WPC 2BJZCourier#|Vx6X@KX@IBM 4039 Lexmark Network PS LaserI4LASEPS.PRSx  @hhhhYX@"m^ANoϨANN[ANAANN䨨A¨ܜNANANAAAϏ[Nu[A[NANN'NNNNNNNNNNAϨAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAܨ[[[NNNܶuuuA[NNRANVUÂNN8uuNNAuN"m^4>Xhh4>>Im4>44hhhhhhhhhh>>mmmr}r4hr}}r}}}r>4>mh4hrhrh>rr44h4rrrrIh>rhhh]I4Im>4>>>>>>>>>>>>r4hhhhhh}h}h}h}h44444444rrrrrrrrr}hhrrr}hr}rhhhhhhhr}h}h}h}hrrrrrrrr44444444hhr4r4r4r4r4rrrrrrIII}h}h}h}hr>r>r>rrrrrr}hr]r]r]rr4rI}hr>}h}hrrrNA4hh>rhhhhhEDh>h>,]]h>>hhrr4]> 2t}#|V"m^''2NN|]//6R'/''NNNNNNNNNN''RRRN]]ee]Vme'F]Nuem]me]Ve]]]V'''BNNNFNN'NNFuNNNN/F'NFeFFF/$/R/'////////////V']N]N]N]N]N|eF]N]N]N]N''''''''eNmNmNmNmNeNeNeNeN]F]NeNmVmN]FeN]N]N]N]NeFeFeFeFeN]N]N]N]NmNmNmNmNmNmNeNeN'''''''F]FNNNNNeNeNeNeNmNmNe/e/e/]F]F]F]FV'V'V'eNeNeNeNeNeNe]FVFVFVFeNNeNe/]FV']F]FeNmNeNN1'KN/VNNNNN43uuN/ggNu///N//NNFF//BibliogrphyBibliography :hh# 2&2 i "m^88Goo,CCNu8C88oooooooooo88uuuo˅z8dozz888^o,oodoo8oo,,d,ooooCd8oddddC4CuC8CC!CCCCCCCCCCz8oooooȲdoooo88888888ooooooooodoozodoooooddddooooooooooooo88888,88ddo,o,o,o,o,ooooooȽCCCddddz8z8z8oooooodzdzdzdoo,oCdz8ddoooNF8koCzoooooJIoCoC&CCoCCoodd,CC"m^**5SSd!22:X*2**SSSSSSSSSS**XXXSddlld\ul*KdS}luduld\lddd\***FS!SSKSS*SS!!K!}SSSS2K*SKlKKK2'2X2*222222222222\*dSdSdSdSdSlKdSdSdSdS********lSuSuSuSuSlSlSlSlSdKdSlSu\uSdKlSdSdSdSdSlKlKlKlKlSdSdSdSdSuSuSuSuSuSuSlSlS*****!**KdKS!S!S!S!S!lSlSlSlSuSuSl2l2l2dKdKdKdK\*\*\*lSlSlSlSlSlSldK\K\K\KlSS!lSl2dK\*dKdKlSuSlSN5*QS2\SSSSS87}}S2ooS}222S22SSKK!22"m^ '7AAhT ''-D ' AAAAAAAAAA''DDDGrTTTTNG[T ATGaT[N[TNGTNnNNG' 'DA AGAGA'GG A hGGGG-A'GA[AA:-!-D' ''u''''''''''G TATATATATAuhTANANANANA TG[G[G[G[GTGTGTGTGNATATG[G[GNATGNGTATATATATATATATGNANANANA[G[G[G[G[G[GTGTG ATAG G G G G TGTGTGTG[G[GunT-T-T-NANANANAG'G'G'TGTGTGTGTGTGn[NAG:G:G:TGG TGT-NAG'NANATG[GTGN) AA'GAAAAA++aaA'VVAa'::Au''AAuGGu :u'"m^,5LYYt,55>],5,,YYYYYYYYYY55]]]bttttkb|t,Ytbt|k|tkbtkkkb5,5]Y,YbYbY5bb,,Y,bbbb>Y5bY|YYP>->]5,555555555555b,tYtYtYtYtYtYkYkYkYkY,,,,,,,,tb|b|b|b|btbtbtbtbkYtYtb|b|bkYtbkbtYtYtYtYtYtYtYtbkYkYkYkY|b|b|b|b|b|btbtb,,,,,,,,YtYb,b,b,b,b,tbtbtbtb|b|bt>t>t>kYkYkYkYb5b5b5tbtbtbtbtbtb|kYbPbPbPtbb,tbt>kYb5kYkYtb|btbN8,YY5bYYYYY;:Y5vvY5&PPY55YYbb,P52 X ZZE}IBM 4039 Lexmark Network PS LaserI4LASEPS.PRSo\  PChhhhYXPUSUK  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:@  U Table 1  Table 1  U 1  1  1  1  3'3'Standard6&A46&A4LaserI4LASEPS.PRSo\ } "m^;Geww;GGS};G;;wwwwwwwwwwGG}}}К;wɎG;G}w;wwwG;;w;SwGwwwkSd<d<$YYdCCddooCYd<d<+oodCCddddCo<чnn8!BBnnnyyP7c1RyyXyycnnnѐ~nyRzczXzcyhCBnndhcnnonvyXzXshn~XyBBnss~|y~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~XXXXXXXyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyBBBBBBBBBBBBnnnnnnnsssssssssssszCCn"m^ANoϨANN[ANAANN䨨A¨ܜNANANAAAϏ[Nu[A[NANN'NNNNNNNNNNAϨAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAܨ[[[NNNܶuuuA[NNRANVUÂNN8uuNNAuN"m^4>Xhh4>>Im4>44hhhhhhhhhh>>mmmr}r4hr}}r}}}r>4>mh4hrhrh>rr44h4rrrrIh>rhhh]I4Im>4>>>>>>>>>>>>r4hhhhhh}h}h}h}h44444444rrrrrrrrr}hhrrr}hr}rhhhhhhhr}h}h}h}hrrrrrrrr44444444hhr4r4r4r4r4rrrrrrIII}h}h}h}hr>r>r>rrrrrr}hr]r]r]rr4rI}hr>}h}hrrrNA4hh>rhhhhhEDh>h>,]]h>>hhrr4]>26 * cZ, c/c 3"m^8C_oo8CCNu8C88ooooooooooCCuuuzÐz8ozzzC8Cuo8ozozoCzz88o8zzzzNoCzooodN8NuC8CC!CCCCCCCCCCz8oooooȲooooo88888888zzzzzzzzzoozzzozzooooooozoooozzzzzzzz88888888ooz8z8z8z8z8zzzzzzȽNNNoooozCzCzCzzzzzzozdzdzdzz8zNozCoozzzNF8ooCzoooooJIoCoC0ddoCCoozz8dC"m^(5APP|555PZ(5(,PPPPPPPPPP,,ZZZGtkktbYtt5>tbttYtkYbttttb5,5KP5GPGPG5PP,,P,|PPPP5>,PPtPPGM MW5(555555555555P,tGtGtGtGtGkkGbGbGbGbG5,5,5,5,tPtPtPtPtPtPtPtPtPtPtGtPtPtPtPtPYPtGtGtGkGkGkGkGtPbGbGbGbGtPtPtPtPtPtPtPtP5,5,5,5,>tPb,b,b,b,b,tPtPtPtPtPtPtk5k5k5Y>Y>Y>Y>b,b,b,tPtPtPtPtPtPttPbGbGbGtPb,tPk5Y>b,tPtPtPtPtPN8(HP5GPPPPP,2xxP0zzPx0GGP55PPYY5G0ZZXXr,Z55XXXr{rrZ``@Z,rO(Bn``{rrrrF{{{``iOXXXrrrtekX`BbObFbOt`wS55tXnXPtSgOtX{XYX_`FbFn\zStXn{neF`55X\\nec`reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeFFFFFFF````````````````````555555555555XXXXXXX\\\\\\\\\\\\nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnntbt5tn{5nX"m^2CRddCCCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCtkktbYtt5>tbttYtkYbttttb`(`lC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCd8YYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddodYYYYYYYdzYzYzYzYddddddddC8C8C8C8Ndz8z8z8z8z8ddddddCCCoNoNoNoNz8z8z8dddddddzYzYzYdz8dCoNz8dddddNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<$YYdCCddooCYApAk$B"m^*2GSSl*22:X*2**SSSSSSSSSS22XXX\lllld\ul*Sl\}luduld\lddd\2*2XS*S\S\S2\\**S*\\\\:S2\SuSSK:*:X2*222222222222\*lSlSlSlSlSlSdSdSdSdS********l\u\u\u\u\l\l\l\l\dSlSl\u\u\dSl\d\lSlSlSlSlSlSlSl\dSdSdSdSu\u\u\u\u\u\l\l\********SlS\*\*\*\*\*l\l\l\l\u\u\l:l:l:dSdSdSdS\2\2\2l\l\l\l\l\l\udS\K\K\Kl\\*l\l:dS\2dSdSl\u\l\N5*SS2\SSSSS87}}S2ooS}2$KKS22SS\\*K2a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2DkB,CvCGDa5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style StyleB b  ?  1.  2I  EEvF3Ha1DocumentgDocument Style Style Xqq   l ^) I. ׃  Times RomanHelvetica BoldTimes Roman ItalicHelvetica Bold ObliqueTimes Roman BoldTimes Roman Bold ItalicHelveticaHelvetica Oblique"m^88Goo,CCNu8C88oooooooooo88uuuo˅z8dozz888^o,oodoo8oo,,d,ooooCd8oddddC4CuC8CC!CCCCCCCCCCz8oooooȲdoooo88888888ooooooooodoozodoooooddddooooooooooooo88888,88ddo,o,o,o,o,ooooooȽCCCddddz8z8z8oooooodzdzdzdoo,oCdz8ddoooNF8koCzoooooJIoCoC&CCoCCoodd,CC"m^**5SSd!22:X*2**SSSSSSSSSS**XXXSddlld\ul*KdS}luduld\lddd\***FS!SSKSS*SS!!K!}SSSS2K*SKlKKK2'2X2*222222222222\*dSdSdSdSdSlKdSdSdSdS********lSuSuSuSuSlSlSlSlSdKdSlSu\uSdKlSdSdSdSdSlKlKlKlKlSdSdSdSdSuSuSuSuSuSuSlSlS*****!