Does Zoning Winter Recreationists Reduce Recreation Conflict?

Environmental Management - Parks and protected area managers use zoning to decrease interpersonal conflict between recreationists. Zoning, or segregation, of recreation—often by non-motorized...     

Establishing management standards: Selected examples of the normative approach

The importance of developing evaluative standards for judging the acceptability of impacts caused by recreation is common to all recent natural resource management frameworks. A normative model has been advanced as a useful way to conceptualize, collect, and organize empirical data representing standards for resource management issues. This article summarizes the findings from social and ecological research to illustrate the utility of the normative approach from a manager's perspective. The social data (e.g., encounter norms, proximity norms, and tolerances for launch wait times) were obtained from 13 different study sites, while the ecological data (e.g., tolerances for the amount of bare ground, size of fire rings, instream flows, and wildlife management practices) were collected at three specific sites and from one statewide survey, Findings from the social research indicated that encounter norms exist for particular types of contacts with certain types of visitors at particular places and for certain types of experiences. The recreationists reported norms for acceptable distances between individuals, encounters with others at campsites or attractions, and waiting times to run rapids. These social norm evaluation techniques were also shown to be transferable to normative evaluations of ecological impacts. The users had opinions about ecological impacts and were willing to express them. In addition, the ecological norms were of moderate to high intensity. It is argued that the usefulness of normative approaches lies in their ability to characterize group agreement about appropriate use conditions or impact levels for a particular recreation experience, thus providing the evaluative information needed to establish management standards.     

Toward an Understanding of Norm Prevalence: A Comparative Analysis of 20 Years of Research

/ Norms are defined as evaluative standards regarding individual behavior or conditions in a given context. They define what behavior should be, rather than actual behavior. Norm prevalence refers to the proportion of individuals in a population who can articulate a norm in a given evaluation context. This paper empirically examines the prevalence of encounter norms in 56 evaluation contexts. Data for this comparative analysis were obtained from 30 studies that used a single-item question asking recreationists to indicate the highest number of encounters they would tolerate before the experience changed. Four predictor variables were examined: (1) type of resource, (2) type of activity, (3) type of encounter, and (4) question response format. As anticipated, norm prevalence varied by type of resource (backcountry or frontcountry), type of encounter (no conflict versus conflict), and question response format (two-category implicit, two-category explicit, and three-category). These three independent variables explained 64% of the variance in norm prevalence. Also as hypothesized, there was no relationship between type of activity (consumptive or nonconsumptive) and norm prevalence. Implications for future research and management are discussed; it is argued that prevalence is an important characteristic of social norms.     

Attitudes toward jaguars and pumas and the acceptability of killing big cats in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: An application of the Potential for Conflict Index<Subscript>2</Subscript>

We explored the overall acceptability of killing jaguars and pumas in different scenarios of people–big cat interactions, the influence of attitudes toward big cats on acceptability, and the level of consensus on the responses. Data were obtained from 326 self-administered questionnaires in areas adjacent to Intervales State Park and Alto Ribeira State Park. Overall, people held slightly positive attitudes toward jaguars and pumas and viewed the killing of big cats as unacceptable. However, individuals that held negative attitudes were more accepting of killing. As the severity of people–big cat interactions increased, the level of consensus decreased. Knowing whether killing a big cat is acceptable or unacceptable in specific situations allows managers to anticipate conflict and avoid illegal killing of big cats.