USO DE WEAP Y GESTIÓN TERRITORIAL

Using cognitive behavourialism as a meta-theory, various substantive theories have been developed to help understand the effects that factors such as those outlined in the previous

section can have on individuals’ wilderness experiences. The three concepts that have received the most academic attention are ‘conflict’, ‘crowding’ and ‘displacement’.

Conflict

Recreational conflict is commonly agreed to be one of the main impacts of increased visitor use of wilderness. It can be defined as ‘a negative experience, occurring when competition for shared resources prevents expected benefits of participation from accruing to an individual or a group’ (Crawford, Jackson & Godbey 1991, p. 309). Conflict is a specific type of user dissatisfaction which occurs when people feel that their recreational experience is compromised by other users. It is of particular concern for outdoor wilderness managers because it can lead to dissatisfaction amongst users of the resource, and consequently a decline in the quality of the recreational experience (see for example, Blahna, Smith & Anderson 1995; Hammitt & Schneider 2000; Knopp & Tyger 1973; Lynch, Wilkinson, Melling, Hamilton, MacReady & Feary 2004; Mann & Absher 2008; Stankey 1973). It can also prompt recreationists to employ a variety of coping mechanisms such as displacement (in time or space) or substitution – changing the type of activity undertaken. This in turn can create pressure on other locations, and can cause further changes to the nature of the

recreational experience. Research has shown that conflict is increasing between participants in outdoor recreation activities, and that it is likely to occur in areas where there are high levels of use and/or a variety of different activities competing for the same resource (Manning 1999). Conflicts have also developed between traditional activities (such as tramping), and ‘new’ activities like mountain biking and snowmobiling49. Studies that have explored this topic area have emphasised the importance of symbolic values and philosophical beliefs about wilderness, and the ‘appropriateness’ of particular activities within it (see Blahna et al. 1995; Moore & McClaren 1991).

Attempts have also been made to understand the reasons for conflict from a theoretical perspective. The social psychological theory of attraction has been used to explain the discord between types of recreational users in particular areas (Adelman et al. 1982). Findings suggest that conflict occurs when recreationists perceive themselves as different to other users - this includes differences in appearance, behaviour, motivations for visiting and values towards the (conservation) resource or the activity. The most commonly applied model, and the most substantial theoretical basis for understanding recreational conflict, however, is Jacob &

49

Studies which have examined recreational conflict on conservation land include: Aukerman & Davison 1980; Barker 1989; Beamish 1977; Cessford 1987; Gibbons & Ruddell 1995; Gramann & Burdge 1981; Harris 1983; McAvoy, Gramann, Burdge & Absher 1986; Jackson & Wong 1982; Tomkins 1996; Wray et al. 2005.

Schreyer’s (1980) theory of goal interference50. The theory defines conflict as ‘goal

interference attributed to another’s behaviour’. According to the theory, conflict is a negative experience which occurs when participants with incompatible goals come into contact. The theory suggests that conflict in outdoor recreation can be caused by four major factors: 1) activity style, 2) resource specificity, 3) mode of experience and 4) lifestyle tolerance. Most studies that have used this theory to explore conflict in outdoor recreation settings have been undertaken in North America, and have focused on one or two elements of the model, although a few studies have taken a more comprehensive approach and have attempted to measure all four factors (Gibbons & Ruddell 1995; Gramann & Burdge 1981; Jackson & Wong 1982; Vaske, Carothers, Donnelly & Baird 2000; Wang & Dawson, 2000). Examples of studies which have used the theory of goal interference to explore conflict in New Zealand recreation settings include Hawke (2000); Horn (1994) and Wray et al. (2005).

The original conflict theory has, however, been criticised for its simplistic nature, and for the mechanistic and individualistic cognitive behavioural model of human behaviour on which it is based (e.g. Kriesberg 1998). The potential of such approaches to uncover rich information about the socio-cultural and place-related roots of the conflicts may be limited. As a result, more expanded versions of the model have been suggested (see, for example, Blahna et al. 1995; Hammitt 1989; Mann & Absher, 2008, Schuster et al., 2006a, 2006b; Reis & Higham 2009; Todd & Graefe 1989; Vittersø et al. 2004 ). Vaske et al. (2007) provide a review and critique of existing recreation conflict research.

