This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Human Behavior and Recreation Habitats: Conceptual Issues 1
2
Donald R. Field, Martha E. Lee, and Kristen Martinson
Abstract.--Individual recreation behavior and recreation
experiences are more often than not determined by three sets
of factors: the social group within which an individual
participates, including the mix of social groups occupying a
specific recreation place; the biological or physical characteristics of that place; and the management prescriptions
applied there. Few studies have examined recreation behavior
in the context of these three sets of factors. The present
paper provides a conceptual framework to do so. The focus is
upon human behavior and recreation habitats. Human ecological principles, along with concepts used to classify
recreation "habitats" according to the recreation opportunities they provide, form the conceptual framework for the
presentation.
INTRODUCTION
Human behavior in recreation areas is
largely a representation of culture, human experiences, the social group associated with the
present recreation event, and conditions under
which the current recreation event takes place.
For some the above statement may strike a cultural deterninistic cord. While not intended,
the statement is made to reinforce the position
that each of us has cultural baggage which frames
our view of the world and guides the experiences
(recreation and non-recreation) that we have.
When a recreation group arrives at a recreation
site, this cultural baggage will assist in the
human adaptation to the facilities present,
(management prescriptions) and the biological,
physical, and social environments. The purpose
of the present paper is to describe a conceptual
framework which acknowledges the interplay of
human culture, social groups, and natural resource
systems in defining human behavior at a recreation
site. This framework is based upon human ecology
and incorporates a recreation planning and management perspective called the Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum (ROS). The conceptual framework emphasizes the creation of leisure settings from the
blending of human behavior (culture and social
organization) with recreation places, the management system described by the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). The benefits of our
approach yield both a more holistic understanding
of people, the dimensions of human behavior in
recreation environments, and an understanding of
management options for monitoring a recreation
system, measuring human response to management
actions, and resolving social conflicts and human
impacts on the environment. This framework is
guiding our research on recreation behavior associated with the riparian zone. Our research is
beinR conducted at the Whiskeytown Unit of the
Whisketytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation
Area.
1
Paper presented at the First North American
Riparian Conference (Tucson, Arizona, April
16-18, 1985).
2
The paper is part of a human resource inventory
project at the Whiskeytown Unit of the Whiskeytown, Shasta, Trinity N.R.A. Funds for the
project provided by the Science Division, Western
Region, National Park Service, through a Cooperative Agreement (Subagreement No. 5) to Oregon
State University, College of Forestry.
DEFINING A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3
Donald R. Field is Senior Scientist, National
Park Service, Coop. Park Studies Unit and Professor,
College of Forestry; Marty Lee is Research Associate, Dept. of Resource Recreation Management
and NPS Coop. Park Studies Unit; and Kristen
Martinson is Research Assistant, NPS Coop. Park
Studies Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
227
Human ecology shares its development with
plant and animal ecology, geography, sociology,
anthropology, and demography. Each discipline has
helped to refine the definition and relationship
of people to their environment incorporated within
the human ecological paradigm. Human ecology will
not be defined here. There are excellent state-
ments about human ecology such as Human Ecology:
A Theory of Community Structure (Hawley 1950),
Social Morphology and Human Ecology, (Schnore
1958), and Land Use in~ral Boston, (Firey
1947). The history Of human ecology as a field
of study is well described in Urban Patterns:
Studies in Human Ecology (Theodorson 1982).
Recent work such as The Ecological Transition
(Bennett 1976) and o;e-rshoot (Catton 1982)
reaffirm the basic tenants of the theory and
relationship of people, human behavior and
natural resources.
recreation place into a social environment. Here
language and equipment together provide guidance
to one's ability to enter and become part of the
social world. Family reunions in Olympic National
Park's Klaloch campground each year likewise
reflect the conversion of a recreation place into
a social environment where social meanings of
family togetherness reinforce the commitment of
multiple generations of the same family to each
other. The sociql environment is a family
gathering, the campground a backdrop for the actjvities occurring. Campsites and rules are modified by family members to ensure that a social
environment for the family is secured. Nonfamily
entering this camping loop soon learn there are
other more accommodating campsites down the road.