**KdKS!S!S!S!S!lSlSlSlSuSuSl2l2l2dKdKdKdK\*\*\*lSlSlSlSlSlSldK\K\K\KlSS!lSl2dK\*dKdKlSuSlSN5*QS2\SSSSS87}}S2ooS}222S22SSKK!222L "J J _K  La1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers :`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2"PLMyNIOa5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2STPTQQbRTech InitInitialise Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2UBSSTQUa3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2~] VV/Z[a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paperP@n   $] X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:4 Ip2p}wC0i6NA 92p}wCzt,Y5( gY\  PCP j7oC2+o\  PCXP k/xC8 i:x2p}wCX /xC8.&:x2x4vCXn7tC2E?t4  p(ACXt6pC2Vkp9 xICXDXC' nTMC2PkC^Pz&`5,  )`2p}wC /xC8 i:x2p}wCX YF'  MF2p}wC^Doq%V2*n䡬V2PkCPps#Z2* -Z2p}wCqq%V2*x=V2x(CXDl1sC8nX:s2PkCXPm1sC8xn:s2x(CXXzhW!C(kSAC\  PChPDj"Q/'n<Q2PkCPk!T/' #T2p}wC6NA.w2x4vC2j xphzzb7oC2+o\  PCXP dNo] 2p}wCe>YJ  2p}wC 1G; `2p}wCf>YJ  2p}wC 4 g5nC2Ӯn*f9 xCXXc6NA 92p}wC,p>4 Ip2p}wC0i6NA 92p}wCzt,Y5( gY\  PCP j7oC2+o\  PCXP k/xC8 i:x2p}wCX /xC8.&:x2x4vCXn7tC2E?t4  p(ACXt6pC2Vkp9 xICXDXC' nTMC2PkC^Pz&`5,  )`2p}wC /xC8 i:x2p}wCX YF'  MF2p}wC^Doq%V2*n䡬V2PkCPps#Z2* -Z2p}wCqq%V2*x=V2x(CXDl1sC8nX:s2PkCXPm1sC8xn:s2x(CXXzhW!C(kSAC\  PChPDj"Q/'n<Q2PkCPk!T/' #T2p}wC6NA.w2x4vC,p>4.(p2x4vC06NA.w2x4vC~FBip-bN= &6Standard4UUUUUUUUUUUUUX@C.MM#2PP#Low Specialisation MP Low SpecialisationMOsOsSFSFOOjRUN l!MM#2PP#Day Hikers, Overnighters, Weekenders MP *$ Day Hikers, Overnighters, Weekenders  s sFF  bJM ,MM#2PP#On trail hikers, backpackers MP " 3On trail hikers, backpackerslTW   MM#2PP#Off trail distance hikers, backpackers MP ,&[ Off trail distance hikers, backpackersI/4 e) fMM#2PP#  \MP   [BF0,@-MM#2PP# High specialisation MP  High specialisationp-bN= &6Standard 4UUUUUUUUUUUUUH 3r(sMM#2PP#^./^^/./^^^<7?HE 3o~ ~$ o - E ^< &p"! !/ p)4"^ ]"u u p)Z1N69MM#2PP#Conflict MP 7^ConflictL 7"r-  #2P P# G 2J*,,#62PP#^FIq#62PP#(incompatible situation) f|P ^(incompatible situation)G 2 #62PP#O7:0a 1MM#62PP#Attitudes MP  Attitudes\CG\  #62P P#(Tensions/ hostility) l P (Tensions/ hostility)O7:^!*'+MM#62PP#Behaviour MP  !Behaviour\DG0B)  #62P P#(violence/ aggression) u P (violence/ aggression)head2  W #2p}wC9#2.4.3 Criticisms of Past Researchj0head2#o\  PC+XP#  X The approaches of Bury et al. (1983), and Devall and Harry provide simple frameworks for predicting when changes in recreational settings are likely to develop into conflict. These explanations focus directly on situational factors without looking at the interpretations and perceptions of the recreationists concerned. They do not explain why recreationists might be tolerant of others in one situation, but intolerant in others. For example, public roads are places where people drive cars, ride bikes and walk (to name a few), and yet conflict, although present, does not escalate there. Neither do they provide reliable methods for prediction, mainly because the frameworks require managers to estimate the technological dependence or the impact of activities. For activities that are very different, these are useful scales, however there could be some argument over the ranking of some of the activities in BURY GRIDFigure 2. For example, fishers may not agree that they are more dependent on technology than canoeists and participants in strenuous hiking may not agree that they are out to dominate the environment. Additionally, there is no explanation of conflict between groups such as fishers and  XY canoeists, who are close on the continuum of dependence on technology. Hammitt (1988) and Owens (1985) attribute this deficiency to an imperfect understanding of the socialpsychological processes involved. Researchers have not established a causal link between dependence on technology and conflict, so research findings in one setting cannot be generalised to another. For example, research on snowmobilers and crosscountry skiers is of limited value in understanding conflict between fishers and canoeists (Owens, 1985). Problems of noise and speed that are important factors in the case of snowmobilers and crosscountry skiers (Butler, 1982; 1974), are obviously not major factors in the case of fishers and canoeists. head2  W* #2p}wC9#2.4.4 Section Summary j0head2#o\  PC+XP#*Z0..ԌMuch research into recreational conflict has focused on objective situational factors because these are perceived to be aspects of conflict that are within the ambit of management. Managers are required to provide settings in which recreationists achieve desired experiences (Stankey and Wood, 1982; Driver, Brown, Stankey and Gregoire, 1987). While an understanding of the recreation experience is considered useful for recreation planning, it appears that in much conflict research, researchers have ignored  X the role of actors' experiences. This focus resulted from a solution finding approach (Hammitt, 1988; Owens, 1985). Jacob and Schreyer (1980) have remedied this problem, by offering a theoretical perspective specifically for conflict in recreation. #0chead1  _ #2p}wC #2.5 Conflict as Goal Interference#0[head1#o\  PC+XP# Jacob and Schreyer (1980) define recreational conflict simply as;  Vg !bquotesgoal interference attributed to another's behaviour,!'quotes" which fits well with findings earlier in this chapter, that recreation is goal directed behaviour. Thus, recreational conflict develops when groups with incompatible goals come into contact. This explanation of conflict is useful in understanding how canoeists, wanting to meet and talk to people, might prevent fishers from satisfying their recreational goals of finding peace and quiet, and spending time alone (Driver and Basset, 1975). Similarly, horseback riders can impinge on the wilderness experience of bushwalkers (Vollbon, 1990; Cubit, 