Interpersonal versus Social Value Conflict

Transcription

1 Interpersonal versus Social Value Conflict Jerry J. Vaske Maureen P. Donnelly Karin Wittmann Susan Laidlaw Colorado State University Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit Fort Collins, CO Leisure Sciences (1995) 17, Abstract This study empirically examines the theoretical distinction between interpersonal conflict and conflict in social values. Data for this investigation were obtained from surveys of visitors to Mt. Evans, Colorado. Interpersonal conflicts between hunters and non-hunters on Mt. Evans appear to have been minimized due to the mountain s natural visual barriers and the managing agency s regulations that prohibit hunting near the road where most non-hunters are found. To the extent that conflict exists with hunting associated events on Mt. Evans, much of the problem stems from differences in social values held by the hunting and nonhunting publics. and more frequent visitors experienced more interpersonal conflicts than non-hunters and less frequent visitors for non-hunting human / wildlife interaction events. Analyses examining the interaction between type of visitor (hunters versus non-hunters) and number of prior visits (1st visit, 2-4 visits, and 5+ visits) suggested that conflicts in social values remained constant across frequency of visitation, but varied between visitor type. The implications for both further empirical work and the practical management of conflict are discussed. Key words: Conflicts, interpersonal conflict, social values, hunting, wildlife viewing Introduction Conflict research has been a theme in the outdoor recreation literature for 3 decades (e.g., Lucas, 1964a, 1964b). Much of this work emerged in response to the concerns of mitigating the impacts associated with rising use levels in natural resource settings (Owens, 1985). From this pragmatic perspective, conflict has been described as the simple competition over resources (Devall & Harry, 1981) or incompatibilities among groups or their desired goals (Noe, Wellman, & Buhyoff, 1982; Bury, Holland, & McEwen, 1983). While calls for a more theoretical approach to the study of conflict abound (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980; Little & Noe, 1984; Owens, 1985; Hammitt, 1989; Williams, 1993), many discussions remain at the conceptual level, lacking the empirical support necessary to test the hypothesized relationships. This paper examines data relative to one theoretical issue that has emerged in the literature; the distinction between interpersonal conflicts versus conflicts in social values. Differences in these 2 types of conflicts are examined for hunters and non-hunters relative to each group s level of prior experience with a specific setting.

2 2 Most research on recreational conflicts has focused on the asymmetrical relationships between different activity groups (Kuss, Graefe, & Vaske, 1990). Several studies conducted in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, for example, have documented the presence of a one-way conflict between paddling canoeists and motorboaters (Lucas, 1964a, 1964b; Lime, 1975; Adelman, Heberlein, & Bonnicksen, 1982). Paddling canoeists disliked motorboaters, but the people using motor-powered craft were not bothered by, and often enjoyed seeing, the other group. Asymmetrical antipathy has also been shown between hikers and trailbikers (McCay & Moeller, 1976; Watson, Williams, & Daigle, 1991), oar-powered and motor-powered whitewater rafters (Nielsen & Shelby, 1977; Schreyer & Nielsen, 1978; Shelby, 1980), cross-country skiers and snowmobilers (Knopp & Tyger, 1973; Jackson & Wong, 1982), backpackers and horsemen (Stankey, 1973, Watson, Niccolucci, & Williams, 1994), and water skiers and fishermen (Gramann & Burdge, 1981). Sources of Conflict Conflict between different activity groups may arise from a number of sources. First, conflicts can occur when the physical presence of an individual or group interferes with the goals of another individual or group. For example, people traveling on foot or by canoe may experience conflict when the noise from motorized vehicles or boats disrupts the peace and quiet of the experience. Similarly, a person attempting to photograph wildlife is likely to experience conflict if the animal is scared away by the arrival of other visitors at the site. These examples illustrate a goal interference conflict because the goals for visiting a particular setting are inhibited in some way (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). More generally, this source of conflict illustrates 1 type of interpersonal conflict because the interaction of visitor groups leads to perceptions of problem conditions. Examples of other types of interpersonal conflict include the negative reaction to others due to safety considerations or inappropriate behavior. Second, conflicts can arise between groups who do not share the same norms (Ruddell & Gramann, 1994) and/or values (Saremba & Gill, 1991), independent of the physical presence or actual contact between the groups. These situations can be labeled either value conflicts or social conflicts (Williams, 1993). versus anti-hunters represents an example of conflicts in social values. McShea, Wemmer, and Stuwe (1993), for example, discuss the sequence of events that occurred when the National Zoo s Conservation and Research Center (CRC) attempted to open the area to hunting to reduce the size of a controversial deer herd. The conflict that arose was primarily based on differences in values held by the CRC and animal rights groups. The CRC was concerned with protecting exotic hoofed animals from disease caused by the deer, while the animal rights groups advocated a position favoring the rights of individual deer. Similar value conflicts between wildlife managers and animal rights organizations have been discussed by others (Deblinger, Rimmer, Vaske, Vecellio, & Donnelly, 1993; Donnelly & Vaske, in press). Understanding these sources of conflict (interpersonal conflict versus conflicts in social values) is important for natural resource managers because the solution to conflict depends on the cause of the problem. Zoning, for example, may reduce conflicts stemming from interpersonal conflict because the user groups are physically separated. On the other hand, zoning is likely to be ineffective when conflicting values are involved (Ivy, Stewart, & Lue, 1992; Owens, 1985). Because social interaction is not necessary for this type of conflict to occur, physically separating users will have little influence. In these situations, education may be more effective. Resolution of both types of conflict can be important for natural resource managers. Minimizing interpersonal conflicts is necessary for providing high quality recreation experiences at a specific site. Reducing social value conflicts, although often more difficult to address, is often inherently linked to decision making processes. In the United States, for example, wildlife is the property of the people of the state. Wildlife agencies, are mandated to manage wildlife in trust for

