UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Conflict management in BC provincial parks: a case study of mountain biking in Garibaldi Park Thompson, Paul David 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0143.pdf [ 1.62MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087424.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087424-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087424-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087424-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087424-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087424-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087424-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087424-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087424.ris

Full Text

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN BC PROVINCIAL PARKS:A CASE STUDY OF MOUNTAIN BIKING IN GARIBALDI PARKbyPAUL DAVID THOMPSONB.Sc. The University of Victoria, 1987A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCEinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(School of Community and Regional Planning)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAJanuary 1994Paul David Thompson, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of 3,j/f iciiThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDateDE6 (2/88)ABSTRACTAt the same time resources are becoming more scarce there isan increase in the use of parks, wilderness and other naturalenvironments for recreational purposes. This is evident inBritish Columbia where much of provincial parks planning isconcerned with the accommodation of an ever increasing diversityof outdoor recreation activities. For a variety of reasons thepeople engaged in those activities do not always get alongtherefore resolving these social conflicts is becoming an everlarger part of recreation resource planners’ and managers’ jobs.The problem with conflict management in outdoor recreation isthat the methods which are commonly used do not address thesources of conflict. Even though it is the recreationists whoare experiencing conflict the focus remains on managing theresource.The traditional conflict management prescription is toseparate activities that are considered to be incompatible. Thisaction is necessary in some cases but it can often exacerbate theconflict. Since the reasons for conflict are largelysociological and psychological it is necessary that the groups inconflict get together to find a solution. Conflict managementmethods based on the spatial separation of activities that do notinclude this step will not be as effective as those that do.This thesis establishes a number of weaknesses in activitybased conflict prevention by examining both the sources ofJ-1conflict in outdoor recreation and the methods of conflictmanagement which are traditionally used. These weaknesses arethen considered in a two part examination. First, the conflictmanagement policies of BC Parks are examined. Second, a closerlook is taken at a specific conflict issue: the Garibaldi MasterPlan and its treatment of the issue of mountain biking in thepark.In general, without a formal conflict management policy inplace users of BC’S provincial parks who find themselves inconflict with other users can not be assured that the sources ofconflict will be addressed. In the Garibaldi Park case study, BCParks focused on managing the resource rather than managing thesocial conflict that was occurring. They took steps in the rightdirection but failed to take the most crucial step which isgetting the parties in conflict talking to each other. Eventhough the sources of conflict are recognized they are not theprime consideration in resolving the conflict.:iJiTABLE OF CONTENTS2JBSTR.ACT . iiTABLEOFCONTENTS . ivLIST OF FIGUR.ES . . viLIST OF TABLES . . . . viiCHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION . . . 11 . 1 Purpose 11.2 Critical Definitions . 21.3 Context 31.4 Significance . . 51 . 5 Method . . . . . 61.6ScopeandLimitations . 81.7Organization 9CHAPTER 2:Conflict Management in Recreation Resource Planning . 102.lSocialConflict . . . . 112.1.1 The Nature of Social Conflict 112.1.2 Managing Social Conflict . . . . . . . 132.2 The Sources Of Conflict In Outdoor Recreation 152.2.llntroduction . . . . . 152.2.2Goallnterference . . . . . 172.2.3 Competition Between Recreationists 232.2.4 Incompatible Activities 262 . 2 . 5 SurnIuar3T 292.3 Conflict Management Methods In Recreation Resource Planning3o2 . 3 . 1 Zoning . . . 332.3.2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 352.3.3 Regulatory Means 372.3.4 Substitution/Systems Planning 392 . 3 . 5 Summary 4 02.4 Summary/Examination Criteria 43ivChapter 3:Conflict Management in BC Parks . . . . 473.1 Conflict Management in BC Parks . 483.1.1 Legislative Mandate . . . . . . 483.1.2 Formal Methods of Conflict Prevention . . . . . . . 483 . 1. 2 . 1 Zoning . 493.l.2.2Substitution 513.1.2.3RegulatoryMeans 513.1.3 The Planning Process and Conflict Management . . . . 523.1.4 Informal Methods of Managing Conflict . 543.2 Mountain Biking In Garibaldi Provincial Park 573 . 2 . 1 The Conflict . 593.2.2 The Process of Resolving The Conflict . . . . . . . 603.2.3ProposedSolutions 64Chapter 4:An Examination of Conflict Management in BC Parks 664.1 Standards For Recreation Opportunities 674.2 BC Parks Recreation Policies and User Conflict . . 684.2.1 Regulatory Means - Setting Limits 684.2.2SystemsPlanning 704 . 2 . 3 Zoning 734.2.4 The Master Plan Process and Informal Methods . . 754.3 The Garibaldi Master Planning Process: The Issue OfMountain Biking Opportunities 78Chapter 5:Conclusions And Implications For Planning . . 855.lConclusions 855.2 Implications For Recreation Resource Planning 92THESIS BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 99APPENDIX 1 Main Participating Groups In The GaribaldiMaster Plan Process . . . . . . . 104APPENDIX 2 List Of Interviews 105VLIST OP PIGURESFigure1. Map of Garibaldi Provincial Park 58viLIST OF TABLESTableI. The Advantages and Disadvantages of SpatialSeparation Of Activities To Resolve Conflicts InOutdoor Recreation 41viiCHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION1.1 Purpose“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Or is it?The methods which have been developed to deal with conflictsin outdoor recreation are based on the premise that certainactivities cannot take place at the same time in the samelocation. When one activity adversely affects the other they aretermed incompatible. The thrust of conflict management inoutdoor recreation management and planning therefore has been toseparate those activities which are perceived to be incompatibleand in turn prevent potential conflict situations.BC Parks, responsible for the planning and management ofBritish Columbia’s provincial parks, have no explicit policies onmanaging park visitor conflicts. However, policies on theprovision of a wide variety of recreation opportunities doreflect the premise that the separation of incompatibleactivities will prevent user conflict.This thesis examines the ability of current formal conflictprevention methods and informal conflict management processes toresolve outdoor recreation conflicts in BC Parks. In the absenceof specific conflict management policies are these formal methods1and informal processes an effective means of managing parkvisitor conflicts?1.2 Critical DefinitionsI use the term ‘conflict management’ wherever possiblethroughout the text of this thesis but the use of other termssuch as ‘conflict prevention’ and ‘conflict resolution’ is alsonecessary. An explanation of these terms as they pertain torecreation resource management and planning is offered here.Conflict Management refers to the management of conflict so asto affect its outcome, preferably in a positive way. The purposeof managing conflict is to increase benefits and values and todecrease costs and deficiencies. A necessary condition ofsuccessful conflict management is that learning takes place onthe part of the parties involved in the conflict and the peoplewho are managing the conflict (Burton and Dukes, 1990;Bercovitch, 1984; Minnery, 1985).Conflict Prevention refers to methods used to suppress, avoidor prevent conflicts from occurring (Bercovitch, 1984; Minnery,1985; Porter and Toplin, 1987). In outdoor recreation the commonpractice is to identify activities which are incompatible andthen through a variety of means make sure that those activitiesdo not take place in the same setting. Hence the term ‘activitybased conflict prevention’.2ConflictResolutionreferstoaprocesswhichleadstoareevaluationorchangeinperceptionbytheparticipantsinconflictastothebasisofthesituationgivingrisetodestructivebehaviourandhostileattitudes.Resolutionsignifiestheendofconflict(Deutsch1973;Bercovitch,1984).Onefurtherdistinctionshouldalsobemade:‘BCParks’vs.‘BCparks’.BCParksreferstothegovernmentagencyanditsemployeeswhoareresponsibleformanagementandplanning,whileBCparksreferstoallofBC’sprovincialparks.1.3ContextConflictinoutdoorrecreationisoneofthemostcommonandcomplexproblemsthatrecreationresourceplannersandmanagershavetodealwith(seeJacobandSchreyer,1980;Buryetal,1983;Haimuitt,1988;Schreyer,1990).Unlikeotherconflictsovernaturalresources,recreationaluseconflictsarenotthesimplecaseofoneactivityversusanotherandassucharemuchmorethanaspaceallocationproblem.Providingenoughspacefortheactivitiestotakeplacewithoutinterferencemaybeonewayofmanaginguserconflictsbutitisnotspacepersethatistheproblem.Incontrasttomostresourceutilisingactivitiesthatpreventotheractivitiesfromusingthesameresource,mostrecreationalactivitiesdonotpreventotherrecreationalactivitiesfromtakingplaceinthesamesetting.Inotherwords3it is not the resource that is the cause of the problem but thepeople who use it.The focus of conflict management efforts in outdoorrecreation, however, has been on the activity and the activity’sresource setting (see for example: Van Doren, 1979; Pigram, 1983;Hammitt and Cole, 1987; Knudson, 1984; Jubenville, 1978). Thisreflects an attempt to manage the resource to avoid userconflicts instead of managing the people who are in conflict. Alot of emphasis is placed on spatial separation of recreationactivities which are perceived to be incompatible. It is truethat some activities are inherently incompatible in the sameimmediate vicinity. An oft used example is conflict betweenpeople who take part in activities which produce a lot of noiseand those who take part in activities which require quietconditions. The snowmobiler vs. cross—country skier conflict isone example (see Jackson and Wong, 1982).Planners need to understand more clearly the different goalspursued by people using public resources, and how theinteractions of different types of users may impact theattainment of those goals.Recreation resource planners need to be able to understandthe significance of the diversity of persons visiting theirresource, the different needs and goals they are pursuing,the things they need from the resource in order to attainthose goals and the consequences of people interacting withothers who have different agendas (Schreyer, 1990, p. 28).Successful conflict management requires as a prerequisite anunderstanding of the nature of, and the processes involved in,4conflict itself. It also requires an appreciation of themechanisms available to those wishing to manage conflict.1.4 SignificanceAs competition for scarce resources increases the mainresponsibility of the natural resource planner is to resolveconflict.The planner is in the unique position to act as articulator- the person who establishes what the viewpoints ofdifferent interest groups are - and who attempts to clarifythe issues... (Falk, 1974 in Cloke and Park, 1985, p. 414).One of the roles of planning then is to act as an instrument ofcoordination between conflicting interest groups. The plannercan not manage conflict effectively if conflict management is notincorporated into the planning process.The importance of incorporating conflict management into thenatural resource planning process has received greaterrecognition in recent years. Authors who have discussed thisrelationship include: Minnery (1985); Susskind and Cruikshank(1987); Bingham (1986); Crowfoot and Wondolleck (1990); Dorcey(1986) and; Wondolleck (1985).Conflict prevention methods are important but should be partof a process in which conflicting parties get together to discusstheir differences. It is hard to say what the range of conflictmanagement possibilities would be because each situation isdifferent, but it can be said that spatial separation of5recreation activities without first discovering what the sourcesof conflict are blocks the creative process of conflictresolution. In the management of conflict in outdoor recreationit is the resource manager’s responsibility to encourage, andprovide the chance for, conflicting groups to get together.This thesis is relevant to BC Parks in the execution of itsmandate to provide a wide variety of recreation opportunities.If it is understood that there is as much variety in the goalsand interests within an activity as there is between activities,then conflict management can be that much more successful. Thisis not intended as a condemnation of the present focus onconflict prevention for it does play an important role inconflict management. Rather, mutual interests betweenconflicting recreational activities should be explored beforespatial separation is decided upon. The planning processprovides the opportunity for this to occur.1.5 MethodTo examine BC Parks conflict prevention methods an in depthliterature review, utilising both empirical evidence andtheoretical inferences, is taken. The literature reviewestablishes: the nature of social conflict; what is necessary forsuccessful conflict management; the sources of conflict inoutdoor recreation and; the traditional and current methods ofmanaging user conflict in outdoor recreation. From the6literature weaknesses in traditional conflict management methodsin outdoor recreation are outlined. From these weaknesses anumber of criteria are developed to examine the case study.The case study summarises the current conflict managementpractices of BC Parks and is divided into two sections: first,the general policy perspective is outlined; second the conflictissue of mountain biking opportunities in Garibaldi Park isdescribed. The same depth of research is not carried out for thecase study because the weaknesses in current conflict managementmethods, similar to those utilised by BC Parks, have already beenestablished.The evaluation then determines if the weaknesses cited in theliterature are also found in the case study.The information sources for the case study are BC Parksdocuments, interviews with BC Parks employees and interviews withrepresentatives from each side of the mountain bike issue whowere involved in the Garibaldi Park Master Plan planning process.Limitations in the sources of information should also benoted. The available literature on user conflicts in outdoorrecreation is quite limited as is information on conflictmanagement in outdoor recreation. The majority of books andarticles on outdoor recreation management and planning areconcerned with managing the resource and not on managing thepeople who use the resource (as examples of such a focus see:7Hammitt and Cole, 1987; Jubenville, 1978; Knudson, 1984; Pigram,1983; Van Doren, 1979).Limitations on information about conflict management in BCParks also exist. There is no written documentation on conflictmanagement in BC Parks. Therefore much of how user conflicts areresolved had to be pieced together for this study from theinterviews and the process used in the preparation of theGaribaldi Master Plan.1.6 Scope and LimitationsThis thesis is limited to an examination of the management ofconflicts that take place between people who are engaged indifferent outdoor recreation activities on public lands. Theexamination does not look into conflicts between recreationistsand other natural resource dependant activities such as miningand forestry.Public lands in BC include provincial parks and provincialforests. User conflicts occur on public lands and thereforebecome the responsibility of public land managers and planners.This thesis examines one provincial agency: BC Parks. They areresponsible for the management and planning of all provincialparks within the province of British Columbia. In turn it isalso their responsibility to resolve any conflicts which mayoccur between visitors.81.7 organizationChapter one contains the purpose, critical definitions, scope,context, significance, methodology, and organization. Chapter twoprovides an introduction to social conflict in general and themore specific case of conflicts in outdoor recreation. Both thesources of conflict in outdoor recreation and the establishedmanagement methods are discussed. The conclusion of this chapterassesses the ability of conflict prevention methods to managerecreation user conflicts.Chapter three outlines the case study: BC Ministry of Parksconflict management processes and policies. There are noexplicit policies that address conflicts between park users butthe informal processes and the policy on providing a diversearray of recreation opportunities are reviewed. In the finalsection of this chapter a closer look is taken at a specific parkuser conflict issue. The issue in question is mountain bikingopportunities within Garibaldi Provincial Park.In chapter four the weaknesses found in conflict managementmethods discussed in chapter two are used to examine conflictmanagement in BC Parks. A further examination focuses on theparticular conflict issue in Garibaldi Provincial Park: mountainbicyclists vs. other trail users.Chapter five, implications for planning, provides a basis forthe development of a policy on conflict resolution.9CHAPTER 2:Conflict Management in Recreation Resource PlanningThe purpose of this chapter is to develop the criteria whichwill be used to examine conflict management in BC parks. Thecriteria were derived through an examination of the literature onsocial conflict, conflict in outdoor recreation and conflictmanagement methods in outdoor recreation. Three main criteriahave been selected based on documentation in books, journals,conference proceedings, government reports and personalconuuunications. The three main criteria are: activitycompatibility; inclusion of the people experiencing conflict inthe conflict resolution process and; managing the resource vs.resolving social conflicts.In the first section of this chapter the nature of socialconflict is introduced. Following this the sources of conflictin outdoor recreation are explored. Three theories are reviewed.One — conflict in outdoor recreation is goal interferenceattributed to another’s behaviour (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980).Two — conflict results from