Wilderness managers strive to provide quality recreation experiences. Because of this commitment, a need exists to further incorporate experiential aspects into current planning and management frameworks. This article suggests a focus on relationships with wilderness, moving beyond the examination of single transactions with a setting toward a consideration of the dynamic engagements visitors accumulate with wilderness over time. Understanding these relationships relative to social and cultural change may allow managers to incorporate diverse meanings into management planning and provide better protection of wilderness characte

Borrie, William T.

Dvorak, Robert G.

English

University of Montana

University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Society and Conservation Faculty Publications Society and Conservation 12-2007 “Changing Relationships with Wilderness: A New Focus for Research and Stewardship William T. Borrie University of Montana - Missoula, bill.borrie@umontana.edu Robert G. Dvorak University of Montana - Missoula Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/soccon_pubs  Part of the Sociology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Borrie, William T. and Dvorak, Robert G., "“Changing Relationships with Wilderness: A New Focus for Research and Stewardship" (2007). Society and Conservation Faculty Publications. 3. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/soccon_pubs/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Society and Conservation at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Society and Conservation Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact scholarworks@mso.umt.edu. A New Focus for Experience QualityWilderness managers are charged with the challenging goalsof both ensuring resource protection and of providingopportunities for quality wilderness recreation experiences.Social scientists have worked to provide managerswith information that can assist them in facilitatingachievement of those wilderness experiences. Althoughmultiple approaches (e.g., satisfaction, benefits-based,experience-based) have been developed to understand vis-itor motivations, meanings, and experience quality, we stillstruggle to address and integrate experiential conceptswithin current planning and management frameworks(such as Limits of Acceptable Change). Although settingattributes clearly influence the quality of the wildernessexperience and are largely under management control,these attributes do not sum to the total of the wildernessexperience. For example, symbolic values, self-reflection,and spiritual experiences are among other concepts recog-nized as important and appropriate components of thewilderness experience. As more importance is placed uponunderstanding these types of values and meanings, a needexists to move beyond strictly considering setting attrib-utes in the integration of resource and experience values. Current approaches are limited in their ability to inte-grate both resource and experience values. This is partlybecause wilderness experiences occur across vast landscapesand are ongoing personal constructions that are complex andembedded within the overall experience paths of our lives.These experiences are not one-time transactions between thevisitor and the setting (Borrie and Roggenbuck 2001), butdynamic engagements that fluctuate and accumulate overtime. In addition, there are numerous cultural and socialforces in our society, social institutions, and our lives. Thesechanges can influence our interactions with wilderness andthe meanings constructed through our experiences.A better understanding of how these constructionsoccur across an individual’s life course may provide scientists12 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2007  •  VOLUME 13, NUMBER 3SCIENCE and RESEARCHChanging Relationships with WildernessA New Focus for Research and StewardshipBY ROBERT G. DVORAK and WILLIAM T. BORRIEAbstract: Wilderness managers strive to provide quality recreation experiences. Because ofthis commitment, a need exists to further incorporate experiential aspects into current planningand management frameworks. This article suggests a focus on relationships with wilderness,moving beyond the examination of single transactions with a setting toward a consideration ofthe dynamic engagements visitors accumulate with wilderness over time. Understanding theserelationships relative to social and cultural change may allow managers to incorporate diversemeanings into management planning and provide better protection of wilderness character.PEER REVIEWEDRobert G. Dvorak. Photo by Lisa Dvorak. William T. Borrie.and managers with new ways toaddress and integrate quality experi-ences into planning frameworks.Therefore, we suggest a