Lee~s (1972) description of an ethnic group's
definition of a park and subsequent visit hinges
on the ability of these people to create a social
environment consistent with their values and
definition of resources within the park they are
visiting. Recent work by Edgerton (1979) illustrates how some biological/physical environments
such as beaches can simultaneously accommodate
drug dealing and use, courtship, family activities
and picnics, nude bathing, and games of sport.
Visitors include blacks, hispanics, whites, gay
families, single parent families, two-parent
families, teenagers, retired adults, and representatives of the baby boom generation. Social
environments for each are established usually
without interference from another social environment.
For our purpose the key to the ecological
perspective is as follows:
a.
The framework acknowledges humankind as
part of the natural world.
b.
The interconnectedness of behavior and
environment is depicted by the human
ecosystem.
c.
All human interrelationships are social
with culture and biotic components
inseparable in analysis.
d.
Social and ecological change is
acknowledged as having ramifications
for all components of the system.
e.
The unit of analysis is community
structure/social structure.
The application of the human ecology theory
to recreation behavior has been made (Machlis et
a1. 1981), but further elaboration is appropriate. Human ecology stresses the interplay of
homo sapiens and natural resource systems. The
environmental basis for social organization is a
central issue for human ecologists and is especially important for those of us studying recreation behavior in parks and forests. In every
recreation situation both managment and the
visitor are in their own way molding or creating
a social environment. Sometimes these social
environments are similar, in other cases not.
Ecological descriptions of social environments have led to the description of the contrived
community (Suttles 1982), the defended neighborhood (Suttles 1972), and the rural neighborhood
(Kolb 1959). A similar perspective is employed
here to describe leisure settings. Leisure
settings are the social environments creat-ed by
people as they apply their particular brand of
leisure lifestyle to a recreation place; as they
transport or superimpose their culture upon a
recreation place; or as they create a particular
leisure or recreation experience within a recreation place (Cheek, Field and Burdge 1976).
Nevertheless, social environments are
created by people in the manner in which they
adapt to the biophysical environment and the
social meanings shared within those environments.
No matter how temporary, a social order and
social organization is established by people
which governs the pehavior of the people present.
Firey (1945) suggests culture and cultural
display are key factors in the creation of these
social'environments. Cultural display such as
the language used by occupants, the manner of
dress, the technology (i.e., beer bottles and ice
cooler, backpacking or other camping gear,
climbing equipment), art forms and music, to name
but a few cultural objects, are all present in
recreation environments. Cultural objects and
symbolic values attached to places help define
appropriate behavior and the kind of people who
are welcome. While not the central thrust of the
article, DeVall's (1973) description of mountain
climbers in a Yosemite campground, for example,
is representative of the conversion of a
Recreation places are those "habitats"-waterhsheds, bays, shorelines, picnic areas, campgrounds, parking lots, roadside pullouts, restaurants, subalpine meadow campsites, lake campsites,
etc., created in part by a land management agency,
accommodating human use. These places may have
intended recreational value given by management,
but until people occupy and adapt to the space
provided, social environments or leisure settings
do not occur. There can be numerous recreation
places within designated recreation areas such as
national parks and forests, just as there can be
numerous leisure settings established within and
among recreation places.
The recreation place people choose to visit
can influence and somewhat define the activities
they choose as well as the behavior and subsequent
experiences that may occur there. The recreation
place and its potential influence on recreation
experiences is the focus of the Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). ROS is a framework
228
recreationists can pursue a variety of activities
(social and physical), recreation managers can
provide for the widest possible achievement of
desired experiences.
for understanding the relationship between recreation experiences and the environment. ROS
defines a range or spectrum of recreation opportunities ranging from primitive to urban that
land managers can provide to meet a diversity of
visitor preferences (Buist and Hoots 1982).
This concept is based on the assumption that
quality in outdoor recreation is best assured by
providing a diversity of recreation opportunities
(Clark and Stankey 1979), an idea suggested in
early research on recreation users (e.g., Shafer
1969; Wagar 1966; King 1966). Operationalized,
ROS is a system which enables public or private
recreation managers to inventory and classify
land and water areas according to their capability to provide recreation "potential" as
defined within the agency guidelines. Both the
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land
Management have adopted a planning system
(Recreation Opportunity Planning) which uses the
ROS to inventory and manage their recreation
resources (Buist and Hoots 1982).