3 3 the people of the state. When the public does not feel adequately represented, they sometimes resort to administrative appeals, court cases, and ballot initiatives to provide a solution. There are dramatic examples of how court cases (e.g., hunting in California) and ballot initiatives (e.g., Spring black bear hunting in Colorado) signal the future challenges to wildlife management (Manfredo, Vaske, & Decker, 1995). These examples reinforce the idea that wildlife management decisions are ultimately weighed against social criteria, not biological ones. The study reported here systematically examines the frequency and magnitude of the occurrence of these 2 types of conflict on Mt. Evans. Mt. Evans is a 14,150 foot mountain located 70 miles west of Denver, Colorado. The mountain is unique in that it has the highest paved road in North America, climbing almost 7,000 feet to the summit. The road offers visitors one of the most accessible mountain goat and bighorn sheep populations in North America, providing excellent opportunities for both wildlife viewing and hunting. Because a variety of visitor groups use Mt. Evans, the potential for interpersonal conflict exists. In addition, some interest groups had expressed concern with hunting on the mountain in general and had advocated eliminating the activity altogether (i.e., a social values conflict). This study was initiated by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and the USDA Forest Service in an effort to be responsive to these various interests. Determinants of Conflict on Mt. Evans Jacob and Schreyer (1980) proposed 4 major classes of determinants that influence outdoor recreation conflict: 1) activity style, 2) tolerance for lifestyle diversity, 3) resource specificity, and 4) mode of experience. Activity style refers to the importance recreationists place on an activity. The more intense the activity style, the greater the likelihood contact with less intense participants will result in conflict. Hunting on Mt. Evans can be characterized as an intense activity style where participants attach significant meaning to the activity. An earlier report (Vaske, Wittmann, Laidlaw, & Donnelly, 1995), for example, found that hunters at Mt. Evans own, on average, 7.4 guns, have over $1,000 invested in hunting equipment (74), participate in hunting an average of 14.8 days per year, and consider themselves to be advanced or expert hunters (86) 1. In contrast, non-hunting activities on Mt. Evans (e.g., wildlife viewing) are often more casual events combined with other types of activities (e.g., picnicking, hiking, viewing the scenery). Eighty-four percent of the non-hunters visiting Mt. Evans said that they have only a general interest in wildlife viewing, take trips to see wildlife sporadically, and primarily enjoy wildlife when it is associated with other activities (Vaske, et al., 1995). Because the road to the summit provides convenient access to the mountain, wildlife can be easily observed while driving along the road, and therefore, attracts many occasional wildlife viewers. The activity style argument thus predicts that interactions between individuals engaged in an intense activity (e.g., hunting at Mt. Evans) and those participating in less intense activities (e.g., wildlife viewing at Mt. Evans) will lead to interpersonal conflicts. The probability of such encounters on Mt. Evans, however, has been minimized due to: 1) the natural topography which provides physical and visual barriers that spatially separate hunters from other recreational groups, and 2) agency (CDOW) regulations that prohibit hunting near the road where most non-hunters are found (Torres, 1994). This suggests that to the extent conflict exists between hunters and nonhunters, the problem may stem from conflicts in social values rather than interpersonal conflicts. The activity style argument of the interpersonal conflict model is therefore not likely to contribute to conflict here. Tolerance for lifestyle diversity represents a second factor influencing recreation conflict and occurs when individuals reject lifestyles different than their own (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Differences in lifestyles can be communicated via visual cues such as the equipment used by recreationists engaged in different activities (e.g., guns for hunting versus binoculars for wildlife viewing). Actual contact between hunters and non-hunters, however, is not essential for this type

