Course notes conflict recreation Essay

Major factors behind outdoor recreational conflicts have been found to be: 1. Activity Style: The various personal meanings assigned to an activity. differences in personal meanings assigned to an activity, 2. Resource Specificity: The significance attached to using a specific recreation resource for a given recreational experience. differences in the level of significance attached to using a specific recreation resource, 3. Mode of Experience: The varying expectations of how the natural environment will be perceived. c) differences in expectations of the natural environment, 4. Lifestyle Tolerance: The tendency to accept of reject lifestyles different from one’s own. (d) differences in lifestyles. According to Jacob and Schreyer (1980), there are four major classes of factors which contribute to conflict in outdoor recreation: (a) differences in the level of significance attached to using a specific recreation resource, (b) differences in personal meanings assigned to an activity, (c) differences in expectations of the natural environment, and (d) differences in lifestyles. Users who become â€Å"attached† to a resource are believed to develop a sense of possession or perception of the place as a â€Å"central life interest. † The degree to which a particular activity or place represents a central life interest can vary substantially among groups using an area, even among groups participating in the same activity. Thus, one individual or group may believe they are more attached to an area or an activity than a competing individual or group. This perception of differences can initiate feelings of conflict. Variation in the personal meanings visitors attach to particular activities may also be linked coping are strategies as those that people use more typically during active participation (recreationists can respond to unwanted situations by substituting one place for another, by altering their use patterns, and by maintaining satisfaction by enjoying different activities. ? Displacement ? change activity pattern if negative setting, experience change ? temporal: shift visit time (weekend–weekday, peak–off-peak ? spatial ? intersite: shift from one area to a different area ? intrasite: shifts within recreation area (e. g. , other campsite) ? Rationalization ? recreation voluntary, investment of time, money, effort ? reduce internal conflict, report high satisfaction, low conflict & crowding regardless of actual conditions. ? Product Shift ? alter definition of recreation opportunity in congruence with conditions experiences; change way think about area Major factors behind outdoor recreational conflicts have been found to be: 1. Activity Style: The various personal meanings assigned to an activity. 2. Resource Specificity: The significance attached to using a specific recreation resource for a given recreational experience. differences in the level of significance attached to using a specific recreation resource, 1. Activity Style: The various personal meanings assigned to an activity. 2. Mode of Experience: The varying expectations of how the natural environment will be perceived or in other words, differences in a person’s expectations of the natural environment. 4. Lifestyle Tolerance: The tendency to accept of reject lifestyles different from one’s own. (d) differences in lifestyles. When a conflict is asymmetrical such as those identified in between hikers and trail bikers (Ramthun, 1995;Watson et al. , 1991), and water skiers and fishermen (Gramann & Burdge, 1981) one way conflict relationships often based on stereotyping from one group to the other based. These conflicts often require management intervention. Substitution alternatives (Shelby & Vaske, 1991), is a coping behavior where a recreationists use behavioral choices when faced with an unwanted crowding or other undesirable situation. Alternatives that can be substituted include the resource, timing of participation (temporal substitution), and mode of participation (activity substitution). In other words, substituting one place for another, changing when they go or how they participate, but still keeping their satisfaction by enjoying different activities. This paper specifically examines the issue of participant skill level as a factor in out-group and in-group conflict by conducting surveys with skiers and snowboarders at five different Colorado ski resorts. Two particular hypotheses were tested: 1) individuals with greater skills in skiing and snowboarding would experience more conflict than those with less ability, and 2) across all skill levels, skiers and snowboarders would experience more out-group than in-group conflict. A total of 383 skiers and 212 snowboarders were asked to rate their skill level on a four-point scale (beginner, intermediate, advanced, or expert). Conflict was measured by asking respondents the frequency with which other skiers or snowboarders a) failed to be aware of others around them, b) were not keeping an adequate distance from others, c) failed to yield the right of way to the downhill skier/snowboarder, d) behaved in a discourteous manner, e) cut others off, and f) failed to be aware of and yield to less advanced skiers/snowboarders. The results of the study supported both hypotheses. As perceived skill level increased, out-group and in-group conflict increased for both skiers and snowboarders. Within each skill level, skiers reported more unacceptable behaviors by snowboarders than with fellow skiers, and snowboarders also identified more out-group than in-group conflict. Conflict is between different activities. Conflict can be as great or greater within the same activity as it is between different activities. While earlier studies were generally limited to conflicts caused by other activities, some researchers have included both in-group and out-group comparisons in their assessments. Thapa (1996) found that skiers were as likely to attribute conflict to other skiers as they were to snowboarders. Todd (1987) found that conflict among Delaware River canoeists was more likely to be caused by other canoeists than other water-based recreationists like motorboaters, tubers or rafters. Additionally, the intra-activity conflicts among river users were more likely to result from other members of one’s own group (intra-group conflict) than from other canoeists (inter-group conflict). Some conflict is not activity-based, but rather, based on undesirable behaviors that may be exhibited by participants in any activity. Gibbons and Ruddell (1995) found more goal interference attributed to discourteous behavior than to encounters with helicopter skiers. Todd (1987) also found that some conflicts perceived by canoeists resulted from non-. In-group conflict is when the recreationists are participating in the same activity such as the conflict between conoeists on the same river or skiers on a mountain. Out-group conflict is conflict between different users/activities. In the same example above, the out group conflict would be with canoeists and motorboats user or with skiers and snowboarders. Some conflict is not activity-based, but rather, based on undesirable behaviors that may be exhibited by participants in any activity. Thapa.