborate on which groups were involved and what was the nature of the conflict (Schreyer, Lime and Williams 1984). Todd and Graefe (1989), for example, asked Delaware river canoeists to indicate the degree to which canoeists experienced interference in achieving ten different goals and the reason for any interference. In a study examining conflicts in wilderness, Watson et al. (in press) asked respondents whether "the behavior of any other individual or group ever interfered in any way with your enjoyment of any visit to this wilderness?" They followed this question by asking those that experienced interference to indicate the type of group and the specific behaviors of other users contributing to interference.

One result of the varying approaches to measuring conflict and the case-by-case approach to reporting conflict studies, is that we know relatively little about the general magnitude and scope of recreational conflict. Despite the many studies examining conflicts on rivers, generalizations are difficult. in a study of 13 mostly western rivers using a single database, Schreyer et al. (1984) found that the level of conflict reported averaged 21.7 percent across all respondents. In the case of the Deschutes River however, 43 percent reported some conflict.

Level of conflict in many conflict studies has been surprisingly modest, considering that study sites are selected in part because managing agencies perceive high levels of conflict. Across all ten goals examined in the Delaware River Study (Todd and Graefe, 1989), only about one-fourth of canoeists experienced goal interference attributable to someone else and only three percent attributed goal interference to non-canoeists.

The effect of different definitions of conflict on estimates of the magnitude of the problem is illustrated in a recent study of horse/hiker conflicts in wilderness that used multiple definitions of conflict (Watson et al., in press). Among hikers, 53 percent said meeting horse groups in wilderness was undesirable. However, only 36 percent of hikers encountering horse groups disliked the encounter. Fewer still (26 percent) indicated that horse groups had ever interfered with their enjoyment of that wilderness. While only four percent of horse users disliked meeting hikers, 21 percent of horse users reported interference by hikers. In sum, not only does the magnitude of the problem depend on the definition used, so also does the degree to which it is an asymmetric conflict.

A third focal point of conflict research has been to understand better, the factors that make conflict more likely. The interest has been to identify general themes that contribute to the potential for conflict beyond direct competition for resources. Jacob and Schreyer (1980) suggested four factors that make inter-activity conflict more likely.

The first factor, activity style, refers to the significance attached to the activity. Is the activity involved a central life interest or only an occasional pastime? For example, more involved and specialized participants are believed to apply more specific (and consequently critical) norms of behavior, whereas a novice has little information to base an evaluation of other groups and tends to accept things as they are. Perceptions of status associated with more "specialized" styles of participation also appear to play a role. Hikers are often expected to step off the trail when meeting horse groups, but despite safety and ecological advantages, the hikers may experience conflict because stepping aside implies that horse riders have more status (Watson et al., in press). Similarly, the technology of the activity may contribute to conflict because one technology is perceived as higher status than an other.

A second related factor is resource specificity, or the significance attached to using a specific resource. People get possessive about a favorite recreation spot. Conflict is more likely when a person views a place's qualities as unequalled compared to others, when a user with a possessive attitude encounters others who are perceived as disrupting the traditional uses of a site, or when the actions of others are perceived as devaluing the special meanings of a place.

The third factor, mode of experience, refers to the way in which the environment is perceived and experienced. Conflict is more likely for those who experience the environment as part of the experience and not just an incidental backdrop. As Jacob and Schreyer (1980) described it, "as the mode of experiencing the environment becomes more focused, an individual produces more rigid definitions of what constitutes acceptable stimuli and is increasingly intolerant of external stimulation." Bird watchers don't take too kindly to loud motorbikes buzzing down the trail and scaring off the wildlife.

The final factor contributing to conflict is tolerance for lifestyle diversity, particularly the tendency to reject lifestyles different than one's own. Lifestyle differences are often communicated in the choice of activities and styles. Intolerance is distinct from the other sources of conflict in that it is not a situational factor (Ivy, Stewart and Lue, 1992), but results from stereotyping recreational activities. These stereotypes may be linked to technological dependence (mechanized versus nonmechanized activities), environmental dominance (consumptive versus nonconsumptive activities), and prejudice (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980).