1990). Jacob and Schreyer (1980) expand on this basic concept suggesting that recreational conflict is affected by four factors: activity style; environmental relation; mode of experience; and lifestyle diversity. head2  W' #2p}wC9#2.5.1 Activity Stylej0head2#o\  PC+XP# Activities have different meanings for different people and individuals can feel that certain behaviours are unsuitable in a particular activity. For example, some trampers feel that it is inappropriate to tramp with large, noisy groups, so meeting with such-Z0.. groups may anger an individual with those beliefs. Bryan (1979) proposes the term  X specialisation to explain the way individuals change their activity style as their experience increases. khead3  P #:x2p}wC iX#2.5.1.1 Specialisation Theory@head3# o\  PC+XP# !"j~}S p-bddSPECIAL.WPG ,G X Ԏ: Tramper/ Hiker Specialisation (From Bryan, 1979:66) SPECIALISATIONBryan (1977) suggests that differences in experience and commitment to a recreational activity can cause conflict. He developed this idea from looking at the change in fishing style that trout fishers noted throughout the length of their participation. Bryan found  Xb that fishers move from being occasional fishers through generalists; technique specialists  X  to techniquesetting specialists. The more specialised an individual, the more specific their requirements for a high quality recreational experience. Thus, a specialised fly  XS $""S""!"$fisher will be looking for more specific environmental conditions than a more generalised fisher. Bryan (1979) then extends this idea to activities such as photography, bird watching and tramping. Specialised trampers go on longer trips, explore wild areas off00-Z0..}",S !0 the beaten track and seek solitude. Bryan s (1979:66) suggested progression from novice through to specialist for tramping is given in SPECIALISATIONFigure 3. Individual identification with the chosen activity increases with specialisation, thus, individuals can gain status from their specialist activity. Jacob and Schreyer (1980) call this the intensity of activity style and note that mass participation threatens personal identification, by decreasing the value of the experience. If other participants behave inappropriately or show that they do not recognise this status, the individual can feel their identity and status are threatened. Thus, if the activity is a central life interest, conflict is more likely to develop. head2  WG #2p}wC9#2.5.2 Environmental Relationj0head2#o\  PC+XP# When human beings interact with places, they become emotionally or personally attached to them. Individuals can feel they belong to a place, or they might feel they have inside knowledge of that place. This detailed knowledge may result in the desire to have a say in how the area is to be managed (Schreyer, 1990). A detailed knowledge of an area may also give it an identity of its own, thus the place itself is seen to deserve respect.  XU Recreationists who behave inappropriately are seen to lack respect for the specialness of the place in question. khead3  P #:x2p}wC iX#2.5.2.1 Sense of PlaceO"@head3# o\  PC+XP# In many respects, this idea underlies much of the literature on sense of place. Perkins (1988:62) writes;  Vq$ !bquotesSpace and landscape features are considered to become meaningful and made into  VZ% places as a result of individual human activity associated with them.#!'quotes" A space, therefore, becomes a place interpreted by individuals, according to their past experience, both of the space and of the interpretations of the social group with which they share the space. In this way, people build up their expectations of the types of behaviour that occur in different places. Also, a place can mean different things to different groups who, for example, use the same space at different times of the day, week-Z0.. or year. Consider a community centre which is the venue for a market place on Saturday mornings; for bowls on Saturday night; for a social gathering of local women on Wednesday mornings; and for badminton on Thursday nights. Each group sees the community centre differently, and some individuals attach more than one meaning to the place, depending on their knowledge of the different activities that go on there. The same place has many different, socially constructed meanings, all of which are behaviour settings. Conflict is likely to occur if the bowling group try to shift their activities to a Thursday night when the badminton group are expecting to use the centre. The rules of the Thursday night behaviour setting will have broken down. In comparison, conflict between the users of the public road, mentioned earlier, does not escalate because they expect to meet each other there and to share that setting with other groups. In this situation, a range of road users is entirely appropriate, mainly because individuals have similar perceptions about the public road behaviour setting. If a group of walkers decided to walk down the middle of the road without moving aside for passing cars or bikes, however, it is very likely that conflict would develop. khead3  P #:x2p}wC iX#2.5.2.2 Place Attachment+@head3# o\  PC+XP# The meaning of place is bound up in more than just behaviour. In many outdoor recreation settings people can develop strong emotional attachment to places and inappropriate behaviour may be seen as disrespect or disregard for the value of the place (Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck and Watson, 1992). People, who have spent much time in a place, develop these attachments more strongly than those who visit  X$ infrequently. Moore and Graefe (1994) found two aspects in place attachment place  X& dependence and place identity. The first aspect centres on the activity and is largely functional in nature, while the second is more affective and seems to take longer to emerge. Thus, affective place identity requires experience in the place to develop (Moore and Graefe, 1994). "-Z0..