the competition for scarce resources(Owen, 1985). Three - conflict exists whenever incompatibleactivities occur (Bury et al, 1983). The first two are based onthe individuals perception of conflict while the third isoperationally based.Next, the methods of managing conflict in outdoor recreationare examined. They rely on conflict avoidance and promote the10separation of incompatible activities as a means to preventconflict. These activity based conflict prevention methods focuson managing the resource rather than managing the people who usethe resource.In the conclusion to this chapter the ability of conflictprevention methods to manage conflicts in outdoor recreation isevaluated. Finally, a summary of the conclusions providescriteria to examine the case study.2.1 Social Conflict2.1.1 The Nature of Social ConflictThere is no consensus on a definition of conflict. Instead,the many perspectives fall within a spectrum ranging from verynarrow to very broad. In the narrowest sense conflict denotesthe overt physical action that results from disagreement(Bercovitch, 1984; Minnery, 1985). Common examples are wars,fights and vandalism. The actions result as the contendingparties try to impose their will on each other.In its broadest sense conflict is present in any situationwhere human beings are being impeded from realising theirpotential (Curie, 1971; Minnery, 1985). When a broad view ofconflict is taken the concern is not with the disruptive featuresof conflict but the sources of conflict - that is what is it thatleads to incompatibilities in goals between different groups. It11is this end of the spectrum of definitions that this chapter willfocus on.Despite the lack of consensus for a definition of conflictsome similarities are found in most social conflicts. Dorow(1981) has identified six characteristics of conflict behaviour:1. Social conflicts require at least two actors.2. Social conflicts arise from “position scarcity”1 and“resource scarcity”.3. Social conflicts require the perception of a potentiallyor actually colliding goal-setting process (colliding range ofaction) by at least one of the involved parties.4. Conflict—generating behaviour is a goal setting processdesigned to safeguard or enlarge one’s own range of actionagainst colliding ranges of action.25. Conflict-handling behaviour is a goal setting processdesigned to determine colliding ranges of action by exercisingpower with the purpose of realizing the safeguarding orenlarging of one’s own range of action against the collidingrange of action.6. conflict-evading behaviour is a goal setting processdesigned to leave the conflictful relationship. (taken fromMinnery, 1985, pp.9-10; for a similar list of characteristicssee Mack and Snyder, 1957)Too often conflict is viewed by the person or persons in conflictas a temporary negative condition which must be rectified as soonas possible. The resultant actions can take many forms and oftenexacerbate the problem rather than resolve it.1 In many social conflicts people become committed to positionsand thereby can be identified by their position. If that positionis threatened then conflict exists. People will take positions overcertain issues which may or may not have anything to do with scarceresources.2Essentially, when a person engages in conflict—generatingbehaviour they are trying to maintain control over some aspect oftheir life that is being questioned by others.12In contrast to the view that conflict is a negative experienceis the view that it is a natural part of our everyday lives(Deutsch, 1973). Conflict is a form of social interaction andmakes possible the confluence of parties so that conflict may beresolved.When existing social arrangements are no longer adequateand an imbalance sets in, conflict ensues. The actualconsummation of such a conflict becomes therefore a problemsolving behaviour. (Dadrian, 1979, p.273)The key to conflict being positive rather than negative is havingthe parties in conflict work together rather than against eachother. Conflict is a dynamic process and can be beneficial ifviewed in the proper manner.2.1.2 Managing Social ConflictThe successful management of conflict requires some basicunderstandings on the part of those managing the conflict andthose who are involved in conflict. For those managing theconflict it is necessary to have an understanding of the natureof, and the processes involved in, the conflict itself (Minnery,1985). For example, studying the resource will not help therecreation resource planner to gain this understanding, that canonly be achieved by focusing on the people who are in conflict.Burton (1990) explains that conflict management is concernedwith:how to handle disagreements and arguments over choices andpreferences that result from interactions between parties13who have common interests and goals, and who differ only onthe means of achieving them (p. 17).This is especially relevant to provincial parks such as Garibaldiwhere above all else the scenic beauty is a prime considerationfor visitation no matter what form of conveyance one uses.An outdoor recreation example of having similar goals andinterests but using different means to achieve them isillustrated in conflict between cross country skiers andsnowmobilers (Jackson and Wong, 1982). The skiers were surprisedto find that one of the main reasons people snowmobiled was toexperience nature. In this and other similar cases managementshould be used to enhance user involvement in the conflictresolution process.From this example it is apparent that learning is important inmanaging user conflicts. The proper concern of conflictmanagement is to increase values and benefits and to decreasecosts and dissatisfaction. Conflict management then is anattempt to feed learning into the process of conflict so as tomake conflict more productive and less costly (Bercovitch, 1983).The role of the management agency is to provide a forum forlearning to take place. Learning will not take place if peopledo not get together to work out their difficulties.Conflict prevention is not always an effective form ofmanagement because it does not explicitly promote learning.Porter and Toplin (1987) explain that avoiding conflict cansometimes be the wrong thing to do because displacement will14occur and will continue until something is done about it. At thestage where displacement is no longer acceptable conflict willbecome manifest and will be much harder to resolve than at anearlier stage when the issue was not viewed as being thatserious. The avoidance of conflict has not resulted in anylearning.The spatial separation of activities that share similar goalsand interests does not encourage understanding and acceptance.Some recreational activities need to be spatially separate butmany do not. The mutual goals and interests of differentrecreation activities will not be established if people do notget together.To summarize: effective conflict management entailsinfluencing the outcome of conflict in a positive way. This isdone by increasing benefits and values and decreasing costs anddissatisfaction. Learning, a prerequisite of which is gettingthe parties in conflict together to discuss their differences,must take place in order for this to occur.2.2 The Sources Of Conflict In Outdoor Recreation2 • 2 • 1 IntroductionIt is important to first look at the sources of user conflictin outdoor recreation because these have a bearing on howconflict is addressed. In many cases, reflected in the toolsthat have been developed for managing outdoor recreation15conflicts, conflict in outdoor recreation is simply viewed as oneactivity vs. another. To put it into a resource managementperspective incompatible resource using activities are vying foruse of the same resource area. When viewed in this manner theissue is seen as merely a space allocation problem (Hammitt,1988).The reasons for conflict between outdoor recreationists aremuch more complex and stem from the social and psychologicalreasons each participant has for taking part in particularrecreation activities.The majority of authors studying conflict in outdoorrecreation are at the broad end of the spectrum in theirdefinition of conflict (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980; Hammitt, 1988;Owens, 1985; Bury et al, 1983; Schreyer, 1990; Manning, 1985;Vining, 1990; Devall and Harry, 1981; Bryan, 1979). Thisgravitation towards a broad definition is not so much a result ofrecognizing the nature of social conflict but stems from thereasons for participation in recreation.There is consensus among those writing on conflict in outdoorrecreation that conflict occurs between individuals and if enoughpeople who share the same views get together then between groupsof people. However, empirical studies to date have notconclusively proved or disproved any of the social conflicttheories which have been proposed.From the literature on conflict in outdoor recreation threediscernible views can be identified. These views can be termed:16Goal Interference; Competition between recreationists and;Incompatible Activities. The first two are based on theinteraction of recreationists with each other while the third isbased on the interaction of recreationists with theirenvironment.2.2.2 Goal InterferenceThe motivation to participate in a recreational activity isboth psychologically and socially based. People engage in arecreational activity for a reason and have a goal or goals thatthey are trying to achieve (Hainmitt, 1988). On an individuallevel, conflict in outdoor recreation is closely linked to goalachievement.In addition to the assumption that people recreate to achievecertain goals they must also identify the source of goalinterference. Based on this understanding of participation inrecreation, conflict can be defined as “goal interferenceattributed to another’s behaviour” (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980, p.369). Goal interference has proven to be the source of conflictin a number of studies. Some examples are: Jackson and Wong,1982, cross country skiers and snowmobilers; Gramman and Burdge,1981, water skiers and fishermen; Driver and Bassett, 1975,canoeists and trout fishermen. When it is the actions of another(or others) that interferes in goal achievement then conflictexists.17Jacob and Schreyer (1980), using case studies, existingliterature, and interviews with recreationists, identified fourmajor factors and ten propositions related to conflict in outdoorrecreation (others such as Haimuitt, 1988; Daniels and Krannich,1990; have used Jacob and Schreyers framework for further studyon understanding conflict in outdoor recreation). Any one factoris sufficient to produce conflict but most likely conflict isproduced by a combination of factors.The first factor is activity style defined as the personalmeanings attached to the set of behaviours constituting arecreation activity. People who vary in notions of appropriatebehaviours for a particular recreation activity will likelyexperience conflict.1. The more intense the activity style, the greater thelikelihood a social interaction with less intense participantswill result in conflict. As an activity becomes more importantto an individual it becomes more important in representing anextension of an individual’s personal identity. This in turnleads to the need to derive status from identification with theactivity. An example is river running where those who take itseriously such as some kayakers.2. When the private activity style (intrinsic orientation)confronts the status conscious activity style (extrinsic),conflict results because the private activity style’s disregardfor status symbols negates the relevance of the otherparticipant’s status hierarchy. The conflict results from the18different level of importance each participant places on theactivity. This type of conflict is often found in outdooractivities which are also competitive sports such as downhillskiing or bicycle racing. Some people take part in that activityfor the competition and recognition while others do not.3. Status based intra—activity conflict occurs when a participantdesiring high status must interact with others viewed as lowerstatus. Those who need to derive status from identification withan activity conflict with those who do not. Bicycling anddownhill skiing are examples.4. Conflict occurs between participants who do not share the samestatus hierarchies. People who do not attach the same amount ofimportance to a particular recreation activity will conflict.5. The more specific the expectations of what constitutes aquality experience, the greater the potential for conflict. Anexample is the backcountry hiker. They do not want to meet upwith ny motorized vehicles including helicopters. The wholewilderness experience is nullified if such a meeting takes place.Factor two is resource specificity — the importance anindividual attaches to the use of a particular recreationresource. Attachment to the resource leads to a strongerdefinition of appropriate behaviour for an area and also astronger feeling that one should be able to have a say in howthat resource is to be managed (O’Leary, 1976; Bryan, 1979).196. When a person who views the place’s qualities as unequalledconfronts behaviours indicating a lower evaluation, conflictresults. For example, backcountry users may differ in theirperceptions of wilderness: Is it merely a resource to be used orsomething greater that has to be experienced (Kubik, 1991)?7. Conflict results when users with a possessive attitude towardsthe resource confront users perceived as disrupting traditionaluses and behavioural norms. An example is when hikers who oncehad exclusive use of trails which they built and continue tomaintain confront new users such as cyclists and people ridinghorses (Kubik, 1991).8. Conflict occurs for high status users when they must interactwith the lower status users who symbolize a devaluation of aheretofore exclusive, intimate relationship with the place. Somepeople get upset when a place which has been inaccessible to allbut the most determined is opened up to others throughdevelopment of roads, trails or helicopter access. An example ofthis is found when backcountry skiers must interact with otherskiers who have been brought in by helicopter.Factor three is termed mode of experience. Modes, or ways, ofexperiencing an environment are described here as a continuumranging from unfocused to focused. Mode of experience relates tothe ways in which environments are perceived. For some persons,sensory interaction involves a very detailed, demanding focus onthe setting. For others the setting is merely a backdrop, a20broad, undifferentiated place in which to carry out one’sactivities.9. When a person in the focused mode (specialist) interacts witha person in the unfocused mode (generalist) conflict results.The classic example of this type of conflict is that betweenmechanized and non—mechanized recreation activities.Factor four is tolerance for lifestyle diversity - thetendency to reject or accept lifestyles different from one’s own.10. If group differences are evaluated as undesirable or apotential threat to recreation goals, conflict results whenmembers of the two groups confront one another. An example isfound in the lifestyle value differences between motorized andnon—motorized recreationists (Devall and Harry, 1981; see alsoWhite and Schreyer, 1981)Jacob and Schreyer (1980) emphasize that it is not thecompetition for scarce resources which produces conflict but therecognition of the link between goal interference and anotherperson’s behaviour. Conflict does not result from competitionbecause unless an unsatisfactory experience can be attributed toanothers behaviour and not merely from bad luck or personalignorance conflict will not occur.The validity of this statement only holds if the recreationistblames him/herself. In the case of personal ignorance, a personmay travel a long distance to a park or recreational area to takepart in a recreational activity only to find that it is notallowed. They may feel discriminated against, especially if they21had used that area before, and in turn blame someone. Mostlikely those who manage the area will get the blame. Where blameis attributed to anothers behaviour conflict does exist. Theactions of the offending party do not have to be witnessed forconflict to occur.Jacob and Schreyer (1980) do recognize the possibility of thisoccurring and point out that scapegoating may occur. Feelings ofpersonal frustration are projected onto another shifting thelocus of responsibility.It is important to recognize that conflict as goalinterference is not an objective state but must beunderstood as an individual’s interpretation of past andfuture social contacts. (p. 369)Conflict as a result of scapegoating is still conflict becausethe perception is held that it is the actions of another personor group which prevents goal achievement.Competition can be part of conflict even if there is noattributable blame.Competition between participants is a commonly soughtobjective in some activities, but this is quite a differentnotion of unwanted competition which may curtail access todesired experiences. Conflict and competition may both leadto users having to make a personal evaluation of whether ornot they feel able to be ‘good losers’ and to that extentcompetition for scarce resources is an integral part ofconflict. (Owens, 1985, p. 249)Recreationists are not in direct competition when they areengaged in their prospective activities but competition occursover control of the resource if it is perceived that activitiesare incompatible.22The concept of leisure competition is closely related tocarrying capacity which, when exceeded, can lead to conflict. Ifone type of user perceives that too many of another type of userare present this can promote resentment. Conflict arises whenthere are too many people seeking to do too many things within agiven area at the same time, so that none of the participatingindividuals or groups derives an acceptable level of satisfactionfrom the experience (Cloke and Park, 1983). In other words thecompetition is among the different recreationists for the samescarce resource.2.2.3 Competition Between RecreationistsOwens (1985), in contrast to Jacob and Schreyer (1980) andHammitt (1988) who base the definition of conflict on discrepancytheory (discrepancy theory equates dissatisfaction with thedifference between actualized and desired goals), contends thatoutdoor recreation conflicts are similar to other resourceconflicts in that it is the competition for scarce resources thatis a major factor in recreational user conflicts. The reasonbeing that conflict arises out of competitive leisure behaviour.Owens (1985) focus on competition is derived from environmentand behaviour theory.The environment and behaviour perspective places emphasis onthe dynamic and reciprocal interaction