relationshipapproach as a new focus when inves-tigating wilderness experiences overan individual’s life course. By investi-gating the relationships individualsdevelop with specific wildernessareas over time, it may be possible tounderstand the different componentsof a relationship that may be chang-ing and the role of managementactions that facilitate, threaten, orstrengthen these relationships.Why Relationships?Relationships between the public andpublic lands have become of increas-ing interest in recent years (Watsonand Borrie 2003). Some research hasbeen responding to the need to stew-ard these relationships. Brooks,Wallace, and Williams (2006) sug-gested that the concept of arelationship can be used as ametaphor for understanding experi-ence quality, and explored howpeople develop committed relation-ships with specific places. Theserelationships contribute to the well-being associated with positiveexperiences and even a tolerance for“bad” experiences. Therefore, theyargue that a relationship-orientedframework may contribute to theunderstanding of emergent experi-ences and meanings associated with aspecific place over time. Psychology and marketingresearch also provide further supportfor a focus on wilderness relation-ships (Berry 1995), suggesting severalkey concepts that match a wildernesscontext. First, relationships exist overtime (Fournier 1998). They are notseen as fixed, but as dynamic entitiesthat ebb and flow over an individual’slifetime. Similarly, the interactionsand experiences visi-tors have with wilder-ness areas are morethan single on-sitetransactions. Instead,they are an ongoingprocess that dynami-cally changes andinfluences futureexpectations andexperiences. Second, relation-ships are noted toinvolve at least twoindividuals or entities.These individuals areinterdependent andpart of a reciprocal exchange wherechanges in one cause changes in theother (Berscheid and Peplau 1983).This suggests that the relationshipsindividuals develop are influenced byother entities and subject to a varietyof cultural and social forces, such asinstitutional structures, personal val-ues, social norms, and culturalstereotypes (Liljeblad and Borrie2006). These forces influence the cre-ation, maintenance, and negotiationof individual relationships over time.Participants in these exchanges maygain a certain level of trust and com-mitment to the partner involved inthe relationship (Borrie et al. 2002).In the context of a wilderness rela-tionship, managers responsible foradministering wilderness areas act asrelationship partners with visitors,developing expectations for futureinteractions with managers. Third, relationships are purpo-sive and have meaning in the largercontext of our lives, adding signifi-cance and structure (Fournier 1998).Our interactions with others, andwith wilderness, are purposefulefforts to define and represent ourlifestyle and self-identity. Wildernessvisitors accumulate experience with aplace that is associated with a certainidentity. That is, visitors develop loy-alty to that area (or dependence on anarea) because it begins to representwho they see themselves to be. A relationship with wilderness,in part, represents a cultural and indi-vidual expression that defines who aperson was, is, and hopes to be(Greider and Garkovich 1994).Wilderness represents symbolic envi-ronments that confer meaning ontous as individuals. Therefore, throughexperiences in wilderness and theconstruction of long-term meaning,people build ongoing relationshipswith wilderness areas.Forces of ChangeFraming wilderness experience qual-ity in the context of an ongoingrelationship represents a new direc-tion for research and managementand it is important to understand theexternal forces of change that influ-ence that relationship. The forces thatoperate within our culture and indi-vidual lives can affect how weinteract with wilderness areas, andthree types of change (socio-demo-graphic, environmental, and policy)might be seen as influencing relation-ships with wilderness areas. ForDECEMBER 2007  •  VOLUME 13, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 13Figure 1—Ecological events such as the forest blowdown of 1999 in the Boundary WatersCanoe Area Wilderness may have dramatic effects on individual relationships. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service.example, Stankey (2000) suggestedthat recreation use has historicallydiminished as age increases. With theaverage age of the U.S. populationincreasing, he asked what effect thischange will have on wilderness useand the perceived importance ofwilderness areas. Similarly, environ-mental changes, such as naturaldisturbances like wildfires and flood-ing, have a direct effect on thecharacter of the wilderness land-scape. They can fundamentally alterhow visitors are able to interact withthe landscape and how they constructthe meaning of a place (see figure 1).And then, policy changes, such as theintroduction of recreation user fees,have an effect on how visitors use andaccess wilderness. Watson (2000)suggested fees and the perception ofcommercialization are two of thegreatest threats to the relationshippeople have with wilderness.Changes in these conditions changethe landscape of these special placesand how visitors characterize themeanings associated with theseplaces. That is, visitors notice andreact to the intent and method ofwilderness management and what itconnotes about the meaningsendorsed for wilderness.Forces of change act at largerregional and societal levels. As a largesegment of our population movestoward retirement, changes in theamounts of leisure time may occurand have an effect on how often visi-tors utilize wilderness resources.Conversely, the current generationhas been raised with cell phones,video games, and computer simula-tion. Stankey (2000) suggests thisgeneration, raised in a “virtual-real-ity” world, may have only minimalinterest in and commitment to theuse of wilderness. Over time, theseintergenerational differences couldhave a dramatic effect on how wilder-ness recreation is characterized bylarge segments of the population.Advances in technologyhave dramatically changed how werelate to wilderness areas. Whereasprevious discussions have addressedthe use of cell phones, GPS units, andother portable technology in wilder-ness settings (Freimund and Borrie1997), other supposedly less obtru-sive technologies have often beenoverlooked. Advances in lightweightgear (e.g., tents, stoves, canoes) haveallowed visitors to travel farther andfaster into wilderness areas. Theseadvances have changed the accessi-bility of wilderness and theperception of what is appropriatewithin a wilderness context.Some of these forces of changeare under direct management control(e.g., use density, resource condition,fees, and permits) and are alreadyaddressed in current wilderness man-agement plans. Others, such aschanging demographics and intergen-erational differences, represent trendsin use and user characteristics that arenot influenced through managementaction. Information regarding thesechanging trends can be understoodthrough the use of permit data, trendstudies, and other public resources.By acknowledging these distinctions,it may be possible to understandwhere to focus future managementand research efforts. Future Management ImplicationsThe use of a relationship frameworkhas several implications for futurewilderness experience stewardship.First, by understanding how visitorsconceptualize their relationship withwilderness and the variety of culturaland social forces that influence theserelationships, wilderness managersand researchers may be able todevelop new indicators and standardsto guide management. These relation-ship indicators and standards could beused to facilitate opportunities forquality wilderness experiences basedon various concepts (e.g., experienceuse history, life stage, affinity for tech-nology) of an individual’s relationship.For example, wilderness recreationopportunities could be assessed todetermine how they provide experi-ences for families with young childrenor for individuals considered as “veter-ans” in that area. Although developingsuch indicators and standards may bechallenging, the process represents anevolution in thinking about protectedareas and an attempt to find new waysto address experience quality. Second, a relationship frameworkintegrates with the responsibility ofmanagers to preserve wildernessresources and character for future gen-erations, but also current generations“in the future.” By acknowledging thatwilderness is an enduring resourcewith ongoing significance, a relation-ship framework posits theexamination and understanding ofmanagement actions in the context ofan individual’s lifetime. It moves fromdocumenting visitor experiences assnapshots of the individual or con-sumer-oriented one-time transactions,to attempting to understand how14 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2007  •  VOLUME 13, NUMBER 3A relationship with wilderness, in part, representsa cultural and individual expression that defineswho a person was, is, and hopes to be.experience and forces of change affectrelationships over time. This shift infocus provides managers with infor-mation as they make difficult,value-based decisions about whatdesired wilderness conditions shouldbe and mean for future generations.Finally, acknowledging changingrelationships could provide more lat-itude in future decision making. Itfocuses greater attention on the tem-poral and dynamic aspects of theinteractions individuals have with anarea. It places