Outdoor recreation research: Different approaches, different values?

Abstract

Different approaches to outdoor recreation research influence how recreational values are articulated. The article presents a theoretical comparison between two recreation research traditions that have been influential in both Norwegian outdoor recreation research and American wilderness research and management. The authors compare how both research traditions fit two predefined valuation models, with one model oriented towards economists' perception of values and the other oriented towards humanistic philosophy. They contend that the two research traditions are connected in their conceptual construct of values. Studies labelled 'motivational recreation research' fit with an economic-oriented value model, whereas 'place-oriented recreation research' puts greater emphasis on non-utilitarian values compatible with a constitutive value model. Consideration of the kind of values that a given research tradition promotes is very important for research outputs and management practice.

Linking visitor motivation with attitude towards management restrictions on use in a national park

“…Vistad 1995, Fredman & Heberlein 2005, Haukland et al 2010. A central construct in the Nordic recreation history is 'motivational recreation research' (Aasetre & Gundersen 2012), which is based on North American research and management traditions. Motivation occurs when an individual wants to satisfy a need.…”

Linking visitors’ spatial preferences to sustainable visitor management in a Norwegian national park

“…Based on our findings, we suggest a more explicit spatial segregation strategy to shield important areas for vulnerable fauna from visitor impacts, channelling the heaviest use to limited designated locations. This reflects spatial management approaches like those of the ROS framework (Aasetre & Gundersen 2012). Our findings, however, recommend research to include more direct investigation into visitors' preference for, and willingness to visit, replacement locations in protected areas.…”

“…In this study, we combined questions derived from motivational recreation research (Aasetre & Gundersen 2012;Driver & Brown 1978;Fredman & Heberlein 2005;Kajala 2007;Vistad & Vorkinn 2012), with place-and area-related questions regarding preferences for visiting sites in a national park. We used the results to analyse the relationship between recreational settings, the preference for visiting central and fringe areas, and the overall desired experience in Rondane NP.…”

“…Motivations for visiting NPs in Scandinavia are well studied (Aasetre & Gundersen 2012), but the spatial hiking choices and alternatives inside these NPs have so far received less attention (but see Pietilä & Kangas 2015;Raadik et al 2010). The study by Raadik et al (2010) on recreational experience preferences (REP) within Fulufjället NP emphasized that further research should examine differences between visitors across the park's different zones.…”

Outdoor recreation participants’ motivations, experiences and vacation activity preferences

“…The expectation model , first proposed by Victor Vroom (1964), is among the significant models within the models of expectation ; it is accepted that individuals decide on their actions by consciously evaluating the outcomes of their behaviour (Solomon, 2009: 157). Within this framework based on expectation, the recreationists are satisfied, by acting rationally when experiences satisfy their expectations (Aasetre and Gundersen, 2012: 196). As a result of all these approaches, recreation was conceptualized as a psychosocial experience, which is a way of self-rewarding with free choices (Manfredo et al, 1996: 189).…”