of man and the wholesocial and physical environment. It gives prominence toconcepts such as free will, choices, constraints andmediational cognitive processes and represents an attempt tointegrate two converging branches of psychology - ecologicaland environmental psychology. The dominant theme is that23behaviour is goal directed towards the end of satisfyingneeds. (p.250)In a similar vein as discrepancy theory where interference in theattainment of personal goals leads to conflict, environment andbehaviour theory places a greater emphasis on the competition forscarce resources.Based on environment and behaviour theory Owens (1985) has atwo part definition of conflict:(1) conflict is a process of social interaction which isoperationalized with the general motivational goal ofeliminating environmental instability and restoringperceived equilibrium; (2) Conflict is a cumulative processof social interaction which once established becomes anenduring psychological state guiding the behaviour ofindividuals and/or groups in their attempts to restoreperceived equilibrium. (pp. 251, 252)Conflict is a cumulative experience which is consistent overtime. A person may visit a recreation setting on a given day andhave no negative experience but conflict does not cease to exist.Owens (1985) explains thatconflict should not necessarily be thought of as synonymouswith confrontation, it may be an altogether more subtleprocess including simmering discontent and frustration asothers impinge on the goals of individuals or groups (p.282).In keeping with the broad view of conflict where the sources ofconflict are the main concern, conflict is not merely the overtexpression of reaction to a negative situation but an ongoingexperience that may result in a variety of behaviours.24As conflict can be something that is not always visible it isnecessary to make the distinction between latent and manifestconflict. Minnery (1985) explains this distinction.Manifest conflict will be defined as: An interaction betweentwo or more interdependent but separately identifiableparties, based on an incompatibility of goals of which atleast one party is aware, where at least one party activelyseeks to achieve its goals or obtain a scarce resourcethrough actions that make it more difficult for the other todo so, or which reduce the value of the outcome to theother. Latent conflict has all the ingredients above, exceptaction. (p. 35)In the particular case of user conflicts in outdoor recreationOwens (1985) notes that it is not necessary for a confrontationalsituation to occur in order for conflict to exist. Arecreationist may not have a negative experience on a particularouting but the potential for a negative experience to occur inthe future still exists.An exchange of grievances between the parties in conflict doesnot have to occur for conflict to become manifest. An example ofmanifest conflict in outdoor recreation would be the expressionof concern by one user group to management over the safety ofhaving two activities perceived as incompatible using the sameresource. Management might respond by limiting one group’s accessto that resource. The conflict is manifest without each partyever having confronted each other.252.2.4 Incompatible ActivitiesIn contrast to Jacob and Schreyer (1980) and Owens (1985) whoidentify the socio-psychological reasons for conflict and therebyfocus on the actual persons or groups in conflict Bury et al(1983) focus on the situations where conflicts are most likely tooccur: the relationship of the participant with the environment;other users and; the recreational activity they are engaged in.At this level it is not the individuals who are in conflict withone another but the activities.Treating recreational participation solely in terms ofactivities in order to identify potential conflict situationsdoes have its drawbacks. Most recreational activities needflexible site requirements because different types of userswithin the same activity require different areas to recreate(Cloke and Park, 1983). For example the skill level of the useris important - the highly skilled user needs a more challengingenvironment.Any given activity may be participated in by a varietyof people from varying backgrounds with differing needs,relationships to the resource and relationships to otherusers. As a result people within the same activity may varyconsiderably in the ways in which they choose to behave, andin the process, may foster negative responses from otherparticipants (Schreyer, 1990, p. 23).The bottom line is that stereotypes do not fit well when appliedto recreationists. (See also Schreyer, 1990, dealing withconflict, and Bury et al, 1983, integrative mgt.)The irresponsible actions of a few people can spoil it for allwho must share the resource because not only do other users26within the same activity have a negative image users from otheractivities do as well. What is worse is that the actions of afew irresponsible individuals are not forgotten. An example canbe drawn from a mountain bicyclist/hiker confrontation. Ifhikers are almost run over and scared by certain cyclists thehikers will then be wary of all cyclists they meet because it ismuch easier to classify a person based on the activity theyengage in rather than treat them as an individual (Deutsch,1973).Bury et al (1983), with their focus on the resource andactivities which involve the resource, offer an alternativedefinition which looks at conflict not from the recreationists’perspective but the resource managers. From an operational levelperspective: “conflict exists whenever incompatible activitiesoccur” (p. 401). Compatibility depends on how one activityaffects the other, adverse affects signify incompatibility. Thesources of conflict are dependant on the characteristics of theactivity and have little to do with the participants’ reasons fortaking part in that activity.The reasons for conflict are narrowed down to threecategories. First, is spatial or temporal proximity of theactivities. “Conflict between recreational activities can occursimply because the activities are too close in space or time” (p.401). This is evident in situations where the quality of oneactivity involves quiet, slow speed, and appreciation of nature,while those of another activity require speed and noise (Devall27and Harry, 1981). An example is having hikers and trail (motor)bikes share the same trails.Second, the degree of environmental dominance inherent in eachactivity.Environmental dominance expresses the extent to which anactivity requires “conquering” the environmental resource onwhich it is based. Also involved is the desire for autonomyand control of a situation or resource (Bury et al, 1983, p.402)A related factor is the perception by others engaged in adifferent activity of another activity’s dominance over nature.This is especially relevant in backcountry areas where peoples’views on what activities are appropriate play a large role in theacceptance of that activity (see above — Jacob and Schreyerfactor #2). A study done by White and Schreyer in 1981 onappropriate activities in US National Parks found that thosepeople who had a preservation orientation tended to focus on userconflicts and very few activities were considered appropriate ina backcountry setting.Bury et al (1983) point out that it is not necessary todemonstrate the intentions of people who engage in dominanceactivities but merely monitor the effects of those activities.The challenge is not then for the recreation resource planner tounderstand the sources of the conflict but to manage the resourceto reduce impacts. No link exists between two incompatibleactivities except that in some areas one may have more impactthan another. It is perfectly reasonable that participants havethe same motivations for taking part in the different activities28but one group will suffer due to misconceptions harboured by theother.Third, perceived to be closely related to dominance over theenvironment, is the activity’s dependence on technology. On oneside are those who engage in outdoor recreation to get away frommodern technology, especially machines which produce noise orother forms of pollution such as noxious fumes. The oppositeviewpoint is that technology can transport its user into ruggedterritory with relative ease. Advances in technology makepossible an activity that could not be done before. An exampleis the mountain bike. (see also Devall and Harry, 1981)2.2.5 SummaryThree different perspectives on the sources of conflict inoutdoor recreation are offered in this section. The mostapparent distinction is that between the levels of conflict. Atthe individual level both goal interference and competition forthe same resource space provide accountable explanations forconflict. Although each theory claims a different causal factorfor conflict both are based on the premise that recreation isgoal oriented. It is the differences in goals of the activities’participants which lead to conflict.In contrast the operational level of conflict is based on thepremise that each recreational activity has certain requirements,including the exclusion of certain other activities, and theserequirements can be satisfied by managing the activity setting.29The operational level of conflict ignores the activities’participants who are the ones experiencing conflict.The different focuses, one on the individual the other on theactivity is the major difference between the different levels ofconflict. This difference between the operational and individuallevels of conflict also illustrates the difference between therecognition of the sources of conflict and the methods used toresolve those conflicts. It is the people who engage in outdoorrecreation activities who are experiencing conflict yet, as willbe shown in the next section, the focus of conflict managementtechniques is on the activity or the resource.2.3 Conflict Management Methods In Recreation Resource PlanningTraditionally, most methods of conflict management in outdoorrecreation have focused on conflict prevention through theseparation of incompatible activities. Separation ofincompatible activities can be achieved in a number ways. Themost popular being zoning, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum(ROS), regulation and substitution.Compatibility is dependant upon both physical constraints,which have implications for user safety, and user perception andtolerance. For example those recreationists who use moretechnologically advanced modes of travel often interfere with therecreation activities of users who depend on less technologicallyoriented modes of travel. A prime example is the wake of a ski30boat swamping a canoe. Even in areas where the physicalcharacteristics of the resource permit multi—purpose use conflictoccurs when users are not respectful of each other or ofregulations. This is noted to be a common problem in manyrecreational settings (for example see Devall and Harry, 1981;Bryan, 1979).Bury et al (1983) raise the argument that resource managersand planners have very little influence over recreationists somanagement and planning needs to be focused on the recreationresource and the activities which involve the resource. Whenconflict management focuses on the compatibility of competingactivities the simple solution is to separate them. Thissolution is acceptable if there is enough resource area toaccommodate the competing uses but what often happens is that oneof the activities is prohibited without an alternative site beingfound (Outdoor Recreation Council 1990; Roe, 1991). Finding analternative site is left up to the participants of the prohibitedactivity and is no longer the responsibility of resourceplanners.These methods of conflict prevention can in fact make theinitial conflict situation much worse. With no alternativesettings available (or known to exist) the displaced group willcontinue to make use of the prohibited area. The quality of thesetting and the quality of alternative settings is an importantconsideration when separating incompatible activities.31For example if trails in a park are closed to mountain bikers,especially those trails which are considered the best for ridingand have been enjoyed by mountain bikers for some time, and noalternative sites are available, they will continue to use themsimply because there is no where else to go.People walking on the trails are incensed because regulationswhich state that trails are supposed to be exclusively forpedestrian use are not being obeyed or enforced. Complaints aremade to management but due to lack of staffing the regulationsare hard to enforce. The conflict is now much more complexbecause what started out as a unilateral conflict, hikers againstcyclists, now has many more dimensions: Hikers are in conflictwith management because the cyclists are still using the trails;cyclists are in conflict with hikers because they initiated theclosing of the trails; cyclists are in conflict with managementbecause they closed the trails and; management is in conflictwith cyclists because they are not following the rules. Thesimple answer to conflict has in fact made it much worse.A recreation resource manager or planner cannot treat hikingand mountain biking as activities which may conflict due todifferences in activity style of participants. Within eachactivity there is much diversity which is affected by the amountof previous experience a person has and his/her personalcommitment to the activity (Virden and Schreyer, 1988).Conflict prevention methods only work if the differentactivities require different resource settings. For those32activities that require the same setting but are incompatible achoice must be made as to which activity will be permitted. Inthe case of new activities vs. traditional activities thetraditional activity will win out in most cases. When onerecreational activity is banned those people who take part inthat activity must find another place to go. Separation ofactivities is the other answer but this solution must bequestioned because with a limited resource base there are only somany places to go.The consideration which has been ignored in this situation isthat conflict is a form of social interaction and separation ofgroups who do not get along does not teach them how to cooperateor develop an understanding of the other’s point of view (Porterand Toplin, 1987). A resolution will not be reached on the trailwhere opposing parties are not willing to talk to each other(Chin, 1991).2.3.1 ZoningTraditionally, zoning has been used to separate land useswhich were deemed as incompatible. In cities, a typical examplewould be to separate activities such as slaughter houses andresidential areas. In a recreation area such as a backcountrypark zones signify the intensity of activity. From the level ofintensity of use is determined the types of activities that wouldbe suitable. High intensity use areas can accommodate a great33number and variety of users while low intensity use zones havelimited access and a limited number of acceptable activities.Zoning for outdoor recreation purposes is the physicalseparation of land uses within a given tract, with the mixture ofuses carefully controlled to minimise conflict and the overallmanaged as a single management unit. It is used to both optimizeland use and protect the resource base. Zoning can be used asboth a planning guideline and formal regulation. It tends to bemore effective when planning for new developments.As a method of conflict prevention zoning does have itslimitations. Zoning which concentrates on the physicalseparation of uses may be an insufficient solution if the root ofthe problem is in fact social and psychological (Owens, 1985)....if conflict is not caused mainly by the number or densityof users, zoning or other limitations on access mayunnecessarily restrict opportunities without bringing aboutthe reduction in conflict which they are intended toachieve. The converse problem is that managers adopting amore laissez—faire approach might unknowingly juxtaposeactivities for which the motivational bases forparticipation are mutually exclusive, but have them competefor the same resources with the probability that conflictswill ensue (Owens, 1985, p. 253).Again, in the attempt to prevent conflict, the conflict can beexacerbated if the prevention is focused on the activity and notthe people engaged in that activity. In the long run the costswill outweigh the benefits since much more resources will berequired to manage the conflict in the future.342.3.2 Recreation Opportunity SpectrumThe recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) is a planning andmanagement device for providing objectives in outdoor recreation.In much the same way as zoning, ROS is a tool for managingconflict through prevention by identifying incompatibleactivities and making sure they are separated.In the broadest sense, the ROS is a conceptual or organizingframework for thinking about recreation opportunities. Itexplicitly recognizes that experiences derived fromrecreation are related to the settings in which they occurand that settings are a function of environmental, social,and managerial factors, the ROS illustrates the potentialdiversity of recreation opportunities (Manning, 1985, p.384).The difference between ROS and zoning is that ROS combinesrelationships between natural resource settings, recreationalactivities, and the resulting recreationist experiences (Buistand Hoots, 1982).Essentially three lists are compiled. The first lists theattributes of the resource setting, the second lists the physicalrequirements for each recreation activity, and the third liststhe requirements for a satisfactory recreational experience.Experience is not measured directly but rather five indicatorcriteria are applied to the setting where the experience is totake place. These criteria are: remoteness, size of area,evidence of humans, user density, and amount and noticeability ofmanagerial regimentation or control (Buist and Hoots, 1982, p.84). Once the necessary information has been collected theactivity can be matched to the setting.35Hammitt (1988) sees the usefulness in ROS for preventing andresolving conflict in that the three factors of resource setting,activity and experience encompass most causal factors related toconflict (He makes this conclusion based on the factorsinfluencing conflict developed by Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). ROSis used to identify potential conflict situations then through asystem of zoning attempts to spatially separate those activitieswith incompatible goals.For example, in the case of activity style, some activitiesare not compatible for safety reasons. Mountain biking andhiking on narrow winding trails could be considered unsafe due tomountain bikes capability of higher speeds. The difference inspeeds may be seen as incompatible goals but there are