Though ROS can be used by land managers to
describe what a particular recreation place is
like and what visitors might expect to find
there, it cannot describe or predict an individual or group's choices, behavior, or subsequent experiences that will occur at a particular recreation place (Clark 1982). Figure
1 describes the relationship between people,
culture and human behavior and the bio/
physical environment. In addition, it i llustrates that recreation places are provided by
management and that leisure settings result
from the joint interaction of people, culture
and those recreation places.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The literature on water-based recreation
which addresses the interaction of human
behavior and bio/physical environment is
limited. Social science research on waterbased recreation has, however, generated
several key findings which support the conceptual framework we have outlined.
The focus in ROS is on the recreation place.
The variety in types of recreation places an area
provides represents the choices people have when
considering outdoor recreation opportunities.
ROS recognizes that the experiences derived from
recreation are related to the places or locales
in which they occur but are not determined by
them (Clark and Stankey 1979). Recreation
opportunity places, as described by ROS, are
composed of three primary elements: the physical
attributes--natural features such as vegetation,
bodies of water, and topography; the social environment--the numbers and types of people and
activities present; and the management prescription--the level and types of development, rules,
and regulations provided by managers (Clark and
Stankey 1979; Stankey and Brown 1981). These
elements, existing in various combinations, can
be used by managers to provide diversity in
recreation opportunities. It is these elements
over which they have most control. By offering a
variety of "combinations" of such elements where
Leisure activities oriented around water
resources make up a considerable portion of
all recreation participation. "Water is probably the greatest of all outdoor recreational
attractions" (Lime 1975). People seek out
water resources not only for direct recreational use such as swimming or boating but
also as an aesthetic background for non-water
oriented activities. A study of water-based
recreation by residents in western Washington,
western Oregon, and northern California
identified that activities of observing
nature, visiting the beach, and beachcombing
comprised a large percent of all wateroriented recreation (Field and Cheek 1974).
Recreation Places
Recreating Individuals
and Groups
---.,.
The unique qualities of people,
their culture and recreation
techno 1ogy influence the manner
in which individuals and groups
adapt to a recreation setting.
Figure 1.
- The types of recreation places found within
a designated recreation area comprise the
range of recreation opportunities represented
within the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
(ROS).
The relationship of people and recreation places for creating leisure settings.
229
In general, because of the secluded nature of
river ways, many users prefer and expect few
encounters with other groups while traveling on
the river, particularly in wilderness areas
(Schreyer et a1. 1976, Shelby and Nielsen 1975,
Heberlein and Vaske 1977, Tarbet et al. 1977).
Most river systems provide considerable screening
from other river users due to winding channels,
thick bank vegetation, and often steep, narrow
corridors. There may be several groups floating a
particular waterway who would not see each other
all day if they were traveling at the same speed
and sufficiently separated for the particular
setting. However, for a visitor who is stationary, such as a fisherman on the bank, contacts
with floaters could be numerous because the river
would continually bring groups into and out of
view (Heberlein and Vaske 1977).
Location of Use
Water-based recreation occurs in a variety
of different places and includes a wide range of
activities. Water resource areas may differ
considerably in setting attributes but they all
have the common characteristic of water. Consequently, an activity such as swimming can be
common among the most diverse resource settings
and it is erroneous to assume that such activities are area-specific (i.e., kayaking only on
rivers or swimming only at the beach) (Field and
Cheek 1974).
It is interesting, however, to note some
general trends. McDonough and Field (1979) identified the distribution of outings among water
resources in a survey of Washington residents.
Lakes received considerably more use than any
other water resource type. Reservoirs, followed
by rivers, were the next most often used areas.
A small percent of outings occurred at the ocean.
The most common activities occurring at each of
these areas were also identified. Swimming,
powerboating, sailing, canoeing, and fishing all
occurred primarily at lakes, followed by reservoirs in considerably smaller percentages.
Beachcombing also took place most often at lakes,
followed closely by the ocean.