4 4 of conflict to arise. As noted by Ivy, et al. (1992), intolerance of other groups may be the result of how an activity is stereotyped, independent of situational factors. Such stereotypes have been connected to the environmental dominance of a given activity (e.g., consumptive versus nonconsumptive). Non-hunters who perceive hunting as environmentally dominating may hold negative stereotypes about the activity and express conflict with hunting associated events independent of actually observing the activity. This suggests that non-hunters may be more likely to experience conflict in social values relative to hunting associated events. Resource specificity refers to the significance people attach to using a specific resource. Mountain goat and bighorn sheep hunters on Mt. Evans must apply for a once in a lifetime permit to hunt on the mountain. Over the past decade, the demand for hunting opportunities on Mt. Evans has far exceeded the number of available permits. Applicants must sometimes wait years before a permit can be obtained. If successfully acquired, the hunt at Mt. Evans has a special meaning to the individual. Eighty-eight percent of the hunters indicated that hunting at Mt. Evans is a moderately to extremely important reason for visiting the area (Vaske, et al., 1995). When a person who views the place s qualities as unequaled confronts behaviors indicating a lower evaluation, conflict may result. Such behaviors may involve non-hunting human / wildlife interactions (e.g., feeding and / or harassing wildlife), as well as hunting events (e.g., seeing hunters, hearing guns being fired, or seeing an animal being shot). Frequency of visitation provides one indicator of the importance visitors place on an area (Todd & Graefe, 1989; Watson, et al. 1994). First time visitors to an area have no experience on which to judge acceptable behavior. As visits to the area increase, individuals have more information on which to base their evaluations and therefore, may apply more specific and critical norms of behavior. This suggests that as frequency of visitation increases, the odds of observing and judging specific behaviors as inappropriate increases. Thus, the potential for interpersonal conflict increases with increased visitation. On the other hand, for individuals who fundamentally disagree with an activity (e.g., hunting, feeding or harassing wildlife), these conflicts in values should not vary with amount of visitation. Based on the earlier report (Vaske, et al., 1995), hunters had visited Mt. Evans an average of 29.3 times, compared to 7.9 average visits by nonhunters. Recent data indicate that as many as 250,000 people visit Mt. Evans between late May and early September when the road is open (Torres, 1994). This continued presence of people has desensitized many wildlife species on the mountain to human activity. Bighorn sheep, for example, will often approach visitors, expecting a handout. Signs posted by the managing agencies (e.g., USDA Forest Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife) at Mt. Evans indicate that feeding / harassing wildlife are inappropriate. More frequent visitors may be more aware of this norm than novices and consequently experience conflict when these behaviors occur. If inappropriate behavior is observed, the frequent visitor is more likely to express interpersonal conflict than the less frequent visitor. The final class of conflict determinants is modes of experiencing the environment, and is described as a continuum ranging from unfocused to focused. As the mode of experiencing the environment becomes more focused, an individual produces more rigid definitions of what constitutes acceptable stimuli and is increasingly intolerant of external stimulation (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980, p. 375). Those who perceive the environment as an integral part of their visit (e.g., those interested in the taking of a specific game species at a specific location), and not just as an incidental backdrop (e.g., occasional wildlife viewers) are more likely to experience conflict (Williams, 1993). On Mt. Evans, therefore, hunters as a group, may be more focused than the non-hunters. This paper examines the magnitude of interpersonal conflict and social value conflicts for 2 general classes of events on Mt. Evans: 1) hunting associated events and 2) non-hunting human /

5 5 wildlife interactions. Based on the theoretical reasoning proposed by Jacob and Schreyer (1980) and the specific conditions found at Mt. Evans, comparisons are made between hunters and nonhunters, and between frequent and infrequent visitors. Methods Data were obtained from surveys of Mt. Evans visitors, Mt. Evans hunters and residents living in the surrounding region. The Surveys Visitor surveys: The visitor surveys consisted of an on-site questionnaire and a follow-up mailed survey. The objective of the on-site survey was to gather information from individuals who use Mt. Evans (both hunters and non-hunters). The one-page survey included questions on respondents observations of specific hunting associated events and non-hunting human / wildlife interactions, and their perceptions of problem conditions on the mountain during any of their visits. Data were collected on a total of 11 randomly selected days between June and September, Although responses to the frequency of observed events and associated perceived problems were not limited to that specific visit, 4 of the sampling days occurred during hunting season to enhance the examination of potential interpersonal conflicts between hunters and non-hunters. Surveys were distributed by a team of interviewers to visitors at Echo Lake, Mt. Goliath Research Natural Area, and Summit Lake. An attempt was made to survey all visitors in the area during the data collection periods. Ninety-six percent of the visitors contacted (n = 986) completed the survey. Individuals who were willing to participate further (n = 600) were mailed a follow-up survey. A 12-page questionnaire was mailed to all 600 Mt. Evans visitors (both hunters and nonhunters) who had provided their names and addresses on the on-site survey. Three separate mailings were used, with a reminder postcard after the first mailing. Of the 600 surveys in the initial mailing, 13 were undeliverable due to incorrect address information. A total of 402 completed surveys were returned (response rate: 402/587 = 68). Of the respondents to the onsite survey, 59 individuals currently hunted on Mt. Evans. Hunter Survey: To increase the sample size of Mt. Evans hunters, the 12-page survey was also mailed to a sample of individuals who had applied for a sheep or goat permit between Mailing procedures paralleled those for the visitor mail survey. Of the 600 hunter surveys initially mailed, 569 were deliverable and 389 were returned (response rate = 389/569 or 68). Regional Resident Survey: Surveys were also mailed to individuals who reside in the Mt. Evans region (i.e., Adams, Clear Creek, Douglas, Gilpin, Jefferson, Park, Denver, and Arapahoe counties) to obtain a local perspective of problem conditions on the mountain. The sample of regional residents (n = 600) was randomly selected from local telephone directories. Of the 542 deliverable regional surveys, 200 were returned (response rate = 200/542 or 37). Combining the completed returns from all 3 samples resulted in a total sample of 991 individuals. Of these, 67 respondents from the regional survey had never visited Mt. Evans, either as a hunter or a non-hunter. Because this paper is concerned with conflict perceptions reported by Mt. Evans visitors, the 67 non-visitors were excluded from the analyses presented here. Variables Measured Independent Variables: Two independent variables were examined. First, respondents to all surveys were classified as either current hunters (n = 460), former hunters (n = 180), or nonhunters (n = 273). included those who currently hunt on Mt. Evans. Non-hunters were defined as those who have never hunted. Former hunters were individuals who had hunted