othergoals which the two activities have in common. However, ROS doesnot have the capability of weighting the importance of each ofthe goals so the importance of all of the goals still must bedetermined.Similar to the position taken by Hammitt (1988), whostresses that ROS is able to deal with goal interference, Danielsand Krannich (1990) see the usefulness of ROS as a conflictmanagement tool because it is able to address goalincompatibility. Some activities prevent other activities fromtaking place or at least prevent a satisfactory experience fromoccurring. In much the same way as zoning ROS can reduceconflict through spatial separation. The premise is thatconflicts will be reduced by using the ROS system because it36standardizes management and recreation resource userexpectations. ROS can not be effective if it is not usedconsistently.A further limitation of ROS can be seen in a conflict relatedto possessiveness of the resource. Users who have been visitinga resource setting for a long period of time can become attachedto it and resent the use of that setting by other users (Hammitt,1988). Even if another type of recreation activity isappropriate for the resource setting in question the new userswill not be welcomed by the traditional users. ROS cannotprevent conflicts of this nature.ROS can not be used as a site specific planning tool and isbest used on a systems basis. One recreational setting, such asa park, is not able to supply the diversity of opportunities thatROS proposes but a system of recreational settings can achieve amuch greater range of possibilities.Assessment of demand within ROS is not that well developed sowhile inventories of the recreation resource are continuouslyupdated many questions related to user preferences and therelationship between experience and setting remain unanswered.2.3.3 Regulatory MeansIn a recreation setting regulations may state either whatactivities are allowed or those which are not. For example, if atrail is intended for hiking only it may have a symbol of a hikerat the trail head. An alternative would be to post symbols of37bicycles, horses and motorbikes with crosses through themsignifying that those activities are not allowed.Regulations can also control access on a permit basis orthrough time allotments. By reducing the number ofrecreationists or restricting the times at which activities maytake place can reduce the chance for conflict betweenincompatible activities. These types of regulations are mostoften used in situations where crowding has led to conflict. Toreduce crowding and therefore conflict the easiest solution is toeliminate one or more activities (Owens, 1985).A major drawback of regulatory mechanisms to prevent conflictis that extensive enforcement is needed. The public landmanagers must rely on the people who use the resource to followthe rules. Concentrated recreation sites such as beaches andcampgrounds are easier to manage because their patrolling isrelatively cost effective. For dispersed recreation activitiessuch as hiking and mountain biking enforcement of regulationsrequires much more of the management agencies resources.Similar to zoning, regulations are used as a method ofconflict prevention by separating incompatible activities and assuch are not able to address the varied values and needs ofpeople within an activity. Determining whether or not activitiesare compatible is done prior to the enactment of the regulations.The success of regulations therefore depends on how decisionsregarding the compatibility were made.382 • 3 • 4 Substitution/Systems PlanningThe theory behind substitution as a means of managing conflictis that other recreational opportunities can be provided close by(Cloke and Park, 1983). This usually involves working with otherresource management agencies. Recreation resource planningbecomes larger in scope because other agencies are involved andconflict management is similar to land use allocation because inorder to resolve conflict alternate sites outside the establishedrecreation area boundaries must be found.There are some drawbacks to this method of resolving conflict.Knowledge by the recreation activity participants about whererecreation opportunities are available is necessary forsubstitution to work. Therefore a requirement is that theresponsible resource agency make readily available thisinformation. People look to parks as a setting for recreation soif parks wants to promote the occurrence of certain activitiesoutside their boundaries they should be the ones to supply thisinformation. For example, in the case of mountain bikingnumerous opportunities do exist outside of our provincial parksbut very few people know about them so they remain the privatedomain of those few who do.The concept of systems planning is closely related tosubstitution and can be applied to a park system such asprovincial parks. All parks can not be all things to all usersbut when looked at as a system each park can accommodate acertain variety of users. If all is planned well then within a39certain region the whole spectrum of recreation activities can beaccommodated.Systems planning is necessary because it is difficult for onepark regardless of size to supply the needed variety ofrecreation opportunities.Examining each recreation area in isolation will usuallylead to management decisions favouring the majority orplurality of potential visitors. While this is justified inmany cases, the process will generally result in an entiresystem of recreation areas designed for the ‘average’visitor, while neglecting a desirable element of diversity.Instead, each recreation area should be evaluated as part ofa system of areas, each contributing as best it can to servethe diverse needs of the public. (Manning, 1985, pp. 380-381)Only through this systems approach to recreation resourceplanning can the diverse array of recreation activities beaccommodated and conflicts prevented.2.3.5 SummaryThe conflict management methods described above all have onething in common: they rely on the spatial separation ofactivities to manage recreation user conflicts. There are bothadvantages and disadvantages to these methods (see table 2.1 fora summary).The greatest advantage to the spatial separation of activitiesis the ease of implementation. Once a decision has been made todisallow certain activities in a specific area then it is just amatter of putting up signs that indicate the new regulations.People who do not follow the regulations are easily identified40because of the equipment that each activity requires. For examplea cyclist needs a bicycle to be a cyclist. If they left theirbike at home then they would be a hiker.TABLE I. The Advantages And Disadvantages Of Spatial SeparationOf Activities To resolve Conflicts In Outdoor Recreation.Advantages Disadvantages1. Ease of implementation.2. People engaging in a bannedactivity are easilyidentifiable.3. Accepted by traditionalusers because they continue tohave exclusive use of theresource.4. May be the only solution incases where quiet activitiesare competing againstactivities which produce a lotof noise.1. Enforcement is difficultwithout a lot of resourcecommitment especially fordispersed recreation.2. Favours traditional use andis merely a reflection ofexisting uses. Not receptiveto changing preferences andnew activities.3. Does not take into accountshared interests amongdifferent activities.4. Will not work ifalternative site(s) are: toofar away; not of equal orbetter quality.5. Will not work in conflictsstemming from attachment tothe resource.6. Does not promote learningor tolerance. Parties inconflict do not learn how toshare the resource withoutconflict.7. In the competition forscarce resources, spatialseparation will intensify thecompetition because eachactivity is vying for anexclusive domain.41In some cases spatial separation of activities is the only wayto manage recreation user conflicts. This is most evident insituations where an activity which requires quiet conditions,such as wildlife viewing, is competing against an activity whichproduces a lot of noise, such as motorbike trail riding.There are also many disadvantages. Ease of implementation andidentification of rule breakers aside, enforcement of regulationsin a dispersed recreation setting is very difficult without a lotof resource commitment. These types of regulations rely on thehonesty and integrity of recreationists. When faced with thechoice of not taking part in their chosen activity or doing it ina place where they are not supposed to many will choose to breakthe rules because the risk of getting caught is very slim. Evenif caught there are rarely any punishments.The fact that more people are willing to break the rulesindicates a change in popularity of recreational pursuits.Traditional methods of conflict management favour establishedusers and do not take into account changing preferences and newactivities. If new activities are being banned in certain areasin order to accommodate established activities it is that muchharder to ascertain the common interests shared by both.A requirement of spatial separation of activities is that analternate site or sites should be found for the displacedactivity. If this is not done or if alternate sites are too faraway or of low quality then nothing has really been done toresolve a conflict. Spatial separation will also not work if42there is an attachment to the resource. Banning an activity froman area where it is considered an established and legitimateactivity brings up questions of how resource management decisionsare made and what is the basis for such decisions.In the absence of other methods to manage conflict in outdoorrecreation spatial separation of activities remains the mostpopular. It is the easiest and quickest to implement but, asevidenced earlier in this chapter, ignores many of the factorswhich contribute to user conflict. What is perceived to be theeasy management solution can often lead to more problems in thelong run particularly with increasing demands.2.4 Summary/Examination CriteriaOut of the literature review came a number of conclusionsabout the ability of activity based conflict prevention methodsto manage conflicts in outdoor recreation. The followingsummarizes these conclusions and forms the criteria to be used inthe examination of the case study.Conflict prevention, because it is a technique of managing theresource and not the people who use it, does not rely on publicinput. This deficiency prevents both management and theconflicting parties from discovering the true sources ofconflict. If the sources of conflict are not addressed then theconflict can not be managed effectively.43The first consideration in examining the ability of conflictprevention methods to manage conflicts in outdoor recreationtherefore is determining if there has been public input butirrespective of this there are three further considerations:activity incompatibility; the conflict resolution process and;managing the resource vs. managing conflict.Criterion 1 - Activity IncompatibilityAn effort to determine activity compatibility should takeplace before spatially separating those activities which arethought to be incompatible.In many situations different activities are definitelyincompatible but often incompatibility is determined on the basisof the feelings of a few people. In these situations it is not aquestion of incompatibility but the appropriateness of theactivity to take place in a certain setting. What has to beremembered is that in most cases it is the people who engage indifferent activities who do not get along not the activities.Criterion 2 — The Conflict Resolution ProcessIn a social conflict, such as those that occur betweenrecreationists, it is important for the people in conflictto discuss face to face any differences that they may have.Conflict prevention methods in outdoor recreation do notinclude the people who are in conflict in the recreation resourceplanning process. Conflict prevention methods may allow publicinput but do not provide the opportunity for the necessary44learning and dialogue to take place so that the conflict can beresolved.Instead of separating people based on the activity they takepart in more emphasis should be placed on getting conflictinggroups to get together to establish and explore the similar goalsthat they have in common. This must take place in a mutuallyacceptable setting where all parties involved feel comfortableand not at a disadvantage.If the parties in conflict do not get together the sources ofconflict are bypassed in the planning process because the sourcesof conflict originate in the people who take part in an activityand not the activity itself.Criterion 3 — Manaciing the resource vs. managing the conflictThe primary focus of conflict management in outdoorrecreation should be on managing the conflict betweenrecreationists not managing the resource setting.Conflicts in outdoor recreation are social conflicts andtherefore should be managed in the relevant manner. It was shownthat the sources of conflict in outdoor recreation, because ofthe nature of the activities, have a social and psychologicalbasis. The methods developed to manage these conflicts howeverdo not share this same basis. Conflict management methodsinstead focus on the resource and the activities which utilisethe resource.In order to effectively manage user conflict in outdoorrecreation the focus of conflict resolution efforts needs to45change from the activity and activity setting to that of thepeople who take part in the activity. It is the people who takepart in the activity who are experiencing conflict not theactivity itself.46Chapter 3:Conflict Management in BC ParksThis chapter discusses how conflicts in outdoor recreation aredealt with in British Columbia’s provincial parks and providesthe basis for the examination which takes place in the followingchapter. BC Parks has no written policies on conflictmanagement. However, there are other policies aimed at providinga variety of recreation opportunities which indirectly aid in themanagement of conflict between park users. While these policiesare not generally considered “conflict management” policies it isthe author’s opinion that the methods used to carry out thesepolicies should be discussed since they are the same as thoseidentified earlier in chapter 2 as conflict prevention methods.The discussion that follows is divided into two sections. Thefirst section centres on the general policies of BC Parks and thedifferent methods that are employed to manage conflict among parkusers. These methods include: the formal methods of zoning,substitution and regulations; the planning process as a method tomanage user conflict; and, informal methods such as impromptumeetings.The second section reviews a specific conflict issue: mountainbiking opportunities in Garibaldi Park.473.1 Conflict Management in BC Parks3.1.1 Legislative MandateThe legislative mandate of the British Columbia Ministry ofParks is multi—dimensional:BC Parks is responsible for the designation,management, and conservation of a land and water basedsystem of parks, recreation areas and ecological reservescontaining the best representative elements of BritishColumbia’s natural and cultural heritage for the inspirationand recreational use of British Columbians and theirvisitors. The ministry alsorepresents the outdoor recreation interests of BritishColumbians in the allocation and use of land resourcesthroughout the province (BCM0P, l990c, p. 9).From these passages we can see the large responsibility that BCParks has in supplying areas for outdoor recreation.Within the larger mandate of representing recreation interestsis the proclamation that all recreation activities should beprovided for. “Park recreation opportunities should representthe values and interests of all segments of society (and therebyattract and serve both traditional and less traditional parkusers)” (BCM0P, 199 Oh, p. 17). However it is not so apparent asto how they are going to do this and avoid user conflicts at thesame time.3.1.2 Formal Methods of Conflict PreventionA formal method of conflict prevention is a method that has anestablished process or set of procedures. Three formal methodsof conflict prevention, zoning, regulatory means and substitution48are used by BC Parks but only regulatory means are usedexplicitly for the purpose of preventing user conflict. Zoning’sexplicit intent is to help achieve the desiredrecreational/preservation balance. Substitution, or systemsplanning, is only used at present to identify different types ofparks such as wilderness, recreation, day use, or beach (Chin,1991).3.1.2.1 ZoningThe BC Ministry of Parks has adopted a new system of zoningwhich is based on intensity of use. Areas within a park arezoned according to the preference given to either recreation orpreservation. It is a new management tool so for the most partit is based on the levels of use which already exist within eachpark. The new park zones are not regulatory in nature and aremeant to act as guidelines for future park development.Each park is divided into zones. Each zone reflects adifferent emphasis on the recreation/conservation balance. Eachzone allows a certain amount and types of activities to occur inorder to meet the resource goals of that zone. At this point intime zoning is not intended so much as a method for conflictprevention as it is for resource conservation (Chin 1991). Zonesare determined on the basis of existing uses and carryingcapacity rather than the need to separate incompatibleactivities.49Examples of the zoning classifications for provincial parks arelisted below (BCM0P, 1990b).Intensive Recreation Zone — This zone is intended for high use,is easily accessible, has a variety of facilities, and isoriented towards outdoor recreation activities.Natural Environment Zone — The purpose of this zone is to providefor a variety of easily accessible off—road recreationalactivities in a largely undisturbed natural environment. Somefacilities may be provided.Wilderness Recreation Zone — The intent of this zone is toprovide for backcountry recreation in a remote naturalenvironment, with emphasis on a wilderness atmosphere.Mechanized access may be allowed to specific points with somefacility development such as trails, campsites and shelters.Wilderness Conservation Zone — Protection of a remote undisturbedlandscape. No mechanized access is allowed.Even though zoning’s main purpose is to preserve park resourcesat the same time it also indicates what type of recreationalactivities are allowed. In this indirect way incompatibleactivities are separated. The best example is the exclusion ofmotorized vehicles from the wilderness conservation zone.503.1.2.2 SubstitutionSubstitution, or systems planning, is used in an indirect wayby BC Parks to manage conflict among users. By assessing therecreation potential of a region and