Recreation Conflict - Values Conflict
Back to Table of Contents                                                                                              

Carothers, P., J. Vaske and M. Donnelly. 2001. "Social values versus interpersonal conflict among hikers and mountain bikers." Leisure Sciences 23(1): 47-61.

This paper investigates the differences in social values and amount of interpersonal conflict between hikers and mountain bikers in Jefferson County near Denver, Colorado. This study builds on recent research that has identified social values differences as an alternative explanation to goal interference as the cause of conflict in recreation. Social values conflict does not necessarily require any contact between individuals as it is the result of different beliefs and values. The study investigated three different groups: people who hike only, people who bike only and people who engage in both. Across all three groups, hikers were less likely to be the cause of conflict. When hiking was seen as a problem, mountain bikers and dual-sport participants were more likely than hikers to report unacceptable behaviors. Hikers were more likely than mountain bikers to have a conflict with mountain bikers, whereas dual-sport participants fell in between these two extremes. This study, unlike a previous study of hunters and non-hunters, found less social values conflict than interpersonal conflict. These two findings are not surprising given the similarity between hikers and mountain bikers and the strength of an anti-hunting sentiment in society.

Whittaker, D., M. Manfredo, P. Fix, R. Sinnott, S. Miller and J. Vaske. 2001. "Understanding beliefs and attitudes about an urban wildlife hunt near Anchorage, Alaska." Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(4): 1114-1124.

This study investigates the attitudes of residents of Anchorage, Alaska towards a management prescribed hunt to control moose populations in the city. A survey of 971 residents revealed their attitudes towards a tightly controlled moose hunting scenario with survey respondents being asked to rate different hunt outcomes as likely and unlikely as well as whether they were viewed the outcomes as as good or bad. Results showed that a majority (51%) support for the hunt, although 34% were opposed and 15% were undecided. Not surprisingly, there was considerable divergence in opinion between those who supported the hunt and those opposed to it on such issues as whether the hunt would reduce accidents, reduce encounters, permanently reduce numbers, injure someone, cost a lot to administer, prevent non-hunter use or eliminate moose in the area. Respondents unsure about the hunt generally held beliefs that were intermediate between those for and against the hunt, offering an explanation for their neutrality. The results revealed which hunt factors were based more on peoples' values and which factors might be influenced by management action or education programs.

Vaske, J., M. Donnelly, K. Wittmann and S. Laidlaw. 1995. "Interpersonal versus social-values conflict." Leisure Sciences 17(3): 205-222.

This study empirically examines the theoretical distinction between interpersonal conflict and conflict in social values using empirical data from surveys of visitors to Mt. Evans, Colorado. The results of the study indicate that interpersonal conflicts between hunters and nonhunters are relatively low, with very few nonhunters or former hunters seeing an animal being shot (less than 5%), seeing people hunting (10% or less), and hearing gunshots (15% or less). More people had seen others feeding wildlife, between 43% of nonhunters and 62% for hunters, and disturbing or harrassing wildlife, 18% for nonhunters to 37% for hunters. Generally however, the natural visual barriers and the managing agency's regulations that prohibit hunting near the road were minimized due to the mountain's natural visual barriers. However, to the extent that conflict exists with hunting associated event son Mt. Evans, much of problem stems from differences in social values held by hunting and nonhunting publics. For many of measures reported above, there was more reported perceived problems than there were observed events. Analyses examining the interaction between type of visitor (hunters versus nonhunters) and number of prior visits (first visit, two to four visits, and five or more visits) suggested that conflicts in social values remained constant across frequency of visitation, but varied between visitor type.

Saremba, J. and A. Gill. 1991. "Value conflicts in mountain park settings." Annals of Tourism Research 18(3): 455-472.

This study investigates differences in attitudes amongst participants in a mountain park planning process. Residents from the resort-area town of Whistler, British Columbia and from the urban center of Greater Vancouver were surveyed (n=117) for their attitudes towards the Ministry of of Parks preservation activities. The study revealed that residents from Whistler had less support for preservation activities than did residents of Greater Vancouver. Residents from Whistler were more likely to be concerned about issues of access relating to recreation activities and ensuring the viability of the local tourism economy. In contrast, residents from Greater Vancouver were more concerned about the park being maintained as wilderness. This is may be partly due to the fact that for Greater Vancouver residents they have closer options for intensive recreation activities like skiing and mountain biking, and travel to the more distant Girabaldi Park to satisfy less activities more compatible with "wilderness" such as hiking, camping and climbing.

Back to Table of Contents