ԌEyles (1985) and Sutton (1992) discuss the different senses of place that individuals  X exhibit. Sense of place is derived from the totality of an individual's life (Eyles, 1985:2) and includes aspects of many different senses of place. Sutton, in his study of Kapiti Island, found that people see the island in many different ways, for example historical, ecological, conservation, activity, neighbourhood, regional, cultural and legendary senses of place. Additionally these components may contribute to an individual's overall sense of place. Relationships with the environment are closely linked with activity style (Bryan, 1979). A person's sense of what is an appropriate way to participate in an activity, and what is appropriate behaviour in a particular place, will overlap because outdoor recreation depends heavily on the setting in which it occurs. khead3  P #:x2p}wC iX#2.5.2.3 Behaviour Settingsc3@head3# o\  PC+XP# Owens (1985) considers that conflict results when the rules of a behaviour setting break down. Behaviour settings are defined and limited by expected and accepted behaviours that give social meaning to a setting. A teenager behaves differently at home with her family than when out with friends at a party. Behaviours, that are normal in one setting, may not be acceptable or appropriate in another. Consider the rock climber, admired when climbing on a climbing wall but arrested for climbing on a public building. khead3  P #:x2p}wC iX#2.5.2.4 Scripts\6@head3# o\  PC+XP# The behaviour setting concept is similar to the social psychological concept of a script.  X5$ According to Worchel et al.(1991:52);  W% !bquotesa script is our knowledge of a particular situation and the way events in that  V& situation unfold.7!'quotes"  Xi( Pryor and Ostrom (1987:149) define a script as a schematic structure where schemata determine what a perceiver will attend to (sic) and deem important in social experience  X+ and what he/she will ignore and deem irrelevant. If a script is not followed in a recreation setting, and the deviation cannot be ignored, then there will be a loss ofZ-Z0.. equilibrium and, possibly, the development of conflict. Scripts are a form of expectation, so they are important in determining the satisfaction recreationists get from participation in their chosen activity. khead3  P #:x2p}wC iX#2.5.2.5 Schemes of OrderJ;@head3# o\  PC+XP#  Xu Lee (1972) uses the term scheme of order to describe a similar thing. Each culture or subculture has its own scheme of order associated with outdoor spaces. These prescribe acceptable behaviour and control unacceptable behaviour, making the place comfortable for members of the group that share it. Lee (1972:82) suggests that;  V !bquotes... individuals seek outdoor areas where they may share a scheme of order with others similar enough to themselves to be able to take for granted many everyday  V normative constraints.=!'quotes" These normative constraints remain at a very low level of awareness during leisure behaviour, which creates a high level of psychological comfort or relaxation. In comparison, unfamiliar places for which individuals have no scheme of order tend to  Xc engender fear and discomfort (ibid.). khead3  P #:x2p}wC iX#2.5.2.6 Familiarity$@@head3# o\  PC+XP# That individuals go into outdoor leisure settings with the specific aim of escaping from the pressures in everyday city life (which at the present time are perceived to include large and rapid changes), indicates that recreationists are looking for some level of  X constancy or familiarity. The idea of back to nature implies a return to something that is familiar and relatively unchanging and, in some measure, comfortable. Similarly, settings that fulfil expectations are more comfortable than those in which individuals find unexpected, and undesired conditions. When an individual is faced with a breakdown in a behaviour setting, or script, they act to restore equilibrium through a number of coping behaviours (Owens, 1985). In recreation, one commonly used coping strategy is to change the setting in which one recreates either spatially or temporally (Schreyer, 1990; Manning, 1986; Anderson and,Z0..  X Brown, 1984). These coping strategies are the basis of the further up the valley  X syndrome outlined in the introduction (Devlin and O'Connor, 1988). Owens (1985) suggests that recreational conflict arises when the initial coping behaviours either do not restore equilibrium, or are not available, as would be the case when a resource is scarce. head2  W #2p}wC9#2.5.3 Mode of ExperiencePFj0head2#o\  PC+XP# Recreationists interact with the environment in different ways. Jacob and Schreyer  XE (1980) distinguish between a setting focus and an activity focus. People with a setting focus notice the small things in the setting, for example, the plants the birds and the smells. In comparison, someone with an activity focus experiences the environment as a backdrop for their activity. There are some obvious links with place dependence and place identity here. People with an activity focus are more likely to be place dependent where people with a setting focus are likely to identify emotionally with the place. Jacob and Schreyer (1980) predict that those with an activity focus are more likely to be disruptive of those with a setting focus. People with a setting focus are also more likely to notice evidence of inappropriate behaviour and have strong feelings about conservation, particularly in the recreation setting. Ruddell and Gramann (1994) extend this idea further, suggesting that some recreational goals may be more vulnerable to interference from the behaviour of other recreationists. People looking for peace and quiet may be more easily thwarted in their attempts to find it than those looking for a chance to meet others. If groups of recreationists have different sets of goals, it seems likely that some groups are more likely to be vulnerable to goal interference, and hence conflict, than others. This idea then could be used in  Xb- conjunction with the ideas of Bury et al. (1983). Groups that are less dependent onb- Z0.. technology may have recreational goals that are more vulnerable to interference than those who are more dependent on technology. head2  W/ #2p}wC9#2.5.4 Tolerance of Lifestyle DiversityNj0head2#o\  PC+XP# The values, behaviour or even presence of another subgroup may be seen as inappropriate in a recreation setting (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980), thus recreational conflict is greater where there is less tolerance of user groups different from one's own. Ivy, Stewart and Lue (1992) found that an individual's willingness to share a resource with other groups helped explain variation in conflict perception. Expectations are seen to have an important role in increasing recreationists' tolerances for other user groups. However, it is difficult to say whether the degree of an individual's tolerance is a cause or an effect of past experience in meeting other, specific user groups. Tolerance might decrease, for example, when people persistently come in contact with a particular group that negatively affect their recreational experiences. Thus, when biker numbers were low, it was no problem to trampers, and may even have been seen as a novelty, but as numbers increase, trampers found them more of an intrusion. Additionally, the degree of control the individual feels, may also affect their tolerance of another group. People who feel able to access high quality opportunities, for example, moving to a new area, or participating at a different time, may be more able to tolerate another (disruptive) user group, than those who feel that they have lost access to all high quality experiences. head2  W" #2p}wC9#2.5.5 Comparing Conflict with CrowdingTj0head2#o\  PC+XP#  X$ Defining conflict as goal interference attributed to the actions of another, does not differentiate it from crowding. To Owens (1985), crowding is a shortlived experience that disappears when the recreationist leaves the crowded setting. In comparison;  V) !bquotesConflict is a cumulative process of social interaction which once established becomes an enduring psychological state guiding the behaviour of individuals and/or groups in their attempts to restore perceived psychological equilibrium  VQ, (p.252).V!'quotes"Q, Z0..ԌAttitudes are relatively enduring psychological states that predispose individuals to respond favourably or unfavourably towards attitude objects (Oskamp, 1977:89). Thus recreational conflict results in the development of negative attitudes towards individuals or groups who are interfering with one's recreational goals. It is difficult to develop negative attitudes towards people perceived to be the same as oneself. When individuals have items of information (for example, items about opinions, feelings, behaviour or knowledge) that do not fit together, they will change some of it to make it better fit together (Festinger, 1962). Maintaining negative attitudes about people similar to self would cause dissonance or discomfort, requiring the individual either to change the negative attitude, or to find ways to differentiate between self and the attitude object. head2  W #2p}wC9#2.5.6 Perceptions of Difference[j0head2#o\  PC+XP# Crowding is more likely to become conflict if individuals can categorise people within the crowd into an ingroup and an outgroup. Therefore, individuals in small groups feel  X crowded if in the company of other small groups, whereas conflict develops if a small group has to share a resource with a large group (Cessford, 1987; Owens, 1985; Manning, 1986). Categorisation involves maximising betweengroup differences and minimising ingroup differences (Pryor and Ostrom, 1987). Thus, conflict can be accompanied by an increased group solidarity amongst those who are negatively affected  X! (Worchel et al., 1991; Ross and Nisbett, 1991; Tillet, 1991). Once this situation develops, it is more difficult to resolve conflict, as each group will interpret the other's behaviour in ways that reinforce their perception of the situation (Ross and Nisbett, 1991). Additionally, it is only a small step from categorisation to negative stereotyping and the development of prejudice (Allport, 1954 cited in Pryor and Ostrom, 1987). Once others have been categorised, tolerance will become more important as an influence in perceived conflict. head2^- Z0..Ԍ W #2p}wC9#2.5.7 The Galtung Trianglejaj0head2#o\  PC+XP# A#p-bddGALTUNG.WPG <,S@ X Ԏ: The Galtung Triangle (In Bercovitch, 1984:6).