identifying areas withinthat region that can accommodate different recreation activitiesBC Parks can better meet the needs of a variety of users. Thepurpose of systems planning therefore is to try and accommodateall (or as many as possible) users within a region rather thantry to accommodate all users in each and every park. Thisinvolves working with other government agencies for many of theopportunities identified in the systems plan will take placeoutside of park boundaries.3.1.2.3 Regulatory MeansRegulating the types of activities in parks and recreationareas is one of the methods available to BC Parks to prevent userconflicts. Signs placed in strategic locations such as trailheads and park information boards indicate those activities whichare allowed. A penalty may result if the regulations areinfracted.The authority to regulate activities within provincial parksis provided in the Park Act. Section 33 of the Act allows theLieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations for “theadministration, protection and development of the land, trail,path or waterways” in parks and recreation areas.51Further, the Act also allows the Lieutenant Governor inCouncil to:(a) designate zones in recreation areas, and allocate themto specific uses and activities; and(b) prohibit or regulate and control the exploitation,development, extraction or utilization of naturalresources and the actions, conduct and behaviour of anyperson, on any recreation area or in any portion of anyrecreation area.3.1.3 The Planning Process and Conflict ManagementThe park system as a whole is guided by a planning processwhich sets goals for an overall recreation conservation balance.Systems plans are produced for each established planning unitwithin the province. Park Management plans (master plans)complement the system plan. Resources within the park areinventoried, assessed, and actions are identified to achieve thedesired recreation/conservation balance (BCM0P, l990b).Systems planning at the sub—regional level is done: “tocontribute to a province wide strategy of system planning; and toprovide a statement of direction for use in discussion with otherMinistries on a variety of initiatives such as: regional planningand management, major resource development projects, tourismplanning, etc.” (BCM0LPH, Policy #2.1b3, p. 2)Information concerning recreation activities is collected andassessed for each system plan. A general description of52recreation opportunities and recreation activities within andoutside park boundaries is carried out. The recreation potentialof the area is also established.On a more detailed basis the master plan providescomprehensive and long—term guidelines concerning management anddevelopment of a particular park. Park master plans are used tointegrate the specific policies and related strategies that guidemanagement over the long term with park objectives. They areresponsive to change over time reflecting new knowledge andpractices (BCMoLPH, 1986, p. 1).The objectives of master plans are relevant to user conflictsin that they define objectives for the types and levels ofoutdoor recreation opportunities. Master plans are also thebasis for more detailed action plans which are used for resourcemanagement, visitor services and facility development. Thedecision to build a new trail is an outcome of the master planplanning process.The master plan generates two types of documents: (a) reportsconcerning background and major issues, of which a user conflictmay be one and; (b) park management plans. The relevantcomponents of a background report are a list of key major issueswhich the plan will address, a list of recreation opportunitiesin the park, and an indication of public input about theseissues. Public involvement is necessary so that conflictconcerns are expressed.53Public knowledge and opinions are collected and used in thepreparation of master plans so that concerned organizationsand/or groups have the chance to be heard. Each master plan hasdifferent terms of reference so the amount and type of publicinput is different in each master plan process. At each stage ofthe planning process public input may or may not be solicited.After the draft plan is produced park planners are notrequired to solicit public input but workshops, open houses,group discussions or a combination of the three may be held.Less formal methods for including public knowledge and opinionare also used: visitor satisfaction surveys; public opinionsurveys; responding to letters and; meeting with groups andindividuals.Master plans are subject to review every five years by a BCParks Regional Director. In undertaking a review, master plansare updated as necessary to ensure appropriate management. Majorchanges contrary to the plan’s intent are approved by re—submission of the plan to the MoP assistant deputy minister.3.1.4 Informal Methods of Managing ConflictWho is responsible for addressing user conflict depends on thelevel of conflict. The resolution of a minor conflict is theresponsibility of the district managers. They may make use ofinformation supplied by planning and research but they have thediscretion to make decisions. Another important reference is thePark Act. For example the Park Act states that bicycling is54allowed only on roads and designated trails. A park manager’sdecision to ban bicycles from certain trails is justified basedon the Park Act.If a conflict issue increases in scope and a master plan is inprogress it is identified in a background report and becomes partof the master plan planning process. At this point theresponsibility still lies with the district management andplanners.A good example of a conflict issue that was addressed in amaster plan is the conflict between snowmobilers and cross—country skiers in the Babine Recreation Area. A snowmobile areahad been designated within the recreation area but was consideredunsatisfactory by snowmobilers and as such the snowmobilers wereusing other parts of the Recreation Area to the dismay of thecross-country skiers (Heathman, 1994). While the conflict hadexisted for some time, very little had been done to resolve theissue until it was identified in the background report of themaster plan.As it was one of the most serious issues to be resolved BCParks formed a sub—committee of the main master plan workingcommittee to deal specifically with the snowmobiler/cross—countryskier conflict. The sub-committee decided early on that aconsensus approach would be the best way to resolve the conflict.The two groups were brought together to negotiate a settlement.The snowmobilers agreed to participate but the cross—countryskiers would not participate. However, the cross—country skiers55asked that BC Parks represent their interests. With the cross-country skiers interests in mind BC Parks proceeded to reach anagreement with the representatives of the snowmobilers. Neitherthe snowmobilers or the cross—country skiers were satisfied withthe outcome but a compromise was reached that allowed both groupsto continue using the Recreation Area.If the same issue is found in numerous master plans then itmay be deemed to have provincial significance. Management andplanners at the provincial level will then decide on appropriateactions.A recreational user conflict can gain provincial significancein other ways besides through the review of master plans. Aprovincially represented user group can call for a provincialpolicy. If a group feels strongly enough about an issue theywill go straight to the minister. A popular way of doing this isthrough letter writing campaigns.When no master plan is being carried out the district managertries to resolve the larger scale conflict through meetings withthe groups in conflict. Each issue is approached on anindividual basis and a process to resolve the conflict isdesigned to suit the situation. There are no guidelines for themeetings and no established format. The key is getting thegroups together to discuss their differences.For example, the wilderness experience being offered toclients by horse trip outfitters in Tweedsmuir Park was beingdiminished by those outfitters who flew their clients in by56airplane and helicopter. BC Parks’ district management initiatedactions which got the two groups to meet and talk to each other.The two sides reached a compromise and the conflict wassatisfactorily resolved (Kennett, 1994).3.2 Mountain Biking In Garibaldi Provincial ParkThe Whistler/Blackcomb area, which borders Garibaldi Park, hasbecome a world class tourist destination. With an influx invisitors the demand for recreation opportunities has also goneup. The village of Whistler has grown providing access into thepark as well as creating expanded facilities and support servicesfor tourists and outdoor recreationists. This puts pressure onpark planners to define the role of the park and to address thedemands for new types of recreation activities. The newrecreation activities are not always perceived to be compatiblewith existing activities and conflict occurs.The Master Plan for Garibaldi Provincial Park (BCM0P, l990a)identifies the issue of conflicts between mountain bicyclists andother park users as “mountain biking opportunities”. The focuswas shifted from conflict between park users to finding suitableareas for mountain bikers to ride. Park managers and plannersrecognize that mountain biking is becoming more popular “butmountain biking in Garibaldi Park has created conflict withpedestrian visitors because most hiking trails in the park are57Figure 1. Garibaldi Provincial Park - Existing Development MapFigure 4LegendPark BoundaryNature Conservancy— frailoadNordic SkiingOv.rnlght Sh•It•rbay ShelterHutParkingHikingCamping.— ---ThIdAMQUAII-..11wSource: BCM0P (1990a)58unable to accommodate both users” (BCM0P, 1990a, p.20). Anadditional fear expressed by pedestrian users is that cycling offestablished trails will damage the alpine meadows.3.2.1 The ConflictIt is hard to establish when the conflict over access to parktrails by mountain bikers first started because there was no oneincident which triggered the conflict (Chin, 1991). Quitepossibly, conflict was latent for some time before it becamemanifest in the form of complaints to park management. In theearly 1980’s mountain bikes were still a novelty and the nujitherof mountain bikers using park trails was very small.As mountain biking became more popular more people were ridingoff—road and trails in provincial parks such as Garibaldi wereused because their existence was well known. There was now aquicker way to gain access to wilderness areas once onlyaccessible by foot. The mountain biker could travel farther in ashorter period of time than the person who was walking. Accessto back country areas was now, in some respects, easier. Hikerswere meeting up with mountain bikers more frequently and not allmeetings were friendly.The trails in Garibaldi are for the most part quite narrow andwinding as they ascend up the mountains. Some trails are alsohighly susceptible to erosion which is compounded through highuse. Soft and muddy soils are quite susceptible to thecontinuous passage of tire tracks. Parts of the Cheakamus trail59have poor drainage and after it rains the trail becomes quitemuddy.Hikers did not like what they were experiencing when they metup with mountain bikers. Too often they had to jump to the sideof the trail as mountain bikers came down the mountain trail at ahigh rate of speed. These types of experiences produced feelingsof both fear and anger. Hikers also did not like what they saweven when they did not encounter any cyclists. Trail erosionresulting from the passage of bicycle tires was easily discernedfrom that resulting from the sole of a hiking boot. Until actionwas taken by park management the conflict was of a unilateralnature: hikers were the only ones experiencing conflict becausethe mountain bikers for the most part had no conflict with hikersuntil park management restricted the trails which were open tocycling.3.2.2 The Process of Resolving The ConflictThe mountain bike/hiker conflict in Garibaldi had beenbuilding for a few years before it became an issue warrantingattention in the Garibaldi Master Plan. The first steps tosettle the conflict were taken locally by park management. Theydesignated certain trails as being acceptable for use by mountainbikes. At this time the number of cyclists using the trails wasstill quite low. Mountain biking in Garibaldi Park continued togrow in popularity and with increased numbers of cyclistscrowding became part of the conflict issue (Chin, 1991).60Even though measures had been taken to reduce thecyclist/hiker conflicts (by limiting mountain bike access to onlythree trails) escalation of the conflict occurred. Theescalation of the conflict can in part be attributed to eitherthe intentional or unintentional choice by trail users not to tryto adapt to the presence of each other.3The conflict between mountain bikers and other trail users inthe park did not go away and was identified as a major issueduring the production of mini-plans and park site plans (Saremba,1990). The background report, which listed the recreationopportunities for the entire park, identified the Red Heathertrail to Elfin Shelter as the only suitable trail for mountainbiking. At that time mountain biking was allowed on two othertrails, Singing Pass and Cheakamus River, which were not deemedsuitable for such an activity.The public was invited to comment on the information andissues, including the issue of mountain bike access, presented inthe background report at three open houses held in Vancouver,Squamish and Whistler from March 15 to 17 1988. Approximately185 people attended the three open houses. Written submissionswere received for the next few months. The open houses didprovide the opportunity for face to face exchanges between theparties in conflict but it was up to the individual to seek out3mere are now rules in effect for the shared use of trails.Despite these rules conflict still exists. On the Cheakamus Trail,where hikers and cyclists still share the same trail, conflictbetween the two groups remains (Bell, 1991).61others with opposing views. BC Parks neither encouraged ordiscouraged the parties in conflict to speak to each other.Based on the submissions and the background report a draftplan was produced. Included in the draft plan were therecommendations for mountain biking in the park. Copies of theplan were mailed to people who had attended the first set ofpublic meetings. Another set of public meetings were held fromOctober 4 to 6, 1988 in the same three locations so people couldcomment on the draft master plan. Approximately 175 peopleattended with another 130 written submissions received (BCM0P,1990a). A similar situation existed at the public meetings asexisted at the open houses. While BC Parks did bring theconflicting parties together they did not “force” them talk toeach other. The opportunity for conflicting parties to discusstheir differences was available but not taken.As a result of these public meetings it was discoveredthat many hikers felt that mountain bikes should be banned fromthe park entirely (BCM0P, l990a, Appendix IV). More than justsafety and trail erosion factors prompted this proposal. Hikersfelt that mountain bikers did not appreciate the wildernessqualities of the park as much and therefore did not care whathappened to it. In other words there were “fundamentalphilosophical differences” perceived by each group involved inthe conflict as to how wilderness should be experienced (Chin,1991; MacArthur, 1991). Even though these perceptions wereunsubstantiated they helped to intensify the conflict.62A final smaller meeting was held after the second set ofpublic meetings and gave people, who represented various interestgroups, the chance to express concerns about the master plan.This meeting was different from the previous public meetings inthat only representatives of the main participating groups wereinvited (see Appendix 1).This contrasts with the earlier meetings where anyone who wasinterested could attend. Even though the numbers attending weremuch smaller (20—25 people) and therefore more conducive to aworkshop4 the format used was similar to the earlier meetings.5 BCParks presented the final draft and invited comments from thosein attendance.After the smaller meeting the representative of the WhistlerOff-Road Cycling Association, Bob Eakin, met with Garibaldi Parkmanagement privately to discuss the proposed recommendations inthe master plan. As far as can be discerned the groups involvedin this particular issue, mountain biking opportunities inGaribaldi Park, did not meet at any other time.4A workshop format would have allowed the parties experiencingconflict to talk to each other: “workshops, task forces, and openhouse planning are more appropriate forums where participation isaimed at resolving problems, because they permit sustained dialoguebetween citizens and specialists (Sadler, 1979, p. 8).”5mere is some disagreement over what type of meeting wasactually held. A parks planner in attendance, Greg Chin, remembersthe get together as a workshop where the parties in conflict talkedto each other. Participants in that meeting, Bob Eakin and JayMacArthur, remember the get together as more of an informationsession where parks representatives merely presented the finaldraft of the master plan. Discussion among the participants of themeeting was not on the agenda.633.2.3 Proposed SolutionsAt the end of the planning process park management decidedupon an objective for mountain biking in the park:To encourage mountain bike access to park trailhead parkingareas but to limit cycling within the park to two areas: theRed Heather Ridge trail up to the Elfin Shelter and theproposed south Cheakamus River trail. (BCM0P, 1990, p. 20)It was felt that mountain biking opportunities were few becausethe parks terrain was too rugged for the average mountain biker(Chin, 1991).The actions to achieve this objective are as follows:1. Develop a mountain bike trail on the southern bank of theCheakamus River in concert with the Ministry of Forests andoutdoor recreation clubs.2. Encourage mountain bike opportunities at Blackcomb andWhistler ski areas and within the Soo Provincial Forest.3. Provide information on mountain biking in the park andvicinity, including information on trail ethics and etiquette.In the end mountain bikers had one less trail (2 instead ofthree) for their use in the park. Hikers would now only have toshare one trail, the Red Heather trail to Elfin Shelter, withmountain bikers. However, in contrast to the existing situationwhere all trails were multiple use, mountain bikers would nowhave a trail of their own.64Emphasis was placed on finding suitable trails for mountainbiking outside of park boundaries, Working with the Ministry ofForests trails were to be developed in the adjacent SooProvincial