6 6 previously on Mt. Evans, but no longer participate in the activity anywhere. Although this latter category is of less theoretical interest, it was unclear whether this group would hold perceptions similar to the hunter or non-hunter groups. For the initial analyses, therefore, the 3 visitor types (i.e., current hunters, former hunters, non-hunters) were analyzed separately. Eleven individuals were excluded due to incomplete information. The second independent variable, frequency of visitation, was based on the total number of visits respondents had made to Mt. Evans. Initial analyses indicated that half of the respondents had made 4 or fewer visits. Recognizing that first time visitors may differ from those who visit more often, 3 categories of visitation were examined: 1) first time visitors (n = 250), 2) individuals who had made between 2 and 4 visits (n = 188), and 3) frequent visitors making 5 or more trips (n = 426). Sixty individuals were excluded from these analyses due to incomplete information. Dependent Variables: Perceived conflict was operationalized by combining the responses from 2 sets of questions regarding 6 events. In the first set of questions, individuals indicated how frequently each event had happened to them personally during all of their visits to Mt. Evans. The events included 3 non-hunting situations (seeing people feed wildlife, people disturbing / harassing wildlife, and dogs chasing wildlife), and 3 hunting associated incidences (seeing hunters, hearing guns being fired, and seeing an animal being shot). Response categories were never, once, twice, 3-5 times, and > 5 times. Because the distributions for these variables were skewed to the low end of the scale, responses were recoded as either observed (i.e., at least once) or did not observe the event (i.e., never saw the event on any of their visits). In the second set of questions used to construct the conflict variables, respondents evaluated the extent to which they perceived each of the 6 events to be a problem at Mt. Evans. Responses were initially coded on a 4-point scale, ranging from not a problem to extreme problem. For purposes of the analyses here, these variables were recoded into 2 categories ( no problem and problem ). Problem situations included slight, moderate, and extreme problems. Combining the frequency of occurrence (observed versus not observed) variables with the corresponding perceived problem (no problem versus problem) variables for each individual produced a series of new conflict indices; each with 3 possible attributes. Individuals who had either observed or did not observe a given event, yet did not perceive it to be a problem were considered a no conflict group (either in terms of interpersonal or social values conflicts). Those who had never seen a particular event at Mt. Evans, but believed a problem existed for that event were considered to be expressing a conflict in social values. Conversely, those who had witnessed a particular situation and believed that the event had caused a problem were judged to be indicating an interpersonal conflict. Initial Analyses Results As an initial step in the analysis, the 6 frequency of observation variables and the 6 perceived problem variables were examined separately for each of the 2 independent variables. With respect to the frequency of observed events at Mt. Evans, current hunters reported both hunting associated events and non-hunting human / wildlife interactions more often than either nonhunters or former hunters (Table 1). None of the non-hunters had seen an animal being shot on the mountain, 4 had seen someone hunting wildlife at Mt. Evans, and 6 had heard guns being fired (Table 1). The comparable percentages for the former hunters were 3, 10, and 15, respectively. About three quarters of the hunters had seen others hunting (75) or heard guns being fired (70), while 45 had seen an animal being shot.