$""""A"$ GALTUNG Galtung (1971, cited in Bercovitch 1984) argues that conflict is an intermingling of three similar factors: situational factors; attitudes and perceptions; and behaviour all affect each other. This set of relationships is represented in the Galtung Triangle shown in GALTUNGFigure 4. Situational factors include physical proximity, scarce resources and the social norms or expectations associated with a setting. Attitudes and perceptions are social psychological factors associated with the individual's assessment of the situation in the light of their expectations and motivations. Behaviour is the action that is taken as a result of conflict developing. Perhaps the most important outcome of using the Galtung Triangle as a framework is the understanding that the behaviour of actors in the situation further affects the development of attitudinal and situational factors, which then cause a further change in behaviour. Once aggressive behaviour occurs, the situation changes and the0-- Z0.."A 0 attitudes of the actors are likely to become more strongly negative towards their opponents. Therefore, the escalation of conflict is likely to proceed at an ever increasing rate. If, however, there is little or no aggressive behaviour the conflict will escalate slowly, and be more amenable to mediation by a third party. The effect of behaviour on the escalation of conflict in a recreational setting is illustrated by the case of snowmobilers and crosscountry skiers. In this situation the conflict was originally asymmetrical. Snowmobilers were not as offended by skiers as skiers were by snowmobilers. However, snowmobilers became threatened by the other group once skiers began lobbying to exclude snowmobilers from certain areas (Jackson and Wong, 1982). One could predict that once snowmobilers began to fight back, skiers would be likely to step up their efforts to get them excluded. This kind of activity presupposes that such behaviour will have an effect on decision makers. Individuals expect that they will achieve desired outcomes through their political lobbying. In the public road setting mentioned earlier, there is much conflict. Comments amongst cyclists, for example, indicate that they dislike sharing roads with cars and trucks, and many car drivers have expressed their impatience with cyclists. The difference, in this setting is that the political decisions have been in place for many  X years. Roads are traditionally for all users, and therefore user groups are very unlikely to be able to influence authorities to exclude others. People's expectations of what they will find in a setting, their beliefs about what others think is acceptable in that setting, and their estimated likelihood of success in excluding others, all influence the escalation of conflict. These factors are similar to those that socialpsychologists suggest influence individuals' behaviours in relation to their attitudes (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen and Driver, 1992). According to Ajzen (1991) and Ross and Nisbett (1991), individuals' attitudes are not generally good predictors of behaviour. However,5, Z0.. by looking at situational factors such as the individual's expectation of achieving desired outcomes, the importance of those outcomes, and their interpretation of how they are expected to behave in that situation, behaviour becomes much more predictable. head2  W #2p}wC9#2.5.8 Section Summaryqj0head2#o\  PC+XP# Conflict occurs when individuals form negative attitudes towards those who are interfering with their recreational goals. It escalates (and, therefore, is of more concern) according to the action taken by the individuals involved. A key question in ascertaining whether conflict exists is, therefore, to look at the perceptions of difference that each group has in regard to the other, and to look at whether the attitudes towards the different groups are negative, positive or neutral. #0chead1  _l #2p}wC #2.6 Conflict Between Bikers and Walkerss#0[head1#o\  PC+XP# Given the understandings of conflict outlined above, it appears that there is a well developed conflict between mountainbikers and trampers. The mountainbiker walker conflict is influenced by situational factors, such as the increase in the popularity of mountainbiking over the last few years, by negative attitudes and perceptions of difference between the groups, and by the exclusive behaviour of walkers at a political level. It appears that walkers, in particular, feel that their recreational experiences are diminished by meeting mountainbikers, hence one might assume that meeting bikers interferes with their recreational goals. head2  W" #2p}wC9#2.6.1 OffRoad Biking Figureswj0head2#o\  PC+XP# Mountainbiker numbers have increased markedly over recent years in the United States, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Australia, Canada as well as in New Zealand (Chavez, Winter and Baas, 1993; Fyffe, 1992; Hillary Commission, 1992; Schweizer TourismusVerband, 1991). Coughlin (1994) quotes Van Horn of the Bicycle Industry Association of New Zealand, as estimating that 80 to 85 percent of the total number of bicycles imported into New Zealand as being mountain or hybrid bikes. The Hillary Commission,Z0.. (1992) states that estimates from retailers indicate that about 80 per cent of bike sales are mountainbikes. Other sources from the industry that I questioned, considered that mountainbike sales amounted to about 60 per cent of the market. khead3  P #:x2p}wC iX#2.6.1.1 Limitations of Biking Figures{@head3# o\  PC+XP# There are difficulties in collecting figures this way. First, according to the retailers I approached, the industry does not keep figures on the different segments of the bicycle  X market and second, there are difficulties in defining exactly what a mountainbike