forest. Education, for both cyclists and noncyclists, was also considered crucial to managing the conflict.65Chapter 4:An Examination of Conflict Management in BC ParksThe deficiencies with activity based conflict prevention wereoutlined in chapter two. It is the purpose of this chapter todetermine if these same deficiencies exist in the BC Parks case.Using the same format as the preceding chapter the examination isdivided into two parts. The first examines the methods ofconflict management used in BC parks. The second examines theGaribaldi Master Plan process because that is the forum where theissue of mountain biking opportunities was addressed.The issue of mountain biking in Garibaldi was only one of anumber of issues that were addressed by the master plan and manygovernment agencies and outdoor recreation clubs took part in theplanning process. Data for this study came from a variety ofsources but it was necessary to interview representatives ofthose groups who were identified by BC Parks as being the mostconcerned about the mountain biking opportunities issue. A totalof six people were interviewed: two from BC Parks; two from clubsrepresenting the interests of mountain bicyclists and; two fromclubs representing the interests of hikers and mountaineers. Alist of the interviews is given in Appendix 2.Information from the interviewees on the Garibaldi MasterPlanning process is limited in its detail by the fact that it hasbeen almost two years since the last meetings were held and threeyears since the last public meetings were held.66Preceding the examination is a brief discussion of one factorwhich may contribute to conflicts between recreationists in BCparks: lack of standards for recreation opportunities.4.1 Standards For Recreation OpportunitiesSupplying recreation opportunities is a large part of BC Parksresponsibilities yet it is still unclear to many park users as towhat these opportunities are. A survey conducted by BC Parksfound that 90 per cent of visitors felt that more information isneeded about recreation opportunities in BC parks (BCM0P, l990d).The fact that park visitors are not sure about recreationopportunities has an effect on their expectations. Misperceptionsin these expectations can lead to conflict. If the generalpublic is better informed about outdoor recreation opportunitiesthen they can avoid those areas where they are likely toexperience conflict with other users. Master plans are helpfulin this regard for they inform the recreationist about the plansfor a park. The master plan outlines the role of each park andidentifies outdoor recreation opportunities.One of the most pressing problems facing outdoor recreationmanagers and planners is the lack of commonly accepted standards,facilities, expectations and perceptions (Miller, 1990). Withoutthese standards planning is much more difficult because there areno guidelines to determine what types of trails are suitable formultiple use and which are only suitable for single use. One67problem with the setting of standards is the accommodation forusers of various ability levels. There is no average mountainbiker so trying to accommodate this non—existent person is afutile exercise.The setting of standards is very difficult to justify if theyare not universally accepted. An example of this is the relativesafety of the Singing Pass trail for both hikers and cyclists.The Whistler Off Road Cycling Association (WORCA) claimed thatSinging Pass was safe for cyclists of all abilities while TheBicycling Association of B.C. ‘S (BABC) representative disagreed(Chin, 1991; Eakin, 1991; McKay, 1991).For the standards to be acceptable to all they must beendorsed by groups which represent the interests of B.C. outdoorrecreationists such as the BABC and the Federation Of MountainClubs of B.C. (MacArthur, 1991). Before standards can beestablished however groups, such as those listed in Appendix 1,must get together to discuss the pertinent issues.4.2 BC Parks Recreation Policies and User Conflict4.2.1 Regulatory Means - Setting LimitsWhile BC Parks staff must deal with conflict among parkvisitors on a daily basis there is very little written policy toguide them. One exception perhaps is found in the document ParksPlan 90: Recreation Goals For BC Parks (BCM0P, 1991). In thatdocument the question is asked: “How do we establish limits on68the types of approved recreational activities and levels of usein order to avoid conflicts among different recreation interests(p. 25)”? No answer is provided.Manaciincr the resource vs. managing conflict — The abovestatement reflects the premise that setting limits on both thetypes of activities and the number of people taking part inthose activities will lead to fewer conflicts in provincialparks. Conflict is seen as a result of crowding and inconsideration of the other mandate which parks has, to preservethe natural resources, the management emphasis is on establishingcarrying capacity. Carrying capacity is a related but separateissue.The focus on limits precludes the possibility that many otherreasons for conflict are possible. With limits being the onlyconcern, conflict is addressed by implementing methods ofconflict prevention such as zoning. The representatives of bothmountain biking and hiking/mountaineering interests (Eakins,1991; MacArthur, 1991) expressed the concern that sources ofconflict which stem from attachment to the resource or fromfeelings about appropriate (not compatible) activities are nottaken into consideration if the conflict management focus ismerely on the resource and setting limits.The focus on limits is not as important in the current systemwhere conflict management is ad-hoc but when and if a policy onconflict management is formulated its focus should be on the parkvisitors rather than the park resources alone because it is the69visitors who are in conflict with one another. Conflictmanagement methods that are restricted to setting limits do notaddress many of the sources of conflicts between recreationistswhich are psychologically and socially based.4.2.2 Systems PlanningActivity incompatibility - Systems planning is a reflection ofthe general policy to separate different activities based oncompatibility but it can also be an effective means of managinguser conflict. Through systems planning the variety of usersboth within and between activities can be accommodated moreeasily (Manning, 1985). Planning for the “average visitor”neglects the desirable element of diversity which BC Parks statesis one of its objectives (BCM0P, 1990b).At this point in time BC Parks systems planning is not carriedout at the level of detail by which recreational opportunitiesfor individual activities can be planned for on a regional basis(Chin, 1991). The attention right now is on identifying types ofparks: wilderness; recreation; beaches and; day use. Once thepark land base has been finalized then the focus can change torecreation opportunities.The conflict resolution process — The most disturbing aspectof the spatial separation approach is that there are no formalpolicies which get people engaged in different activitiestogether to resolve their differences.70Although not always reflected at the local level6 theprovincial thrust is to separate the different recreationactivities. In the management of conflict this apparent policydoes not promote learning on the part of park visitors. Themutual interests that different recreationists share is muchharder to ascertain if they do not talk to each other. A concernraised by both Eakins and Kubik is that it is BC Parksresponsibility as managers of the resource to provide the forumfor this to take place.Managing the resource vs. managing conflict — BC Parks seespart of the answer to providing a variety of recreationopportunities in the large amount of crown land in the province(BCM0P, 1991). Ninety per cent of the province’s land base isCrown. A partial solution to meeting demands for differentrecreation activities can be met by increasing the size of thepark system. Again signifying an emphasis on conflict preventionthrough spatial separation as a means of avoiding user conflicts.BC parks cannot be expected to provide the setting for alloutdoor recreation settings. Other government agencies, who areresponsible for resource management, share the responsibility ofproviding recreation opportunities. By working with these other6A local example where an alternative to spatial separationhas been tried can be found in the Silverstar Recreation Area.Snowmobilers and X—country skiers who use the area do not share thesame trails but the trails are in the same vicinity and many crosseach other calling for some cooperation (Bell, 1991).71agencies BC Parks has a better chance of supplying a wide varietyof recreation opportunities.An example in the vicinity of Garibaldi Park is the WhistlerLocal Resource Use Plan (WLRUP) prepared by the Forest Serviceand the Resort Municipality Of Whistler. A recreation plan isbeing developed to address the growing importance of outdoorrecreation as a visitor activity in the Whistler area.Identifying recreation opportunities outside of the parkreduces some of the pressure to accommodate certain activitieswithin the park. The Ministry of Forests has jurisdiction overthe WLRUP lands but planning is done by committee which alsoincludes representatives from BC Lands, BC Parks and theMunicipality of Whistler.Municipal and Provincial Park jurisdiction does not includeor have the ability to deal with LRUP areas and issues.Because of the volume and expected increase of use, the LRUPserves as a mechanism for cooperation and management ofrecreation outside of, but linked to municipal andprovincial park boundaries. In terms of planning approach,specific political boundaries become secondary to recreationuse and planning objectives, provided the appropriatemandates of each agency and legislative acts are notcompromised. With the growing use, there is generalexpectation that the trails, lakes and natural featuresremain accessible and maintained (BCM0F, 1991, p. 1).The local resource plan takes a lot of pressure off of BC Parksto accommodate the diverse array of recreation activities withinpark boundaries. The LRUP is a valuable edition to a park masterplan because if they can be coordinated a wide variety of qualityrecreation experiences can be provided in the same generalvicinity.72As a means of conflict prevention the LRUP can be an effectivemanagement device provided that attachment to the resource is notthe major source of conflict. If attachment to the resource isthe main source of conflict then no substitute is likely tosuffice.Another critical factor in ensuring the success of LRUP’s toprovide recreation opportunities is that these opportunities areknown. It is important for the recreationist to know that ifhe/she can not take part in a desired activity within the parkthat a comparable site is available close by. This is a problemthat should be addressed considering that 90 per cent of BC Parksvisitors wanted more information on recreation opportunities.4.2.3 ZoningZoning does not play a direct role in managing user conflictsbut indirectly it can have an impact on providing the desiredvariety of recreational opportunities.Activity incompatibility - Some activities will be allowed andencouraged in all zones but the only clear distinction made isthat between mechanized and non—mechanized access. In theWilderness Recreation Zone even that distinction is not clearfrom a policy perspective. The park managers have the discretionto decide what activities are allowed and which ones are not.Zoning, as employed by BC Parks, is not able on its own tostandardize management and recreation resource user expectations.73It is possible that an activity which is not allowed in anintensive recreation zone may be allowed in a wildernessrecreation zone. The land based intensive use zone, outside ofpaved roads and parking lots, is very pedestrian oriented therebyprohibiting activities that involve the use of other means ofconveyance such as a bicycle. Zoning, because of its generalnature, must be used in conj unction with regulations in order toprevent visitor conflicts.These regulations are usually well justified for reasons ofsafety. The point is that the method of zoning adopted by BCParks offers general guidelines for planning and conflictprevention and as such is not an effective means of managing sitespecific user conflicts. Zoning on its own is not able toprevent conflicts between incompatible activities which requirethe same resource setting.The conflict resolution process — As mentioned above, zoningis not oriented to addressing site specific conflicts and ifzoning does not prevent conflicts then some other method must beused to resolve them. Park users comments may be incorporatedinto the decision making process regarding the zone boundariesbut the process does not provide the opportunity for peopleengaged in different activities to talk to each other.Managing the resource vs managing conflict — BC Parks sees theaccommodation of all acceptable recreation activities possible74due to the large crown land base. However, much of that landbase is allocated for the preservation of the naturalenvironment. Zoning ensures that a parks emphasis will be onpreservation rather than providing recreation opportunities.Much of the impetus for the creation of new parks is forpreservation purposes (BCM0P, 1990b). Very little emphasis isplaced on acquiring sites for “less traditional” park users.Zoning, an implementation mechanism, is better suited todealing with the problem of carrying capacity and crowding.After a carrying capacity analysis has been done zoning is usedas a guide for development. The fewer services provided shouldmean fewer people using the resource. For backcountry areas theabsence of roads and other amenities such as toilets and showerscan be maintained through zoning. Zoning by itself is not ableto deal with user conflicts resulting from attachment to theresource or philosophical differences in how nature is to beexperienced.4.2.4 The Master Plan Process and Informal MethodsThe master plan process and informal methods of conflictmanagement are examined together in this section because informalmethods are used both during the master plan process and outsidethe master plan to address user conflicts. The master planprocess in itself is not a method of conflict management and assuch relies on sub—processes, such as an informal conflictmanagement process, to deal with specific issues. The master75plan process is however an ideal mechanism for bringing conflictissues to the attention of BC Parks staff and therefore acts as acatalyst in precipitating action to resolve park user conflicts.Both the master plan process and informal methods of conflictmanagement are potentially excellent mechanisms for determiningthe true sources of conflict. This stems from the fact thatpublic input is almost always a key component. With no formalpolicy on how public input is to be collected the best method forthe situation at hand can be developed. However, using tailor—made approaches can also be detrimental if an inadequate methodfor soliciting public input is used.A further drawback to relying on the master plan process tobring user conflicts out into the open is that due to the lengthof time between master plan updates conflicts may already be intheir latter and more extreme stages. This was the situation inthe snowmobiler/cross—country skier conflict in the BabineRecreation Area. By the time that a conflict resolution processwas started both sides were entrenched in their positions withone side (cross—country skiers) refusing to talk to the otherside (snowmobilers) (Heathman, 1994). Even though a goodconflict resolution process was eventually used the outcome wasless than ideal because of the extreme stage of the conflict.Activity incompatibility - Informal methods of conflictmanagement can be the best way to determine which activities areincompatible. Specific processes, that include the parties in76conflict, can be designed to suit a particular situation. Atailor—made process is also better suited to address the issuesof compatibility and appropriateness separately.The one drawback of informal methods of conflict management inaddressing activity compatibility is that without a policy orguidelines in place to guide the process there is a chance thatan inadequate procedure will be developed.The conflict resolution process — Again, due to theflexibility offered to BC Parks district and regional staff,informal methods of conflict management can be utilised thatattempt to resolve a conflict rather than just end a conflict.In contrast to the three formal conflict prevention methodsexamined above, informal methods can be developed that provideopportunities for meaningful public input.The other key difference between informal methods of conflictmanagement and formal methods of conflict prevention is that theopportunity to learn about the interests and concerns of the“other side” can be built into the informal process.The drawback of BC Parks’ informal methods of conflictmanagement is that without a policy or guidelines in place toguide the process there is a chance that an inadequate procedurewill be developed.Manacinci the resource vs. managing the conflict — Informalconflict management processes are much more flexible than formalconflict methods. Because of this flexibility the focus ofresolving the conflict does not have to be on the resource. By77involving the parties in conflict in the conflict managementprocess the focus of conflict resolution efforts is on therecreationists who are experiencing conflict — a contrast toformal conflict prevention methods which focus on the activityand activity setting.Again, the only drawback of BC Parks’ informal methods ofconflict management is that without a policy or guidelines inplace to direct the process there is a possibility that adeficient mechanism will be developed.4.3 The Garibaldi Master Planning Process: The Issue Of MountainBiking OpportunitiesThe mountain bikers concern about losing access to trailswithin the park became very apparent once the Master Plan processstarted. They were present at all the meetings to see what washappening and to express their concerns. They were not asnumerous as the hikers attending but according to Chin (1991)were well organized. The planning process allowed the conflictto be recognized by a greater number of people and once it wasseen as a pressing problem the people concerned with the outcomegot involved.The conflict resolution process — Parks planners see theplanning process in itself as a method of resolving conflictsbecause it gives the people in conflict a chance to express theirconcerns in a recognized forum (Chin, 1990). The two groups78would not talk to each other if they met on the trail and if theydid talk it was not