Lakes and reservoirs do not provide as much
screening from other users as do river ways.
Thick vegetation may provide seclusion from other
groups around the shoreline but the nature and
shape of lakes provide prime exposure of most
users on the water and on opposite shores.
Lakes and reservoirs can often provide opportunities for a wider variety of activities than
rivers or ocean beaches. Common activities
include swimming, fishing, waterskiing, powerboating, sailing and canoeing. McDonough (1980)
found that primary reasons for visitors choosing
to recreate at a lake resource were presence of
friends, proximity, solitude, and water quality-pursuit of specific activities being less important.
Recreation Places and Water Resources
There are essentially three types of water
resources based on their characteristics: rivers
and streams (running water), lakes and reservoirs
(standing fresh water), and beaches adjacent to
oceans or large lakes. Differences in resource
attributes, such as screening from other users
due to topography or vegetation, give rise to
differences in social norms dictating appropriate
types and amounts of use. A variety of activities take place at all water environments though
some are unique to a particular setting (e.g.,
surfing at the ocean) and obviously some water
resources are more conducive to particular activities than others. McDonough (1980) points out
in her study of lake users that though activity
is a primary reason for choosing a specific place
to recreate, there are many other influencing
factors. Differences and similarities in activities are examined for each of the three water
resource types.
Beaches are water oriented recreation places,
often with irregular shorelines and open spaces
that accommodate a wide variety of use. Beaches
are popular environments for both water and nonwater recreation activities, with many users
spending the majority of their visit out of the
water. Common recreation activities include
surfing, sail boarding, swimming, boating, sunbathing, team sports (e.g., volleyball or football), kite flying, and beach combing. Visible
evidence of management activities (e.g., lifeguards or food concessions) are often more acceptable at beaches than at other water settings.
People visiting beaches often expect to
encounter others, and in fact, some social groups
depend on density of use to secure privacy, while
others seek the outside contacts that beaches may
provide (Hecock 1970). A wide variety of social
groups visit beach areas, and of the three water
settings, beaches are where one would most likely
find individuals recreating alone.
Common activities on rivers and streams include fishing, tubing, river running, and swimming. T,he definition of any one of these activities, as with most recreation activities, may
vary considerably depending on the degree of individual involvement. A single activity such as
fishing can actually consist of a continuum of
involvement levels ranging from generalized participation to specialized style (Bryan 1977).
Fly fishing for trout in a high mountain stream
and bait fishing for salmon in a coastal river
are very different activities. This variation
within any one activity must be kept in mind when
generalizing about river or any water resource
use.
SUMMARY
Understanding the relationships between
behavior, culture, leisure lifestyle and recreation places is an important step in recreation
research. There has been considerable research
done on specific aspects of recreation behavior,
but little which attempts to understand the joint
interaction of behavior and habitat. Indeed, the
230
social organization of leisure behavior in parkP
and forests is as complex and sophisticated as
the social organization of an urban neighborhood.
King, D. A. 1966. Activity patterns of campers.
USDA For. Ser. Res. Note NC-18.
Kolb, J. 1959. Emerging Rural Communities:
Group Relations in Rural Society. Univ. of
Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Lee, R. 1972. The social definition of outdoor
recreation places. Pp. 68-84 in Social BP.havior, Natural Resources and the Environment.
Edited by William Burch, JR., Neil H. Cheek,
Jr. and Lee Taylor. Harpers Row, New York,
New York.
Lime, D. 1975. Backcountry river recreation:
Problems and research opportunities. Naturalist 26(1):2-5.
Machlis, G. E., D. R. Field, and F. L. Campbell.
1981. The human ecology of parks. Leisure
Sciences 4(3):195-212.
McDonough, M. H. 1980. The influence of place on
recreation behavior: The case of northeast
Washington. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of
Washington, Seattle.
McDonough, M. H. and D. R. Field. 1979. Coulee
Dam National Recreation Area: Visitor use
patterns and preferences. NPS Univ. of
Washington, Seattle.
Schnore, L. 1958. Social morphology and human
ecology. American Journal of Sociology
63(May):620-24, 629-34.