7 7 Forty-three percent of the non-hunters and 51 of the former hunters had observed others feeding wildlife, compared to nearly two-thirds of the hunters (62). Less than a fifth of the nonhunters (18), a quarter of the former hunters (25) and over a third of the current hunters (37) had witnessed individuals disturbing / harassing wildlife. Dogs chasing wildlife was noted by 6 of the non-hunters, 8 of the former hunters and 21 of the current hunters. All comparisons between current hunters, former hunters, and non-hunters in Table 1 were statistically significant. As might be expected, individuals who had visited Mt. Evans more frequently had observed both hunting associated events and non-hunting human / wildlife interaction events more often than less frequent visitors (Table 1). All chi-squares for the frequency of visitation variable were significant at p <.001. Non-hunters and former hunters were more likely to perceive hunting associated events as problems when compared to the hunters (Table 2). Nearly a third (30) of both the non-hunters and former hunters considered guns being fired to be problematic. Over a quarter felt seeing hunters on Mt. Evans (27 - non-hunters; 26 - former hunters); and seeing animals being shot (27 - non-hunters; 28 - former hunters) were problems. The respective percentages for hunters were 13, 16, and 13. All 3 types of visitors (non-hunters, former hunters, and current hunters) were likely to judge the non-hunting human / wildlife interactions as more problematic than the hunting events. Nearly two-thirds of the non-hunters (60) and former hunters (62), and over three-quarters of the hunters (76) considered people feeding wildlife to be a problem. People disturbing wildlife was viewed negatively by over half of the non-hunters (53), 61 of the former hunters, and 70 of the hunters. A smaller percentage of all 3 groups (33 - non-hunters, 28 - former hunters, 43 - hunters) felt that dogs chasing wildlife was a problem. All comparisons among the 3 types of visitors in Table 2 were statistically significant. For hunting related events, individuals in the 3 levels of prior experience did not differ in their perceptions of problems at Mt. Evans (Table 2). About a fifth of each group perceived hunting related events to be problematic. Frequency of visitation, however, was statistically related to problems stemming from non-hunting human / wildlife interactions. As frequency of visitation increased, perceptions of problems also increased. Conflict evaluations were operationalized by combining each individual s responses to the questions in Tables 1 and 2. Table 4 shows the 3 categories of the conflict variables (i.e., no conflict, values conflict, and interpersonal conflict) for the 3 visitor types (i.e., current hunters, former hunters, and non-hunters) and the 3 levels of prior experience (i.e., 1st visit, 2-4 visits, and 5+ visits). Before proceeding with a discussion of the conflict findings, it is important to evaluate a potentially confounding issue. As defined here, the no conflict and social values conflict categories are conceptually pure. If people observe an event and do not consider it to be a problem, no conflict is apparent. Similarly, if people do not observe an event, but believe a problem situation exists, the type of conflict must stem from a conflict in social values. In contrast, the procedures used to operationalize interpersonal conflict, may produce results for which the source of conflict is less clear. People who see an event and judge the situation negatively, may be expressing an interpersonal conflict, a social values conflict, or a combination of both. As a partial test of this hypothesis, additional questions in the survey were used to compare 2 values oriented belief statements against the individuals in our constructed interpersonal conflict group. As shown in Table 3, a majority of all hunters (n = 53) who were categorized in the interpersonal conflict group agreed with the values statement: It is OK to see hunters in the field on Mt. Evans. For these individuals, the source of conflict is interpersonal conflict rather than conflict in values. For the 3 hunters, 4 former hunters, and 4 non-hunters who disagreed with this

8 8 statement, however, the conflict may stem from either interpersonal conflict or conflict in values (Table 3). When asked if hearing gunshots in the distance is disturbing, 5 hunters, 9 former hunters, and 8 non-hunters in the interpersonal conflict category agreed with the statement. For these individuals, our procedures do not provide a mechanism for sorting out the source of conflict. While the magnitude of this problem is not large for this sample, and suggests that further analysis of the conflict variables is appropriate, the findings highlight the need for alternative methods of operationalizing the distinction between interpersonal conflict and conflict in social values. The issue of operationalizing conflict is further addressed in the discussion section. Conflict Analyses At least 70 of the non-hunters and former hunters, and 85 of the current hunters were included in the no conflict category for hunting associated events (Table 4). These findings support the previously mentioned idea that the mountain s natural visual barriers and agency mandated zoning regulations have minimized the magnitude of interpersonal conflicts between hunters and non-hunters on Mt. Evans. Seven percent or less of the non-hunters and former hunters experienced these types of interpersonal conflicts, while 6 to 14 of the hunters noted these conflicts. To the extent conflict exists on Mt. Evans for hunting associated events, the conflict stems from differences in social values between the hunters and non-hunters / former hunters. About one quarter (22 to 28) of the non-hunters / former hunters expressed conflict in social values for the 3 hunting associated variables. These findings are consistent with the observations about Mt. Evans indicated earlier. Fewer respondents in all 3 visitor types, fell in the no conflict categories for non-hunting human / wildlife interactions. For example, 40 of the non-hunters, 39 of the former hunters, and 24 of the hunters considered people feeding wildlife to represent a no conflict situation. About a third of the non-hunters (35), former hunters (37) and current hunters (34) noted conflicts in values for people disturbing wildlife. Between 21 and 27 of the 3 groups evaluated dogs chasing wildlife and people feeding wildlife as a conflict in social values. Interpersonal conflicts were more pronounced for the current hunters than either nonhunters or former hunters for non-hunting human/wildlife interactions. Between 19 and 55 of the hunters, compared to between 5 and 39 of the non-hunters / former hunters reported interpersonal conflicts. For all 3 groups (34 - non-hunters, 39 - former hunters, 55 - current hunters), people feeding wildlife presented the most serious problem. All comparisons among the 3 visitor types in Table 4 were statistically significant. Interpersonal conflicts also increased as frequency of visitation increased (Table 4). For example, seeing people hunting increased from 2 for first time visitors to 13 for individuals who had visited 5 or more times. More dramatic increases were noted for people harassing wildlife (9 to 41) and people feeding wildlife (22 to 61). In terms of value conflicts associated with hunting events and non-hunting human / wildlife interactions, conflicts in social values were suggested earlier to remain constant across frequency of visitation. For all 3 of the hunting associated events and 1 of the human / wildlife interaction events (people feeding wildlife), conflicts in values actually decreased with increased visitation. Consistency in values across the 3 prior experience groups was found for people harassing wildlife and dogs chasing wildlife. At least 2 explanations can be offered to account for these latter findings. First, from a theoretical perspective, visitors who are bothered by hunting and inappropriate behaviors such as feeding wildlife, may no longer visit Mt. Evans. The higher percentage of first time visitors who expressed more conflicts in values than the frequent visitors may not return for subsequent visits.