about how to resolve the conflict. Theplanning process stimulated discussion of the issues by acting asa vehicle for people to interact.The planning process may have stimulated discussion of theissues but the way in which the public meetings were set upprovided little opportunity for the groups in conflict to talkdirectly to each other. BC Parks collected the technical,resource oriented, information and using this as a basis prepareda draft plan. After hearing comments on the draft plan a finalplan was produced. At no time in the planning process did BCParks provide the occasion for the groups in conflict to talk toeach other (Eakins, 1991; MacArthur, 1991). Park visitors weregiven the chance to express their concerns but did not take theopportunity to discuss these concerns with others who may havehad a different perspective.7The public meeting format used by BC Parks in The GaribaldiMaster Plan process prevented the necessary discussion betweenthe parties in conflict and between those parties and managementto occur. This is somewhat surprising in that all involved in...there is heavy reliance on public meetingsand hearings. Both methods share commoncharacteristics. They permit only a restricteddegree of involvement and interaction. Most ofthose attending meetings and hearings arespectators rather than participants, and thereis largely one—way and reactive exchange ofinformation, from vocal citizens to passiveofficials (Sadler, 1979, p. 8).79the process recognized that a difference in values was theprimary source of conflict. Park management, through the publicmeetings, understood that value differences was the main sourceof conflict but at the same time also understood that reconcilingthe value differences would be a very difficult task and probablynot possible in the existing master plan process (Chin, 1992).The decisions regarding the use of park trails were basedinstead on environmental and safety factors (BCM0P, 1990a). Thesafety relevance of which is questionable since no accidentsinvolving cyclists and hikers had occurred. However, the safetyand environmental sources of conflict are tangible and measurableand therefore can be addressed with a technical solution (ie.single use trails or better trail standards). It was within BCParks ability to address the safety and environmental concernsexpressed by some park visitors.Concern was expressed by representatives of both sides of theissue (Eakins, 1991; MacArthur, 1991) that the public meetingformat did not evoke a sense of really participating in theplanning process. BC Parks made all the decisions before thepublic meetings and used them merely to report what had alreadybeen decided. Even though this was a concern raised by MacArthur(1991): no attempt at trying to actually resolve the conflictswas made by BC Parks. A workshop could have made a bigdifference in the master plan by promoting a greater sense ofcontributing by the participants.80The first public meetings possibly contributed to exacerbatingthe conflict. At this type of information gathering session theparties in conflict do not address each other but make knowntheir concerns to the planners. Many accusations were made byboth sides which could not be refuted at the time because thestyle and format of the meeting would not allow it. Individualswent up to the microphone stating why or why not certainactivities should be allowed in the park but many of the reasonsgiven were unfounded. This process served to highlight thedifferences in interests between the two groups rather than thesimilarities.The final meeting had both positive and negative effects withregards to managing the conflict between hikers and mountainbikers. One who attended (MacArthur, 1991) noted that eventhough the two sides did talk directly to each other there was nonegotiations taking place. However, it was easier to hear thedifferent points of view than it was at the earlier, largerpublic meetings. Participants were able to express theirconcerns and explained why they were experiencing conflict withother park users.The shortcoming of this meeting was, despite any learning thattook place, that participants had no power to implement anydecisions. This again added to the participants’ feelings of notaffecting the outcome of the planning process.81Activity Incompatibility - The final meeting served a usefulpurpose in that it educated everyone who attended. People whowere not familiar with mountain biking were given an insight intothe quality of the experience provided in Garibaldi Park. Theriding experience and expectations of mountain bikers were seenby non-bikers to be quite varied. A greater understanding of theactivity was achieved by all who attended. Different types ofpeople with different goals and expectations wanted to mountainbike in the park. This illustrated to the non-cyclists thatmountain bikers were a varied lot and many of the stereo—typeswere not applicable. At the same time mountain bikers gained agreater appreciation for hikers’ concerns such as safety andcommunication on the trail. Mountain bikers learned that theywere not always visible and when approaching hikers to make somekind of noise. There was a lack of awareness on the part ofhikers that mountain bikes may be approaching them. Anunexpected movement on the part of the hiker could result in anaccident.Because safety and environmental degradation are importantconsiderations the Singing Pass Trail is now closed to mountainbikes. These are objective considerations in that they can beeasily measured, (number of accidents, amount of soil loss) butthey must also be put into perspective. How many near misses(that is how many times does a mountain bicyclist almost run intoa hiker) on a backcountry trail is considered as unacceptable?Some would say none but consider the number of near misses on the82Seawall in Stanley Park or the path around False Creek wherecyclists and pedestrians share the same right of way. The numberof near misses is drastically higher but conditioning makes itacceptable.Where the two were satisfied mountain biking was allowed tocontinue. The Red Heather trail to Elfin Lakes was originally anaccess road and is of sufficient width for multiple use.Visibility is good so other trail users can be seen whenapproaching and there is enough room for passing. Consideringthe parks mandate to provide a variety of recreationopportunities the closing of this trail would not have beenjustified.Managing the resource vs. managing conflict — The process ofproducing a master plan is very similar to the ROS process.First a resource inventory is produced, recreation opportunitiesare identified then a decision is made by management regardingthe siting of recreation activities. Both processes are able toincorporate public input. The difference between the two isfound in how conflicts could be addressed. ROS, with its focuson conflict prevention, is restricted in the type of public inputit can use. Input is limited to visitor concerns, such assafety, which are objective in nature.A master planning process does not share the same limits andis therefore potentially able to address concerns which are notobjective. This is important in a conflict such as that between83cyclists and hikers in Garibaldi because the sources of conflictwere only partially objective in nature. Much of the conflict,as indicated by those involved (Bell, 1991; Chin, 1991;MacArthur, 1991), was over values and perceptions of otherpeoples’ values. For this type of social conflict to be resolvedthe parties in conflict must have the opportunity to discusstheir differences and be given the chance to learn. A requirementis that two—way dialogue occurs.Another significant outcome of the planning process was therealization that systems planning, even though its purpose is toprevent conflicts through management of the resource, was vitalif a wide variety of recreation activities were to beaccommodated within the Whistler - Garibaldi region. Thisinvolved not only planning for the parks in the region butworking with other agencies responsible for resource management,such as the Forest Service, in order to meet the growing demandfor different recreation settings. The Whistler Local ResourceUse Plan (WLRUP), mentioned above, is an example of regionalrecreation resource planning.The solutions proposed in the master plan can not be said toreflect a blanket policy of no mountain biking within the parkbut I think they do reflect the desire by BC Parks to findalternative recreation sites outside park boundaries. For threedifferent trails that were used by both mountain bicyclists andhikers three different solutions were offered.84Chapter 5:Conclusions And Implications For PlanningThe first part of this chapter provides conclusions inresponse to the original question posed at the beginning of thisthesis: “In the absence of specific conflict management policiesare formal conflict prevention methods and informal conflictmanagement processes an effective means of managing park visitorconflicts?” A comparison of conclusions from the literatureanalysis and the case study are provided.Section two of this chapter outlines the implications forrecreation resource planning that follow from the conclusions.Included are recommendations for the components of an outdoorrecreation conflict management policy.5.1 ConclusionsOverall, this thesis finds that conflict prevention methodsare only part of a successful conflict management strategy andthat trying to prevent conflict from occurring is not going towork in every situation. Informal conflict management processesoffer more hope for resolving conflicts between recreationistsbut only if certain actions are taken in a timely manner.Spatial separation as a general policy does not reflect anunderstanding on the part of managers and planners of the sourcesof conflict. The land base is not large enough and the resources85are not great enough to provide an exclusive setting for eachoutdoor recreation activity. The key to resolving socialconflicts is understanding the sources of conflict and for thatto occur those experiencing conflict must be included in theconflict resolution process. Informal conflict managementprocesses, if well designed, offer recreationists the opportunityto be meaningfully involved in resolving issues that affect themdirectly.The literature argues that activity based conflict preventionmethods suffer from a number of weaknesses with respect to theirability to manage outdoor recreation conflicts. The weaknessesstem from the fact that conflict prevention methods focus onmanaging the resource and therefore do not include in anymeaningful way the recreationists who experience conflict. Lackof public involvement prevents the sources of conflict frombecoming known which in turn, if they are not addressed, will notlead to a resolution.The above weaknesses were also apparent in BC Parks formalconflict prevention methods. None of the three formal methodsexamined here require public involvement and all three focus onthe resource. One reason for this may be because of the statedpurpose for each. Zoning is used to guide park development(BCM0P, 1990b) and systems planning attempts to accommodate avariety of users within a defined region. For both methods, afocus on the resource is essential.86A second reason, which applies particularly to settingregulations, is that park management has the discretion to decidehow conflicts between park visitors will be dealt with. This mayor may not involve giving the groups experiencing conflict theopportunity to jointly formulate a solution. If regulations areset without the sources of conflict being known then they mayexacerbate the conflict and possibly discriminate againstlegitimate park users.Even though an exhaustive search was not undertaken of all theinformal conflict management processes that BC Parks hasinitiated it is apparent that these informal processes can besuccessful if conducted properly. Unlike the formal methods ofconflict prevention informal conflict management processes areused specifically to resolve conflict. Those park users who areexperiencing conflict can be meaningfully involved in theconflict management process. The successful resolution of theconflict between aviators and guide—outfitters in Tweedsmuir Parkis one example of a successful conflict management process.That part of the case study which focused on the mountain bikeissue in Garibaldi Park supports the arguments in the literatureanalysis. Even though the people experiencing conflict wereincluded in meetings to develop a conflict management strategy,doubts remain as to the effectiveness of the meetings. Whatfollows are the conclusions to the second part of the case studyaccording to the criteria.87Activity Incompatibility - The literature analysis showed thatthe compatibility of different outdoor recreation activities isdependant upon many factors and most are social or psychologicalin nature. This finding was also apparent in the case study.Reasons generally for incompatibility between mountain biking andhiking on park trails included safety and ecological reasons butthe primary reason was a difference in philosophicalperspectives. Mountain bikers felt they were a legitimate parkuser while those opposed to mountain biking in the park did notfeel that mountain biking was an appropriate activity for awilderness park. The differences in views on the issue were notonly due to incompatibility but also because of personal feelingsabout appropriateness.The study also indicated that significant to the determinationof compatibility is the recognition that people engaged indifferent activities share the same requirements andexpectations. Of further significance is that intra—activityrequirements and expectations can be more disparate thaninteractivity requirements and expectations. These significanceswere not brought out in the planning process due to an absence ofopportunity for the parties in conflict to engage in jointproblem solving.The conflict resolution process — The literature analysisshowed that conflict management in outdoor recreation would bemuch more successful if the recreationists experiencing conflict88were included in the conflict resolution process. Preferably,this process would allow face to face discussion. In the casestudy participants in the planning process expressed concernsthat even though BC Parks invited public participation, thepublic’s role was minimal in terms of contributing to a solution.This was due in part to the type of meetings that were held.Very little opportunity was provided by BC Parks for the groupsexperiencing conflict to talk to each other resulting indissatisfaction with the process.Because of the public meeting format it was not possible toexplore new solutions to the problem. Instead of trying todiscover alternative ways for the two groups to share the trailsand which also address the issues of safety and erosion8 spatialseparation had already been decided. Spatial separation stillmay have been the outcome of a meeting (or meetings) whichpermitted face to face discussion but at least the parties inconflict could make that decision.Managing the resource vs. managing conflict — The literatureanalysis indicated that conflict prevention is a technique ofmanaging the resource and has little to do with resolvingconflict. Evidence in the case study supports this conclusion.8Three suggestions for alternative solutions that allow thetwo groups to share the trails and which address safety and erosionconcerns are:- Have all users travelling downhill yield to those going up- Modify the trail somewhat to reduce bicyclists downhill speed- Open trails to mountain bikes on specified days of the week89Recommendations from the planning process such as findingalternative sites and building separate trails may prevent futureconflicts but do not address the socio/ psychological reasons forconflict in the first place. The case study reflects thecontinuing attempt to manage the resource instead of manageconflict.Another indication in the case study of the resource focus ofconflict prevention is found in the reasons given for theexclusion of mountain bikes on park trails. The reasons statedin the Garibaldi Master Plan for trail closures are due to theneed to maintain trail standards (safety and erosion) and it isnot evident where the sources of conflict, the socio/psychological reasons, are in the solution.The opportunities to address the inherent weaknesses found inactivity based conflict prevention do exist. The planningprocess, by having a flexible process design, can incorporate anappropriate forum, such as a workshop, where participation isaimed at resolving a conflict (Sadler, 1979). Public meetings,which only permit a one—way exchange of information, are not asaffective. Participants (Eakins, 1991; MacArthur, 1991) notedthat the meetings restricted the role of those park visitors whowere experiencing conflict to that of spectators and leftfeelings of doubt as to the ability of park management andplanners to resolve the conflicts. In other words the masterplan planning process did not incorporate conflict resolution.90It is apparent that all parties involved, including parkmanagement, had an understanding of the sources of conflict.Understanding the sources of conflict however means very littleif that understanding is not employed in the resolution process.Without the necessary discussion between the parties in conflictmisperceptions remain about the compatibility of differentactivities and the chance for constructive dialogue and resultantlearning was missed. Managements understanding of the conflictwas adequate yet they chose not to take advantage of thisknowledge and did not incorporate conflict resolution into theplanning process.Even though the conflict resolution process used in theGaribaldi Park case study supports the arguments in theliterature analysis it is not the author’s opinion that thatprocess is standard practice or is it typical of all conflictresolution processes used by BC Parks. Because of the discretionthat district managers and park planners have when it comes toresolving park user conflicts no two processes are the same.Consensus based approaches have been used in other master planprocesses where the participants were meaningfully involved inresolving the conflict and the focus of the process was on thepeople in conflict not on the activities or the activity setting.Two examples are the process that was used to resolve theconflict between snowmobilers and cross—country skiers in theBabine Recreation Area and the process that is currently underwayin Naikoon Park to resolve the conflict between all terrain91vehicle (ATV) riders and non—motorized park users (Kennett,1994). Both processes brought the parties in conflict togetherwith the explicit purpose of reaching a consensual agreement.5.2 Implications For Recreation Resource