greater emphasis on theexamination of both current visitortrends and possible future changesthat occur in the general population.Such foresight may allow managers tobe more proactive in decision mak-ing, in contrast to a reactive relianceon satisfaction or singular outcome-based approaches to understandingvisitor experiences. The importance of understand-ing relationships with wildernessmay seem obvious. However, theframing of wilderness experiencequality in the context of an ongoingrelationship represents a new direc-tion for research and management. Itrecognizes that visitors invest theirpersonal identity and lifestyle intothe interactions they have withwilderness areas. Relationshipsshape their perceptions and howthey attribute meanings across thewilderness landscape. By implement-ing stewardship actions based on arelationship framework, managersmay be better equipped to respond tochanging relationships over time andincrease future protection of wilder-ness character and experiencequality. IJWAcknowledgmentsThis article is based on a presentationmade at the George Wright SocietyBiennial Conference, April 16–20,2007, St. Paul, Minnesota.REFERENCESBerry, L. L. 1995. Relationship marketing ofservices: Growing interest, emergingperspectives. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science 23(4): 236–45.Berscheid, E., and L. A. Peplau. 1983. TheEmerging science of relationships. InClose Relationships, ed. H. K. Harold etal. (pp. 1–19). New York: W. H.Freeman.Borrie, W. T., and J. W. Roggenbuck. 2001.The dynamic, emergent, and multi-pha-sic nature of on-site wildernessexperiences. Journal of Leisure Research33(2): 202–28.Borrie, W. T., N. Christensen, A. E. Watson, T.A. Miller, and D. W. McCollum. 2002.Public purpose recreation marketing: Afocus on the relationships between thepublic and public lands. Journal of Parkand Recreation Administration 20(2):49–68.Brooks, J. J., G. N. Wallace, and D. R.Williams. 2006. Place as relationshippartner: An alternative metaphor forunderstanding the quality of visitor expe-rience in a backcountry setting. LeisureSciences 28: 331–49.Freimund, W. A., and W. T. Borrie. 1997.Wilderness in the 21st century: Are theretechnical solutions to our technical solu-tions? International Journal ofWilderness 3(4): 21–23.Fournier, S. 1998. Consumers and theirbrands: Developing relationship theoryin consumer research. Journal ofConsumer Research 24(4): 343–73.Greider, T., and L. Garkovich. 1994.Landscapes: The social construction ofnature and the environment. RuralSociology 59(1): 1–24.Liljeblad, A., and W. T. Borrie. 2006. Trust inwildland fire and fuel management decisions. International Journal ofWilderness 12(1): 39-–43.Stankey, G. H. 2000. Future trends in societyand technology: Implications for wilder-ness research and management. InWilderness Science in a Time of ChangeConference—Volume 1: ChangingPerspectives and Future Directions, ed. D.N. Cole, S. F. McCool, W. T. Borrie, andJ. O’Loughlin (pp. 10–23). May 23—27,1999, Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Research Station.Watson, A. E. 2000. Wilderness use in theyear 2000: Societal changes that influ-ence human relationships withwilderness. In Wilderness Science in aTime of Change Conference—Volume 4:Wilderness Visitors, Experiences, andVisitor Management, ed. D. N. Cole, S.F. McCool, W. T. Borrie, and J.O’Loughlin (pp. 53–60). May 23—27,1999, Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Research Station.Watson, A. E., and W. T. Borrie. 2003.Applying public purpose marketing inthe USA to protect relationships withpublic land. In Nature-based Tourism,Environment and Land Management, ed.R. Buckley, C.  Pickering, and D. B.Weaver (pp. 25–33). Oxon: UK andCambridge, MA: D. B. CABI Publishing.ROBERT G. DVORAK is a Ph.D. candidatein the College of Forestry andConservation at the University of Montana,32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812,USA. Email: bob_dvorak47@yahoo.com. WILLIAM T. BORRIE is a professor in theCollege of Forestry and Conservation atthe University of Montana, 32 CampusDrive, Missoula, MT 59812, USA. Email:bill.borrie@umontana.edu. DECEMBER 2007  •  VOLUME 13, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 15Framing of wilderness experience quality in thecontext of an ongoing relationship represents a newdirection for research and management.

“Changing Relationships with Wilderness: A New Focus for Research and  Stewardship

Deakin Research Online

Changing relationships with wilderness: A new focus for research and stewardship

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&amp;context=soccon_pubs

“Changing Relationships with Wilderness: A New Focus for Research and Stewardship

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Montana

Deakin Research Online