is. Not all fat tyre bikes have offroad capability, and indeed many retailers are now stressing this fact when they sell bikes. To the untrained eye, a bike may look like a mountainbike, but it is not it has been built for road use only. Whether roadonly bikes are included in the figures or not will affect the estimates of mountainbike sales and further, how many mountainbikes are taken offroad. Estimates of the number of bike owners who ride offroad vary widely. Keller (1990:2) notes that [in the United States];  Vz !bquotesMany, and perhaps, the majority, of mountainbike owners do their riding on paved  Vc streets and seldom ride offroad in public areas.!'quotes"  X Chavez et al. (1993) maintain that about 30 per cent of U.S. mountainbike owners go offroad, although their source may not be entirely reliable. Coughlin (1994:8), as a New Zealand comparison, writes that;  V !bquotesit is generally believed that 80 to 90 percent of . . . [mountain] bikes are never  V! actually used offroad.́!'quotes" However, he does not clarify his source. Three New Zealand retailers estimated that the percentage of bikers going offroad is likely to be higher here than in the United States.  X& Their accompanying comments indicated that they only included bikes with offroad capability in their estimates. *Z0..Ԍ X Furthermore, offroad also means different things to different people. Keller (1990) for  X example considers that offroad includes any trail, old road bed or other unpaved lane,  XN where Coughlin (1994) and Chavez et al. (1993) make no attempt to define the term. khead3  P #:x2p}wC iX#2.6.1.2 Estimates of OffRoad Biking in New Zealandk@head3# o\  PC+XP# Notwithstanding these problems, it appears that a higher proportion of mountainbike owners take their bikes offroad in New Zealand than they do in the United States. This difference may be attributed to the relative availability of suitable places for offroad riding in New Zealand. Few people in New Zealand are more than one to two hours drive from a place to bike. Similarly, with the exception of Auckland, our major cities are well served with periurban tracks, firebreaks and roads (Kennett, Kennett and Kennett, 1993) Overall, mountainbike sales have increased over the last 10 years in New Zealand, as has offroad riding, thus more recreation opportunities are needed in areas with easy tracks and good access, for example, periurban areas. Not only are biker numbers rising, but it appears that participation in walking has also increased in these areas (Sigglekow, 1992, Pers. Comm., Devlin, 1994, Pers. Comm.). The situational factors of increased competition for resources, an increased likelihood of encountering different users, as well as a difference between the groups in the level of technology in use, will  X all contribute to a conflict situation (Devall and Harry, 1981; Bury et al., 1983). Watson  X! et al. (1991) document the existence of the predicted asymmetrical conflict situation. Not only did walkers more often mention that they disliked meeting bikers, walkers perceived more differences between the groups than bikers. In comparison, bikers were more accurate in their assessment of similarity between the two groups. head2  W.) #2p}wC9#2.6.2 Attitudes and Perceptionsj0head2#o\  PC+XP# Some walkers feel that mountainbikers are a different type of person from themselves (Coello, 1989; Kita, 1986). Kita quotes one walker as saying;,Z0..Ԍ V !bquotesI'm a hiker and I've seen mountainbikes in the back country. I see what they're doing and how they're being ridden. The groups I've seen are not lovely little families like some people would have us believe, but rather macho young men out  V for a thrill and a workout (p. 69).{!'quotes" Many walkers feel that mountainbiking is not an appropriate activity in the backcountry. Environmental damage is one of the most often mentioned factors in this whole debate. Walkers feel that mountainbikers increase the damage on tracks while mountainbikers argue vehemently that there is no scientific evidence to prove this assertion true  X (McKerrow, 1989). Research on this subject has proved to be inconclusive. Chavez et  X al. (1993) quote Seney (1990) whose masters research concluded that the track damage  X8 caused by mountainbikes was not significant, whereas Hain (1986, cited in Chavez et  X al.) found that bikes did damage trails. Bikers feel that walkers are judging them unfairly. Many articles also refer to the  X occasional outlaw, who uses a mountainbike destructively or irresponsibly (Feldman, 1988; Coello, 1989; Dieterich, undated, c.1992; Kita, 1986; Sprung, 1990; Getting Into Gear, 1990; Hillary Commission, 1992) and has ruined other bikers' opportunities. Walkers' attitudes toward bikers are blamed on cycle industry advertising. Dieterich (Undated, c.1992), for example, notes that;  V !bquotes. . . the industry itself adds to the mechanical monster mystique by depicting  V kamikaze images in their advertisements.!'quotes" She adds that negative attitudes towards mountainbikers are the result of bad public relations. The answer to this problem is given as education and activism (Blumenthal, 1990). Many bikers admit that mountainbikes do cause damage, however they argue that other users also damage tracks (Dieterich, undated, c.1992). Other writers argue that the issue is not impact at all, the issue is user compatibility (Feldman, 1988). Sidaway and Thompson (1991) support this view. They feel that conflict is not the result of the evident damage that mountainbikers do, but instead walkers believe that such damage,Z0.. reflects