PlanningRecreation resource planning in British Columbia is becomingmuch more complex and is not simply a matter of managing the landbase. More attention must be paid to the people who visit ourparks and recreation sites and facilities. This sentiment isechoed by Schreyer (1990) in his survey of park managers andplanners in the United Statesrecreation resource managers and planners need tounderstand the significance of the diversity of the personsvisiting their resource, the different needs and goals theyare pursuing, the things they need from the resource inorder to attain those goals, and the consequences of peopleinteracting with others who have different agendas (p.28).Managing conflict is becoming a larger part of the recreationresource manager’s and planner’s job. It is no longer enough tolimit one’s skills to facilities maintenance and demandprojection.Numerous reports and studies suggest that more people aretaking part in a wider array of activities in BC’s parks andforests (see for example Outdoor Recreation Council, 1991; BCM0F,1991). Accompanying this increase in use is likely be anincrease in the number of conflicts between recreationists. The92ability to successfully resolve these conflicts will be anessential skill for recreation resource managers and planners.Also essential for recreation resource agencies will bebe formal policies on the management of conflicts betweenrecreationists. Informal ad-hoc methods of dealing withconflicts when they arise are good in the sense that eachconflict situation can have a tailor made solution but there arealso drawbacks.One failing of ad-hoc approaches to conflict resolution isthat conflicts are not dealt with until they reach their lattermore extreme stages.The overt expression of conflict in confrontationalbehaviour may be no more than the least desirable of manypossible outcomes. But it is when there is this overtexpression of conflict that it becomes obvious to managers.It seems probable that there will be cases, perhaps a largenumber of cases, when conflict is only recognized at thislate and extreme stage (Owens, 1985).At this point people are feeling frustrated and/or angry becausethey have been experiencing conflict for some time. The solutionproposed attempts to stop the confrontational behaviour withoutlooking at what led to that behaviour. In other words thesources of conflict are not addressed.Ideally, a conflict management policy for a recreationresource agency should be pro—active. It is important to getparties experiencing conflict to talk to each other before theybecome too entrenched in positions (see Fisher and Ury, chs. 1and 3). The Master Plan for the Babine Recreation Area providesan extreme example of this situation. Even though the master93plan process highlighted the conflict between snowmobilers andcross—country skiers as an important issue that must be resolved,by the time the conflict resolution process started both sideshad taken positions with one side (cross—country skiers) refusingto directly participate in the process (Heathman, 1994).A planning process that invites public input is an effectivemeans of identifying social conflicts but many years often passbefore plans are updated. In that time a conflict situation canarise and if not dealt with immediately can escalate into a majorissue. It is important that a conflict management policy isflexible enough to address small isolated conflicts as well asmajor conflicts that are part of larger planning processes.A related failing of ad-hoc conflict resolution is found inthe indiscriminate provision of activities based on supply ratherthan demand (Outdoor Recreation Council, 1990). Parks havedeveloped over the years catering to a small number oftraditional activities (Virden and Schreyer, 1988; InteragencyCommittee For Outdoor Recreation, 1990; Manning, 1985). Parksare now oriented to supplying a resource setting for theseactivities. It is the author’s opinion that parks canaccommodate many non—traditional uses without diminishing theparks natural resources or preventing traditional users fromenjoying them but ad-hoc approaches to conflict resolution whichdepend on activity based spatial separation favour traditionaluses.94With many parks seeing increased use by traditional activitiesaccomodating new preferences and new activities in the existingdeveloped portions of parks is difficult. At the same time,there is also a need to conserve natural landscapes (BritishColumbia, 1993) and recreation resource managers and planners arereluctant to open up previously undeveloped sections of parks andother protected areas to accommodate new activities. This meansthat park planners must depend more on other land managers withmandates to provide outdoor recreation opportunities.Systems planning, where all resource management agencieswithin a recognized region are involved9, has the potential toprevent conflicts. If outdoor recreation opportunities arelooked at on a regional basis more activities can be accommodatedwithin the same vicinity. In this way some of the pressure istaken off of parks as the sole supplier of outdoor recreationopportunities10. Recent planning initiatives in BC such as theCommission on Resources and Environment (CORE) regional land useplanning process, the Ministry of Forests Land and ResourceManagement Planning (LRMP) process, and the Protected AreasStrategy are bringing resource agencies together and compellingthem to take a regional perspective on natural resource planning.9An example is the Whistler Local resource Use Plan (WLRUP).10 The potential for recreation opportunities outside of parks(both provincial and regional) in BC is enormous. For example seeBCM0F, 1990).95A result of these processes is that potential areas for alloutdoor recreation activities are being examined.While systems planning is beneficial for identifying newsettings for outdoor recreation (and subsequently provideopportunities for all activities resulting in fewer conflicts) itis less useful as a method to manage existing conflicts betweenrecreationists. The main reason is that many activities whichare considered to be incompatible require the same setting andonce recreationists have become attached to a setting analternative setting is not likely to be satisfactory (Jacob andSchreyer, 1980).A further problem associated with identifying alternativesites is that new facilities usually have to be built. In thesetimes of fiscal constraint the resources to develop these newfacilities are not readily available (Outdoor Recreation Council,1993; Tindell and Overstreet, 1990).The role of zoning in conflict management is limited. Forexample, BC Parks have based their zoning system on the level ofuse and amount of development that is permitted in certain areasof a park. They are trying to control the level of use throughthe amount of development. For example the wildernesspreservation zone will have little in the way of developments(eg. no toilets or campsites) and will not be easily accessible.Imposing these conditions should result in a low level of use.Zoning is oriented to minimizing impact on the environment and96will be able to prevent only those conflicts which result fromcrowding.All the responsibility for resolving conflicts in outdoorrecreation should not be placed on the shoulders of recreationresource managers and planners. The people who take part inoutdoor recreation activities, many of whom belong to groups andorganizations, can take action to resolve conflicts on their own.The Outdoor Recreation Council Of B.C. (ORCBC), anorganization which represents a wide variety of outdoorrecreation interests, has initiated a number of actions whichhave helped in gaining a greater understanding of conflict inoutdoor recreation. A good example is a symposium on mountainbiking they sponsored in 1990. Land managers, representatives ofhiking, mountain biking, and horse back riding interests wereinvited to discuss issues concerned with accommodating mountainbikes on hiking and horse trails. This type of action is apositive step towards resolving conflicts between recreationists.A further example of outdoor recreation clubs taking theinitiative to manage conflict is found in a loose agreementbetween mountaineers and helicopter tour operators in theWhistler area. The mountaineers inform the helicopter touroperators of the locale of trips they are going to take and thetour operators try to schedule their flights to other locations.A simple solution but not possible without first having adiscussion of the problem.97In summary, greater acknowledgment must be given to outdoorrecreation conflicts by outdoor recreation resource agencies.Each agency should have a general conflict management policy toguide planners and management. This policy, in addition toutilising conflict prevention methods, should incorporate thebasic principles of proven conflict resolution techniques.Outdoor recreation resource planning must incorporate ameaningful conflict resolution process with a format thatprovides for discussion. To make this all possible the skills ofpark planners and managers will have to include conflict analysisand conflict management.98THESIS BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCESBercovitch, Jacob. (1984) Social Conflicts and Third Parties.Westview Press, Boulder, ColoradoBingham, Gail. (1986) Resolving Environmental Disputes: A DecadeOf Experience. Washington D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.British Columbia (,Province of). (1993) A Protected Areas Strategyfor British Columbia. Province of British Columbia, Victoria.British Columbia Ministry Of Forests (BCM0F). (1991) Whistler LocalResource Use Plan — Recreation Assessment.British Columbia Ministry Of Forests (BCM0F). (1991a) OutdoorRecreation Survey 1989/90. Recreation Branch. Victoria.British Columbia Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing (BCM0LPH).Policy # 2.lb3 - Systems Planning. Parks and OutdoorRecreation Division. Victoria.British Columbia Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing (BCM0LPH).(1986) Policy # 2.lDl - Park Master Plans. Victoria.British Columbia Ministry Of Parks (BCM0P). (l990a) Master Plan ForGaribaldi. Victoria.British Columbia Ministry Of Parks (BCM0P). (1990b) Striking TheBalance: BC Parks Policy. Victoria.British Columbia Ministry Of Parks (BCM0P). (l990c) BCM0P AnnualReport 1988-89. Victoria.British Columbia Ministry Of Parks (BCM0P). (l990d) Public OpinionsAbout BC Parks: Summary Report. Jan. 1990. Victoria.British Columbia Ministry Of Parks (BCM0P). (1991) Preserving OurLiving Legacy: Parks Plan 90 Recreation Goals. BC Parks VisitorServices, Victoria.Bryan, Hobson. (1979) Conflict In The Great Outdoors: TowardUnderstanding And Managing For Diverse Sportsmen Preferences.University of Alabama: Bureau of Public Administration,Sociological Studies No. 4.Buist, Leon J. and Hoots, Thomas A. (1982) “Recreation OpportunitySpectrum Approach To Resource Planning”. Journal Of Forestry.vol. 80, February, pp. 84-86.Burton, John W. (1972a) World Society. Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press99Burton, John W. (l972b) “Resolution of Conflict”. InternationalStudies Quarterly. 16(l):5-29.Burton, John and Dukes, Frank. (1990) Conflict: Practices inManagement. Settlement and Resolution. St. Martin’s Press: NewYork.Bury, Richard L. et al. (1983) “Analyzing Recreational Conflict”.Journal Of Soil and Water Conservation. vol. 38, PP. 401-403.Cloke, Paul J. and Chris C. Park. (1985) Rural Resource Management.Croom Helm Ltd.:LondonCrowfoot, James E. and Julia M. Wondolleck. (1990) EnvironmentalDisputes Community Involvement In Conflict Resolution.Washington D.C.: Islands Press.Daniels, S. E. and R.S. Krannich. (1990) “The RecreationalOpportunity Spectrum As A Conflict Management Tool” inVining, Joanne, ed. (1990) Social Science And Natural ResourceRecreation Management. Westview Press Inc., Boulder, Colorado.Deutsch, Morton. (1973) The Resolution of Conflict. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven.Devall, Bill and Joseph Harry. (1981) “Who Hates Whom In the GreatOutdoors: The Impacts Of Recreational Specialization andtechnologies of Play”.’ Leisure Science. 4(4):399-418.Dorcey, A.H.J. (1986) Bargaining In the Governance Of PacificCoastal Resources. Vancouver: Westwater Research Center, TheUniversity of British Columbia.Driver, B.L. and J. R. Bassett. (1975) “Defining Conflicts kmongRiver Users: A case Study of Michigan’s AuSable River”.Naturalist. 26:19—23.Gramman, J. H. and R. J. Burdge. (1981) “The Effects of RecreationGoals On Conflict Perception: The Case Of Water Skiers AndFishermen”. Journal Of Leisure Research. 31:15—27.Hanuuitt, William E. (1988) “The Spectrum Of Conflict In OutdoorRecreation”. Benchmark 1988: A National Outdoor Recreation AndWilderness Forum. Tampa, Florida, January. pp. 439-448Hammitt, William E. and David N. Cole. (1987) Wildiand Recreation:Ecology And Manaaement. New York: Wiley.Heathman, Rick. (1994). Personal Communication. January 6, 1994.Manager, Visitor Services, Northern BC Region, BC Parks,Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.100Hill, Barbara J. (1982) “An Analysis of Conflict ResolutionTechniques”. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 26(1):109—138.Interagency Committee For Outdoor Recreation. (1990) WashingtonOutdoors: Assessment and Policy Plan 1990-1995. InteragencyCommittee For Outdoor Recreation, Tumwater, Washington.Jacob, G. R. and R. Schreyer. (1980) “Conflict In OutdoorRecreation: A Theoretical Perspective”. Journal Of LeisureResearch. 12(4) :368—380Jackson, E. C. and R. A. G. Wong. (1982) “Perceived ConflictBetween Urban Cross—Country Skiers And Snowmobilers InAlberta”. Journal Of Leisure Research. 14:47—62.Jubenville, Alan. (1978) Outdoor Recreation Management.Philadelphia: Saunders.Kennett, Kris. (1994) Personal Communication. January 6, 1994.Planner, Northern BC Region, BC Parks, Ministry of Environment,Lands and Parks.Knudson, Douglas M. (1984) Outdoor Recreation. New York:MacMillan.Mack, R.W. and R.C. Snyder. (1957) “The Analysis Of SocialConflict: Towards An Overview And Synthesis”, Journal OfConflict Resolution. 1(2) :212—248.Manning, Robert E. (1985) “Diversity In Democracy: Expanding TheRecreation Opportunity Spectrum”. Leisure Sciences. Vol. 7, ro.4, pp. 377—399.Miller, Phil (1990) “Keynote Address” Mountain Biking SvmIosium,Vancouver, 1990. Outdoor Recreation Council of BC, Vancouver.Minnery, John R. (1985) Conflict Management in Urban Planning.Gower Publishing Co., Aldershot, England.O’Leary, J. T. (1976) “Land Use Definition And The Rural Community:Disruption Of Community Leisure Space. Journal Of Leisureresearch. 8:263—274.Outdoor Recreation Council. (1990) Mountain Biking SymposiumProceedings. Outdoor Recreation Council of BC, Vancouver.Outdoor Recreation Council. (1991) Demand for Outdoor Recreationin the Lower Mainland. Greater Vancouver Regional District.Burnaby.101Outdoor Recreation Council. (1993) Funding Options For OutdoorRecreation In British Columbia: A Discussion Paper. OutdoorRecreation Council of BC. Vancouver.Owens, Peter L. (1985) “Conflict As A Social Interaction ProcessIn Environment And Behaviour Research: The Example Of LeisureAnd Recreation Research.” Journal Of Environmental Psychology.5(3) :243—259.Pigralu, John. (1983) Outdoor Recreation And Resource Management.New York: St. Martin’s Press.Roe, Brad. (1990) “Land Is The Issue” Mountain Bike Action.October, 1990 pp. 76-88.Sadler, Barry, ed. (1979) Public Participation In EnvironmentalDecision Making: Strategies For Change. Proceedings of anational workshop. Environment Council Of Alberta, Edmonton.Saremba, John. (1989) Evaluating Public Involvement In ProvincialPark Planning: A Case Study Of Garibaldi Park. MastersThesis, Simon Fraser University.Schreyer, Richard. (1990) “Conflict in Outdoor Recreation: TheScope Of The Challenge To Resource Planning And Management” inVining, Joanne, ed. (1990) Social Science And Natural ResourceRecreation Management. Westview Press Inc., Boulder, Colorado.Sprung, Gary. (1988) “Your Land Or My Land?” Mountain BikeMagazine. March-April, 1988, pp. 14-15.Susskind, L. and J. Cruikshank. (1987) Breaking The Impasse:Consensual Approaches To Resolving Public Disputes. New York:Basic Books.Tindell, J.P. and Robert G. Overstreet. (1990) “Financing theFuture of Parks and Recreation”. Parks and Recreation. December,pp. 38—41.Tuan, Y. (1974) Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception,Attitudes and Values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Van Doren, Carlton 5. (1979) Land & Leisure: Concepts And MethodsIn Outdoor Recreation. London: Methuen.Vining, Joanne, ed. (1990) Social Science And Natural ResourceRecreation Management. Westview Press Inc., Boulder, colorado.Virden, R. and R. Schreyer. (1988) “Recreation Specialization AsAn Indicator Of Environmental Preference” Environment andBehaviour. 20:721—739.102White, Robert G. and Richard Schreyer. (1981) “Nontraditional UsesOf The National Parks” Leisure Sciences. 4(3):325-341.Wondolleck, Julia M. (1985) “The Importance of Process In ResolvingEnvironmental Disputes”. EIA Review. 5(4) :325—341.103APPENDIX 2.Main Participating Groups in The Garibaldi Master Plan Process:Outdoor Recreation Council of BCFederation of Mountain ClubsWhistler Air Services LimitedBicycling Association of BCWhistler Off-Road Cycling AssociationVarsity Outdoor ClubBritish Columbia Mountaineering ClubAlpine Club of CanadaVancouver Natural History SocietyNorth Shore HikersResort Municipality of WhistlerMinistry of Municipal AffairsMinistry of ForestsMinistry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum ResourcesBC Wildlife FederationCorporate HelicoptersThe BC Aviation CouncilVancouver HelicoptersBlackcomb Skiing Enterprises LimitedTyax Heli-SkiingMountain Equipment Co-opAssociation of Canadian Mountain GuidesCanadian Parks and Wilderness SocietyNorth Vancouver Recreation Conuniss ion Outdoors ClubMinistry of Environment104APPENDIX 2List of InterviewsBell, Tom. (1991) Visitor Services Coordinator, Garibaldi—SunshineCoast District, B.C. Parks, personal communication, Nov. 7,1991.Chin, Greg. (1991) Planner Southwest District, BC Parks. personalcommunication, June 27, 1991.Chin, Greg. (1992) Planner Southwest District, BC Parks. personalcommunication, September 18, 1992.Eakins, Robert (1991) Whistler Off Road Cycling Association(WORCA). personal communication, November 12, 1991.Kubik, Paul. (1991) President, B.C. Mountaineering Club. personalcommunication, Nov. 15, 1991.MacArthur, Jay. (1991) Co-Chair, Recreation And ConservationCommittee, Federation Of Mountain Clubs Of B.C.. personalcommunication, Nov. 12, 1991.McKay, Dean (1991) Vice-President Off Road, Bicycling Associationof B.C. Numerous conversations between May and November, 1991.105

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0087424/manifest

Comment

Related Items