Until recently, surprisingly little work has been done to evaluate the importance of these factors. in one study, Ivy et al. (1992) examined the role of lifestyle tolerance in conflict between canoeists and motor-boaters in Everglades National Park. They found that lifestyle intolerance was an important factor in explaining conflict using a combined interference/dislike encounter measure of conflict. Watson et al. (in press) noted that the relevance of all four factors contributing to conflict depended on the definition of conflict involved. All four factors were more useful in explaining conflict between horse users and hikers using attitudinal measures of conflict (like/dislike meeting). Lifestyle tolerance, however, did not contribute to explaining conflict using a direct goal interference definition of conflict. A tentative conclusion is that the ideas advanced by Jacob and Schreyer (1980) to explain conflict as goal interference are better at explaining predispositions toward conflict rather than goal interference itself.

Practical Implications

While research does not provide easy solutions to conflict problems, some management guidelines do emerge from these findings. Two general strategies are recognized for addressing conflict: zoning and education. The effectiveness of each strategy depends on the nature of the conflict (i.e., goal interference or resource competition) and the cause of the conflict.

Zoning is likely to be more effective in reducing conflict when the conflict is caused by interference due primarily to the simple presence of other participants. However, conflict is more often psychological, occurring when values regarding appropriate definitions and uses of an area are in dispute. Both Owens (1985) and Ivy et al. (1992) pointed out that zoning conflicting uses is unlikely to be effective if the underlying source of conflict involves competing values, norms, or definitions of appropriate use of an area. in these instances, conflicts are not confined to the presence or direct actions of others but what the presence or actions of others stand for.

The other major approach to conflict management is education. Extensive literature exists on the approaches and effectiveness of communication strategies in modifying behavior (Roggenbuck, 1992). Education and persuasive communication is most likely to be effective when the source of conflict involves goal interference that is attributed to specific actions of other visitors, as opposed to the values and lifestyles these visitors may represent. For example in the horse user/hiker conflict, informing hikers that for safety reasons and to minimize trail erosion it is best for hikers to yield the right-of-way to horse riders may minimize the tendency for hikers to attribute the action as giving higher status to horse users. Education and communication are most effective in modifying undesirable behavior that results from a lack of knowledge of the impact, lack of skill in using the resource, or simply careless actions such as littering or playing loud radios. Education and communication strategies are least effective in changing willful illegal acts such as vandalism (requiring law enforcement) or unavoidable acts, such as ecological impacts to the resource that interfere with the enjoyment of other visitors.

REFERENCES

Adelman, B.T., Heberlein, TA., & Bonnicksen, T.M. (1982). Social psychological explanations for the persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences, 5, 45-61. Gramann, J.H., & Burdge, R.J. (1981). The effect of recreation goals on conflict perception: The case of water skiers and fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research, 13, 15-27. Hammitt, W.E. (1989). The spectrum of conflict in outdoor recreation. In A. Watson (compiler), Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the national outdoor recreation forum. (USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-52, pp. 439-450). Asheville, NC: Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. Jacob, G.R., & Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 368-380. Ivy, M. I., Stewart, W. P., & Lue, C. (1992). Exploring the role of tolerance in recreational conflict. Journal of Leisure Research, 24, 348-360. Owens, P.L. (1985). Conflict as a social interaction process in environment and behaviour research: The example of leisure and recreation research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 241-259.

Noe, F.P., Wellman, J.D., & Buhyoff, G. (1982). Perception of conflict between off-road vehicle and non off-road vehicle users in a leisure setting. Journal of Environmental Systems, 11, 223-233.

Roggenbuck, J.W. (1992). Use of persuasion to reduce resource impacts and visitor conflicts. In M. Manfredo, (ed.), influencing human behavior Theory and applications in recreation tourism and natural resource management (pp. 149-208). Champaign, IL: Sagamore.

Saremba, J., & Gill, A. (1991). Value conflicts in mountain park settings. Annals of Tourism Research, 18, 155-472.

Schreyer, R., Lime, D.W., & Williams, D.R. (1984). Charcterizing the influence of past experience on recreation behavior. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 34-51.

Todd, S.L., & Graefe, A.R. (1989). Level of experience and perception of conflict among canoeists on the Delaware River. In T. More, M. Donnelly, A. Graefe, & J. Vaske (eds.), Proceedings of the 1989 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-132, pp. 147-156). Broomall, PA: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Watson, A.E, Niccolucci, M.J., & Williams, D.R. (in press). The nature of conflict between hikers and recreational stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research.

Watson, A.E., Williams, D.R., & Daigle, J.J. (1991). Sources of conflict between bikers and mountain bike riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9(3), 59-71.