Crowding

The term ‘crowding’ has been used in recreation research since the mid 1960s to describe the psychological effect of increasing use on users of recreation areas. It is a subjective, negative interpretation of visitor density which relates to the effects of increasing use of wilderness areas and is based on the notion that there is some level of visitor use beyond which the quality of the recreation experience diminishes. Wagar (1964) was one of the first academics to discuss the concept. He suggested that when too many people use the same area, some traditional wild-land values are lost. Crowding has since been shown to have a detrimental effect on many aspects of wilderness such as solitude, freedom, self reliance and exploration (Manning 1999). There is a substantial literature on crowding in wilderness (see Hammitt, McDonald & Noe 1984; Lucas 1964b; Shelby 1980; Tarrant, Cordell & Kibler 1997). This is largely because wilderness is perceived to be more vulnerable to impacts than high use

50

settings, and also because most wilderness areas are required by law to provide opportunities for solitude (Manning 1999).

Early crowding research was based on the assumption that visitor satisfaction was inversely related to use levels. However, more recent studies have demonstrated that crowding is a much more complex, multi dimensional concept, which is related to visitor characteristics, motives and expectations and also to setting characteristics and the behaviour of other visitors. Key factors influencing the extent to which an individual feels crowded in a

recreational setting include: sensitivity to increasing use levels; personal characteristics (such as motives, preferences, expectations, experience and attitudes); characteristics of others encountered (such as type and size of group, behaviour and perceptions of alikeness); the type of recreation area, and the activities being undertaken (Manning 1999).

Displacement

Visitor displacement is believed to be one of the most likely consequences of increased crowding and conflict in wilderness settings (Manning 1999). Displacement is a behavioural response that involves spatial or temporal changes in recreational use patterns (ibid.).

Research suggests that, as use levels (and/or other associated impacts such as crowding and conflict) increase, some recreationists become dissatisfied and change their patterns of use to avoid these impacts – moving to other areas, or using traditional areas at different times (ibid.). The notion of displacement was discussed as early as 1971, when Clark, Hendee & Campbell (1971) described it as a process of ‘invasion and succession’. Displacement can involve shifts from one recreation site to another; within a recreation area, and from one time period to another (Anderson & Brown 1984).

Displacement is believed to occur as a result of ‘recreation succession’ – a process whereby a recreation site and the type of visitors that it attracts, changes over time as the area becomes more widely-known. Initially, visitors to an area tend to be few in number and highly

experienced, and therefore have relatively little impact on the surrounding environment or the experience of other visitors. As awareness of the area increases, however, so too does visitor use, and the associated demand for facility development. Conflict over resources arises as the ‘new’ visitors have different expectations and motives from the existing users. The nature of the visitor experience begins to change to suit these new users, and the appeal of the area for the experienced visitors diminishes. The original users are likely to become fewer and fewer in number until eventually they are pushed out of the area altogether and displaced into a

more remote recreation site51. This process can have serious implications for the visitor experience as well as the ecology of the site in question. This concern has been a major driver of wilderness research over the past four decades.

There is some evidence to indicate that displacement is occurring in New Zealand as visitors are pushed deeper into more remote areas in search of their ‘wilderness’ experience (see Kearsley, Russell & Mitchell 2000; Visser 1995). However, a recent study which explored the scale and characteristics of recreation displacement in New Zealand (Greenway, Cessford & Leppens 2007) challenged these findings, and concluded that ‘Displacement does not appear to be a generic issue in the New Zealand outdoors, and managers should treat reported

instances on a case-by-case basis’ (p. 164). These contradictions may be due to the fact that it is very difficult to assess the extent to which displacement is actually occurring. The major issue is that displacement cannot be assessed on-site because it necessarily involves a change in behaviour or use - which means that people are no longer using the location or the time that the researcher is concerned about. As a result, much of the existing knowledge about

displacement remains anecdotal.