behaviour that is inconsistent with traditional values, such as enjoying the peace and quiet of the backcountry. The popular literature indicates that walkers feel that their space is being invaded, and that the experiences of solitude, tranquillity and escape are threatened if mountainbikes are going to use tracks (Coello, 1989). Therefore, bikers are in a position of some power. One renegade mountainbiker can diminish the experience of many walkers, however, it is unclear whether walkers diminish the experience of bikers. head2  W #2p}wC9#2.6.3 The Political Arenaj0head2#o\  PC+XP# In the political arena, however, walkers have been successful in getting bikes banned from a large number of areas (Baker, 1990; Kita, 1986; Dieterich, undated) and many walkers are lobbying, both in New Zealand and overseas, to get bikers excluded from some of the tracks that they currently use (Turner, 1992, Pers. Comm.; The Press, 20/7/92; Coello, 1989; Feldman, 1988; Meyer, 1985; Kita, 1986). Because walkers are established users of the outdoors, and are well organised into clubs and associations, they have been able to exert political pressure. In comparison, it appears that mountainbikers have been relatively disorganised and, therefore, have been at a considerable disadvantage politically. Certainly it has taken some time for bikers to begin to lobby to gain back some access (Baker, 1990). head2  W'! #2p}wC9#2.6.4 Section Summaryj0head2#o\  PC+XP# Mountainbiking results from a new form of recreational technology which has changed the way many people are choosing to use outdoor recreation resources. Accurate estimates of the actual numbers of people that are riding bikes offroad are very difficult to find although it appears that, in New Zealand, off road riding is far more common than it is in the United States. This new activity is affecting the recreational experiences of walkers and trampers, and they, in turn, have chosen to lobby the authorities to get mountainbikers excluded from many outdoor areas. ,Z0..Ԍ _ #0chead1Й#2p}wC #2.7 Chapter Summary#0[head1#o\  PC+XP# Conflict is a complex, social interaction process affected by many different factors including those in the social and physical situation, the attitudes and perceptions, and the behaviour of the individuals involved. Thus to understand conflict, the researcher must look at all of these factors. Conflict that occurs specifically in recreational settings will be better understood by exploring the role of recreationists' perceptions and attitudes. Recreation is goal directed behaviour, and recreationists have specific motivations for, and expectations of, the experiences that result from their chosen activity and their chosen setting. Conflict in recreation is seen as goal interference and is mediated by individuals' levels of specialisation, their motivations and expectations of the setting, their mode of experience, their activity style, their place attachment and their tolerance for meeting different user groups. Each of these factors both influences, and is influenced by the other, requiring a researcher to take a broad view of the whole process. It appears, from a review of mostly popular literature, that there is conflict between mountainbikers and trampers in New Zealand, the United States and in European countries. Walkers, in particular, see mountainbikers as different to themselves and they have begun working to exclude bikers from many areas. So far, however, there is no evidence that bikers and walkers are significantly different in their preferences and values. Ascertaining whether this difference exists in the New Zealand setting is one of the objectives of this study. There is no data in the recreation literature which describes the mountainbiker group. It is very difficult, therefore, to know if they are different in their preferences, motivations, expectations and demographic profiles than other recreational groups. Differences in these attributes may contribute to the tramper/biker conflict situation especially if they are found to have conflicting recreational goals and to have similar tastes in the kinds of places they like to use. It also seems important to investigate the changing patterns of,Z0.. resource use that mountainbiking has caused, and how they might contribute to the conflict situation. At this stage, the conflict appears to be asymmetrical in nature, with walkers reflecting annoyance at the presence of bikers, who, in turn, do not seem as concerned by meeting walkers. However, bikers are beginning to react to walkers' attempts to exclude them. A key problem is understanding how the activities of mountainbikers interfere with the goals, values and aspirations of walkers. It appears that the recreational goals of the two groups must differ in some way for this situation to exist. The asymmetry of the conflict and the perceived and actual differences between walkers and bikers need confirmation in the New Zealand setting. At the same time causal links are important, that is, why do these differences matter and how do they lead to conflict? In short, to investigate the current conflict between mountainbikers and walkers/ trampers, this research must address both situational factors and social psychological factors within this setting. A large number of individuals participate in both mountainbiking and tramping, which makes this conflict situation different to most of the others that have been researched. Therefore, this setting may yield some different insights into conflict in recreation than the settings researched in the past.