9 9 Second, from an empirical perspective, hunters visited Mt. Evans more often than either nonhunters or former hunters. Over two-thirds of the current hunters (68) had made 5 or more visits compared to 28 of the non-hunters and 36 of the former hunters. Nearly half of the nonhunters (49) and 40 of the former hunters were on their first visit when they were interviewed; 11 of the hunters had made only one visit. For the hunting related events where the decline in value conflicts was most evident for individuals who visited more frequently, these findings suggest that a higher percentage of the current hunters in the more experienced category may account for this decline. In other words, the type of visitor (hunter versus non-hunter / former hunter) may interact with frequency of visitation. Tests for Interaction Effects To examine the interaction of visitor type and frequency of visitation on each of the 6 conflict evaluations, a series of hierarchical log-linear models were developed (Goodman, 1984; Bishop, Fienberg, & Holland, 1975). In these analyses, visitor type (hunter versus non-hunter [variable = H]) 2, frequency of visitation (1st visit, 2-4 visits, and 5+ visits [variable = V]) and each of the 3 levels (no conflict, interpersonal conflict, and conflict in values [variable = C]) for each conflict indicator were treated as independent variables. The dependent variable was the expected cell frequencies as a function of all the variables in the model. For each analysis, a saturated model containing the 3 main effects (i.e., H, V, C), the three 2-way interaction terms (i.e., HV, HC, VC) and the 3-way interaction (i.e., HVC) was initially fitted. To arrive at a best model for explaining the data, a backward elimination process was used (Benedetti & Brown, 1978). This procedure begins with all variables in the model and then removes those that do not meet the criteria for remaining in the equation. The criteria used for a variable s inclusion in the final model was the Likelihood Ratio (L 2 ) goodness of fit statistic. Small values of L 2 are associated with a good model. Table 5 presents the results for the 6 log-linear models, while Table 6 shows the corresponding percentages for the 3-way crosstabulations. For 5 of the 6 equations, the best model included all three 2-way interaction terms (Table 6). The model including seeing people hunting was best described using the 3-way interaction. In all cases, deleting the interaction terms resulted in a less satisfactory model. These findings support the suspected interaction between visitor type and frequency of visitation. Examination of the observed percentages from the 3-way crosstabulation further explains the lack of support for consistency in social value conflicts across visitation rates (Table 6). For example, when considering only the non-hunter evaluations of hunting associated events, conflict in values remains constant across the 3 levels of visitation. A similar pattern of consistency was evident for hunters, however, the percentage of hunters reporting a values conflict with hunting was substantially lower. Given the high percentage of hunters (68) in the 5+ visits category, it s not surprising that the overall percentages for values conflicts with hunting associated events in Table 4 decline across visitation rates when hunters and non-hunters are combined. For non-hunting human / wildlife interaction events, consistency in value conflicts was evident across visitation rates for both hunters and non-hunters for dogs chasing wildlife, and for hunters evaluations of people harassing wildlife (Table 6). Overall then, when hunters and nonhunters are examined separately, there is more consistency in social value conflicts across visitation rates. Declines in value conflicts across frequency of visitation, however, were still noted for non-hunters with regard to people harassing wildlife, and for both hunters and non-hunters for people feeding wildlife. Although not examined here, this may suggest that people who are disturbed by these inappropriate behaviors may no longer return to Mt. Evans.

