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

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 character. PEER REVIEWED Robert G. Dvorak. Photo by Lisa Dvorak. William T. Borrie. and managers with new ways to address and integrate quality experiences into planning frameworks. Therefore, we suggest a relationship approach as a new focus when investigating wilderness experiences over an individual’s life course. By investigating the relationships individuals develop with specific wilderness areas over time, it may be possible to understand the different components of a relationship that may be changing and the role of management actions that facilitate, threaten, or strengthen these relationships. Why Relationships? Relationships between the public and public lands have become of increasing interest in recent years (Watson and Borrie 2003). Some research has been responding to the need to steward these relationships. Brooks, Wallace, and Williams (2006) suggested that the concept of a relationship can be used as a metaphor for understanding experience quality, and explored how people develop committed relationships with specific places. These relationships contribute to the wellbeing associated with positive experiences and even a tolerance for “bad” experiences. Therefore, they argue that a relationship-oriented framework may contribute to the understanding of emergent experiences and meanings associated with a specific place over time. Psychology and marketing research also provide further support for a focus on wilderness relationships (Berry 1995), suggesting several key concepts that match a wilderness context. First, relationships exist over time (Fournier 1998). They are not seen as fixed, but as dynamic entities that ebb and flow over an individual’s lifetime. Similarly, the interactions and experiences visitors have with wilderness areas are more than single on-site transactions. Instead, they are an ongoing process that dynamically changes and influences future expectations and experiences. Second, relationships are noted to involve at least two individuals or entities. These individuals are interdependent and part of a reciprocal exchange where changes in one cause changes in the other (Berscheid and Peplau 1983). This suggests that the relationships individuals develop are influenced by other entities and subject to a variety of cultural and social forces, such as institutional structures, personal values, social norms, and cultural stereotypes (Liljeblad and Borrie 2006). These forces influence the creation, maintenance, and negotiation of individual relationships over time. Participants in these exchanges may gain a certain level of trust and commitment to the partner involved in the relationship (Borrie et al. 2002). In the context of a wilderness relationship, managers responsible for administering wilderness areas act as relationship partners with visitors, developing expectations for future interactions with managers. Third, relationships are purposive and have meaning in the larger context of our lives, adding significance and structure (Fournier 1998). Our interactions with others, and with wilderness, are purposeful efforts to define and represent our lifestyle and self-identity. Wilderness visitors accumulate experience with a place that is associated with a certain identity. That is, visitors develop loyalty to that area (or dependence on an area) because it begins to represent who they see themselves to be. A relationship with wilderness, in part, represents a cultural and individual expression that defines who a person was, is, and hopes to be (Greider and Garkovich 1994). Wilderness represents symbolic environments that confer meaning onto us as individuals. Therefore, through experiences in wilderness and the construction of long-term meaning, people build ongoing relationships with wilderness areas. Forces of Change Framing wilderness experience quality in the context of an ongoing relationship represents a new direction for research and management and it is important to understand the external forces of change that influence that relationship. The forces that operate within our culture and individual lives can affect how we interact with wilderness areas, and three types of change (socio-demographic, environmental, and policy) might be seen as influencing relationships with wilderness areas. For DECEMBER 2007 • VOLUME 13, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 13 Figure 1—Ecological events such as the forest blowdown of 1999 in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness may have dramatic effects on individual relationships. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service. example, Stankey (2000) suggested that recreation use has historically diminished as age increases. With the average age of the U.S. population increasing, he asked what effect this change will have on wilderness use and the perceived importance of wilderness areas. Similarly, environmental changes, such as natural disturbances like wildfires and flooding, have a direct effect on the character of the wilderness landscape. They can fundamentally alter how visitors are able to interact with the landscape and how they construct the meaning of a place (see figure 1). And then, policy changes, such as the introduction of recreation user fees, have an effect on how visitors use and access wilderness. Watson (2000) suggested fees and the perception of commercialization are two of the greatest threats to the relationship people have with wilderness. Changes in these conditions change the landscape of these special places and how visitors characterize the meanings associated with these places. That is, visitors notice and react to the intent and method of wilderness management and what it connotes about the meanings endorsed for wilderness. Forces of change act at larger regional and societal levels. As a large segment of our population moves toward retirement, changes in the amounts of leisure time may occur and have an effect on how often visitors utilize wilderness resources. Conversely, the current generation has been raised with cell phones, video games, and computer simulation. Stankey (2000) suggests this generation, raised in a “virtual-reality” world, may have only minimal interest in and commitment to the use of wilderness. Over time, these intergenerational differences could have a dramatic effect on how wilderness recreation is characterized by large segments of the population. Advances in technology have dramatically changed how we relate to wilderness areas. Whereas previous discussions have addressed the use of cell phones, GPS units, and other portable technology in wilderness settings (Freimund and Borrie 1997), other supposedly less obtrusive technologies have often been overlooked. Advances in lightweight gear (e.g., tents, stoves, canoes) have allowed visitors to travel farther and faster into wilderness areas. These advances have changed the accessibility of wilderness and the perception of what is appropriate within a wilderness context. Some of these forces of change are under direct management control (e.g., use density, resource condition, fees, and permits) and are already addressed in current wilderness management plans. Others, such as changing demographics and intergenerational differences, represent trends in use and user characteristics that are not influenced through management action. Information regarding these changing trends can be understood through the use of permit data, trend studies, and other public resources. By acknowledging these distinctions, it may be possible to understand where to focus future management and research efforts. Future Management Implications The use of a relationship framework has several implications for future wilderness experience stewardship. First, by understanding how visitors conceptualize their relationship with wilderness and the variety of cultural and social forces that influence these relationships, wilderness managers and researchers may be able to develop new indicators and standards to guide management. These relationship indicators and standards could be used to facilitate opportunities for quality wilderness experiences based on various concepts (e.g., experience use history, life stage, affinity for technology) of an individual’s relationship. For example, wilderness recreation opportunities could be assessed to determine how they provide experiences for families with young children or for individuals considered as “veterans” in that area. Although developing such indicators and standards may be challenging, the process represents an evolution in thinking about protected areas and an attempt to find new ways to address experience quality. Second, a relationship framework integrates with the responsibility of managers to preserve wilderness resources and character for future generations, but also current generations “in the future.” By acknowledging that wilderness is an enduring resource with ongoing significance, a relationship framework posits the examination and understanding of management actions in the context of an individual’s lifetime. It moves from documenting visitor experiences as snapshots of the individual or consumer-oriented one-time transactions, to attempting to understand how 14 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2007 • VOLUME 13, NUMBER 3 A relationship with wilderness, in part, represents a cultural and individual expression that defines who 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 managementdecisions. 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: [email protected]. WILLIAM T. BORRIE is a professor in theCollege of Forestry and Conservation atthe University of Montana, 32 CampusDrive, Missoula, MT 59812, USA. Email:[email protected]. 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.