Schreyer, R., J. W. Roggenbuck, S. F. McCool, L.
E. Royer and J. Miller. 1976. The Dinosaur
National Monument whitewater river recreation
study. Institute for the Study of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism, Utah State Univ.,
Logan.
Shafer, E. L., Jr. 1969. The average camper who
doesn't exist. USDA For. Ser. Res. Pap. NE142.
Shelby, B. and J. M~ Nielsen. 1976. Use levels
and crowding in the Grand Canyon: River
contact study. Final Report Part III. Grand
Canyon National Park, Arizona.
Stankey, G. H. and P. J. Brown. 1981. A technique for recreation planning and management in
tomorrow's forests. Pp. 63-73 in Proceedings
XVII IUFRO World Congress, Japan.
Suttles, G. D. 1972. The Social Construction of
Communities. Univ. of Chicago, Chicago.
Suttles, G. D. 1982. The contrived community:
1970-1980. Pp. 224-230 in Urban Patterns:
Studies in Human Ecology, George Theordorson.
Penn. State. Univ., University Park.
Tarbet, D., G. H. Moeller, and K. T. McLoughlin.
1977. Attitudes of Salmon River users toward
management of wild and scenic rivers. Pp.
365-371 in Proceedings: River Recreation
Management and Research Symposium. USDA For.
Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-28. North Central
For. Exp. Sta. Minneapolis, MN.
Theordorson, G. 1892. Urban Patterns: Studies
in Huma Ecology. Penn. State Univ. Press,
University Park.
Wagar, J. A. 1966. Quality in outdoor
.
recreation. Trends in Parks and Recreation
3(3):9-12.
The conceptual framework presented here is
another step in describing this human/biological
picture. From here we can begin to examine
related resource management issues such as assessing social impact, social conflicts and carrying
capacity, and predicting visitor response to
management actions. Using this perspective we
can better understand the dynamic nature of
various recreation places to accommodate a
variety of visitors engaging in a wide diversity
of activities across time and space.
LITERATURE CITED
Bennett, J. 1976. The Ecological Transition:
Cultural Anthropology and Human Adapation.
Pergamon Press, Inc. New York.
Bryan, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and
recreational specialization: The case of
trout fishermen. J. of Leisure Research
9(3):174-187.
Buist, L. J. and T. A. Hoots. 1982. Recreation
opportunity spectrum approach to resource
planning. J. Forestry 80(2):84-86.
Catton, W. R., Jr. 1982. Overshoot: The
Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change.
University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Ill.
Cheek, N.H., D. R. Field, and R. J. Burdge.
1976. Leisure and Recreation Places. Ann
Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI.
Clark, R. N. 1982. Promises and pitfalls of the
ROS in resource management. Australian
Parks and Rec., May, pp. 9-13.
Clark, R. N. and G. H. Stankey. 1979. The
recreation opportunity spectrum: A
framework for planning, management, and
research. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-98. 32 p.
DeVall, W. 1973. Social worlds of leisure. Pp.
131-144 in Leisure and Recreation Places.
Edited by N.H. Cheek Jr., D. R. Field, R.
J. Burdee. Ann Arbor Press. 1976.
Edgerton, R. B. 1979. Alone Together: Social
Order on an Urban Beach. Univ. of
California Press, Berkeley.
Firey, W. 1945. Sentiment and symbolism as
ecological variable. Am. Sociological Review
10(April):140-148.
Firey, W. 1947. Land Use in Central Boston.
Harvard Univ: Press. Cambridge.
Field, D. and N. H. Cheek, Jr. 1974. A basis
f'or assessing differential participation in
water-oriented recreation. Water Resources
Bulletin 10(6):1218-1227.
Hawley, A. 1950. Human Ecology: A Theory of
Community Structure. The Ronald Press, New
York.
Hecock, R. D. 1970. Recreation behavior patterns as related to site characteristics of
beaches. J. of Leisure Research 2(4):237250.
Heberlein, T. A., and J. J. Vaske. 1977.
Crowding and conflict on the Bois Brule
River. Water Resources Center Tech. Rep.
WIS WRC 77-04. Madison, Wise.
0
231