10 10 Discussion Overall, data reported here support the initial speculations. Interpersonal conflicts between hunters and non-hunters on Mt. Evans appear to have been minimized due to the mountain s natural visual barriers and CDOW s regulations that prohibit hunting near the road where most non-hunters are found. To the extent that conflict exists with hunting associated events on Mt. Evans, much of the problem stems from differences in social values held by the non-hunting public (both non-hunters and former hunters). and more frequent visitors experienced more interpersonal conflicts than non-hunters and less frequent visitors. These findings support the theoretical argument that individuals who attach more significance to a resource are more likely to experience conflict. The analyses of visitor types initially compared current hunters, former hunters and nonhunters. Ancillary analyses indicated that the former hunters and non-hunters were statistically equivalent with respect to their evaluations of no conflict situations, interpersonal conflict and social values conflict. Since the former hunters were at one time current hunters, this suggests a possible change in how they value wildlife and their reasons for visiting wildlife areas. While not examined here, the rationale underlying such shifts in thinking is an important topic for future research. Conflicts in social values were suggested to remain constant across frequency of visitation. This speculation was based on the argument that a visitor s value orientation is independent of number of prior visits. Although the initial analyses resulted in only limited support for this prediction (Table 4), ancillary analyses examining the interaction between type of visitor (hunters versus non-hunters) and number of visits (1st visit, 2-4 visits, and 5+ visits) provided greater support for the original argument. For example, for the hunting associated events, consistency in value conflicts was evident for both hunters and non-hunters. The 2 groups, however, differed in the magnitude of such conflicts, with non-hunters expressing a higher degree of conflict. These findings have implications for both further empirical work and the practical management of conflict. The procedures used to differentiate interpersonal from social value conflicts can lead to potentially confounding results. People who observe an event and judge the situation to be a problem, may be expressing either an interpersonal conflict or a conflict in social values. Based on the limited manipulation check presented here, this conceptual issue was not a limitation for this study. To sort out this theoretical distinction in future investigations, a more direct approach of asking respondents to identify the source of their conflict is recommended. From a management perspective, 2 general strategies have been recognized for dealing with conflict: zoning and education. When the conflict stems from interpersonal conflict, zoning incompatible users into different locations of the resource is an effective strategy. The data reported here highlight the effectiveness of the current CDOW regulations. When the source of conflict is differences in values, however, zoning is not likely to be very effective. For hunting events at Mt. Evans, physically separating hunters from non-hunters will not resolve the conflict in social values expressed by the non-hunting group. Just knowing that people hunt in the area results in the perception of conflict. In this situation, education efforts designed to inform non-hunters about wildlife population management may be more effective. At the present time, the Colorado Division of Wildlife is actively taking steps to promote this type of education. The non-hunting human / wildlife interaction interpersonal conflicts noted in this study represent reactions to inappropriate behaviors (e.g., feeding or harassing wildlife) as opposed to differences in types of use. Because these behaviors are not managerially acceptable, zoning is not a viable option. Resolution of these conflicts will require a combination of efforts, including: increased law enforcement, expanded education programs, and the posting of signs.

11 11 Overall, this study is one of the first to empirically examine the theoretical distinction between interpersonal conflict and conflicts in social values. Because this distinction has direct managerial implications, it is recommended that future investigations clearly differentiate between these 2 sources of conflict. Footnote 1. The skill variable was measured on a 4-point scale: beginner, intermediate, advanced, and expert. The distribution for hunters on this variable was: 3, 11, 45, 41, respectively. 2. Ancillary analyses indicated that for each of the 6 conflict variables in Table 3, non-hunters and former hunters were statistically equivalent (χ 2 < 4.06, n.s., in all cases). For this reason, non-hunters and former hunters were combined into a single group for the log-linear models. Literature Cited Adelman, B. J., Heberlein, T. A., & Bonnicksen, T. M. (1982). Social psychological explanations for the persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences, 5, Benedetti, J. K., & Brown, M. B. (1978). Strategies for the selection of log-linear models. Biometrics, 34, Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., & Holland, P. M. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Bury, R. L., Holland, S. M., & McEwen, D. N. (1983). Analyzing recreational conflict: Understanding why conflict occurs is requisite to managing that conflict. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 38, Deblinger, R. D., Rimmer, D. W., Vaske, J. J., Vecellio, G., & Donnelly, M. P. (1993). Ecological benefits and hunter acceptance of a controlled deer hunt in coastal Massachusetts. Northeast Wildlife, 50, Devall, B., & Harry, J. (1981). Who hates whom in the great outdoors: The impacts of recreational specialization and technologies of play. Leisure Sciences, 4, Donnelly, M. P., & Vaske, J. J. (in press). Predicting attitudes toward a proposed moose hunt. Society and Natural Resources. Goodman, L. A. (1984). The analysis of cross-classified data having ordered categories. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Gramann, J. H., & Burdge, R. (1981). The effect of recreational goals on conflict perceptions: An evaluation and synthesis of research. Journal of Leisure Research, 13, Hammitt, W. E. (1989). A spectrum of conflict in outdoor recreation (pp ). In A. Watson (ed.,) Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the national outdoor recreation forum (Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-52). Asheville, SC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. Ivy, M. I., Stewart, W. P., & Lue, C. (1992). Exploring the role of tolerance in recreational conflict. Journal of Leisure Research, 24, Jackson, E. L., & Wong, R. (1982). Perceived conflict between urban cross-country skiers and snowmobilers in Alberta. Journal of Leisure Research, 14, Jacob, G. R., & Schreyer R. (1980). Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 12,

12 12 Knopp, T. B., & Tyger, J. D. (1973). A study of conflict in recreational land use: Snowmobiling versus ski touring. Journal of Leisure Research, 5, Kuss, F. R., Graefe, A. R., & Vaske, J. J. (1990). Visitor Impact Management: A Review of Research. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. 256 pp. Lime, D. W. (1975). Backcountry River Recreation: problems and opportunities. Naturalist, 26, 1-6. Little, W., & Noe, F. P. (1984). A highly condensed description of the thought process used in the developing visitor research in southeast parks. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office. 40 pp. Lucas, R. C. (1964a). The recreational capacity of the Quetico-Superior Area. (Res. Pap. LS- 15). St. Paul, Minnesota: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lake States Forest Experiment Station. Lucas, R. C. (1964b). Wilderness perception and use: The example of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Natural Resources Journal, 3, Manfredo, M. J., Vaske, J. J., & Decker, D. J. (1995). Human dimensions of wildlife management: Basic concepts (pp ). In R. Knight & K. Gutzwiller (Eds.), Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. Washington, DC: Island Press. McCay, R., & Moeller, G. (1976). Compatibility of Ohio trail users. (Res. Note NE-225). Upper Darby, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. McShea, W. J., Wemmer, C., & Stuwe, M. (1993). Conflict of interests: A public hunt at National Zoo s Conservation and Research Center. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21, Nielsen, J. M., & Shelby, B. (1977). River running in the Grand Canyon: How much and what kind of use (pp ). In Proceedings: River Recreation Management and Research Symposium (Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-28). St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service. Noe, F. P., Wellman, J. D., & Buhyoff, G. (1982). Perceptions of conflict between off-road vehicle and non off-road vehicle users in a leisure setting. Journal of Environmental Systems, 11, Owens, P. L. (1985). Conflict as a social interaction process in environmental and behavior research: The example of leisure and recreation research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, Ruddell, E. J., & Gramann, J. H. (1994). Goal orientation, norms, and noise-induced conflict among recreation area users. Leisure Sciences, 16, Saremba, J., & Gill, A. (1991). Value conflicts in mountain park settings. Annals of Tourism Research, 18, Schreyer, R., & Nielsen, M. L. (1978). Westwater and Desolation Canyons: Whitewater river recreation. Institute for the Study of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. Logan, Utah: Utah State University. Shelby, B. (1980). Contrasting recreational experiences: Motors and oars in the Grand Canyon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 35,

13 13 Stankey, G. H. (1973). Visitor perception of wilderness recreation carrying capacity. (Res. Pap. INT-142). Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Todd, S. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1989). Level of experience and perception of conflict among canoeists on the Delaware River (pp ). In Proceedings of the 1989 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. (Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-132). Burlington, VT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Torres, J. (ed.). (1994). An analysis of Mount Evans wildlife-associated recreation. Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Wildlife. Vaske, J. J., Wittmann, K., Laidlaw, S., & Donnelly, M. P. (1995). Human-Wildlife Interactions on Mt. Evans. Project Rep. for the Colo. Div. of Wildlife. Human Dimensions in Nat. Res. Unit Rep. No. 18, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins. 56 pp. Watson, A. E., Niccolucci, M. J., & Williams, D. R. (1994). The nature of conflict between hikers and recreational stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, Watson, A. E., Williams, D. R., & Daigle, J. J. (1991). Sources of conflict between hikers and mountain bike riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9, Williams, D. R. (1993). Conflict in the great outdoors. Parks and Recreation, September, 28-34, 122.

14 Table 1. Observed frequency of events on Mt. Evans Type of Visitor Frequency of Visitation Event Non- (n = 273) Former (n = 180) Current (n = 460) χ 2 1st visit (n = 250) 2-4 visits (n = 188) 5+ visits (n = 426) χ 2 Hunting Associated Events Seen an animal being shot Seeing people hunting Hearing guns being fired Human / Wildlife Interaction Dogs chasing wildlife People disturbing / harassing wildlife People feeding wildlife Cell entries represent the percent of individuals who observed the event at least once during any of their visits to Mt. Evans. All chi-squares are significant at p <.001.

15 Table 2. Perceived problems on Mt. Evans Type of Visitor Frequency of Visitation Event Non- (n = 273) Former (n = 180) Current (n = 460) χ 2 1st visit (n = 250) 2-4 visits (n = 188) 5+ visits (n = 426) χ 2 Hunting Associated Events Seen an animal being shot n.s. Seeing people hunting n.s. Hearing guns being fired n.s. Human / Wildlife Interaction Dogs chasing wildlife People disturbing / harassing wildlife People feeding wildlife Cell entries represent the percent of individuals who perceived the situation to be a slight, moderate, or extreme problem on Mt. Evans. Unless otherwise indicated, chi-squares are significant at p <.001.

16 Table 3. Manipulation check for hunting event conflict variables Conflict Variable: Seeing People Hunting Non- Former Current Social values Conflict Interpersonal Conflict Social values Conflict Interpersonal Conflict Social values Conflict Interpersonal Conflict It s OK to see hunters in the field on Mt. Evans Disagree Neutral Agree Hearing gunshots in the distance is disturbing Conflict Variable: Hearing Guns Being Fired Disagree Neutral Agree Cell entries are numbers of respondents.

17 Table 4. Perceived conflicts on Mt. Evans Type of Visitor Frequency of Visitation Event Non- (n = 273) Former (n = 180) Current (n = 460) χ 2 1st visit (n = 250) 2-4 visits (n = 188) 5+ visits (n = 426) χ 2 Hunting Associated Events Seeing an animal being shot No conflict Social values conflict Interpersonal conflict Seeing people hunting No conflict Social values conflict Interpersonal conflict Hearing guns being fired No conflict Social values conflict Interpersonal conflict Human / Wildlife Interaction Dogs chasing wildlife No conflict Social values conflict Interpersonal conflict People disturbing/harassing wildlife No conflict Social values conflict Interpersonal conflict People feeding wildlife No conflict Social values conflict Interpersonal conflict All chi-squares are significant at p <.001