John Shultis Consuming Nature: The Uneasy Relationship Between Technology, Outdoor Recreation and Protected Areas
Our culture has seldom been inclined to confront the profound changes that ac- company technological innovation. Like a carrot prompting a cart horse, tech- nology entices us forward in a way that keeps us from noticing much about the road ahead, each offering results in such a slight movement that by the time we realize we are far from home, no serious re-examination of our fate seems possi- ble. — Attributed to J. Robert Oppenheimer, Ethics for New Life Forms
umans have always displayed contradictory attitudes towards technology. For over a century, our literature and films have con- tained dire warnings about the power of our technological crea- tions. From Shelley’s Frankenstein to Orwell’s Big Brother and Kubrick’sH HAL in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” artists of all persuasions have used the potentially macabre consequences of technology to titillate and ter- rify their audiences. Similar conflicting attitudes be- act as a magnet of contention for rec- tween humans and technology can be reation managers. That is, recrea- found in the parks, outdoor recrea- tionists and recreation managers will tion and tourism field. Indeed, it be both attracted and repelled by the could not be otherwise: these recrea- recreation technology that affects the tional experiences, activities and in- outdoor recreation experience and stitutions cannot escape the cultural recreation management in both a milieu from which they emanate positive and negative manner. (Foresta 1984). This is a critical The purpose of this paper is to point: the uneasy alliance between outline past and present relationships technology, outdoor recreation, and between technology, outdoor rec- protected areas outlined in this paper reation, and protected areas, high- is a reflection of a far deeper and light the potential impacts of tech- complex relationship between hu- nology on the outdoor recreation mans and their technology. As such, experience and park management, there are no easy answers, and it ap- and suggest future trends in this Byz- pears that the issue of technology will antine relationship. The link be- 56 The George Wright FORUM tween technology and consumerism parks directly led to increased public in outdoor recreation and parks is support for parks, a boom in outdoor outlined. recreation, and the creation of addi- tional parks and park systems (e.g., state and provincial parks). The downside—and there are almost al- ways unintended, negative conse- Despite the continued (and quences of new technology (Tenner flawed) conception of parks as pri- 1996)—was increased congestion, mordial landscapes relatively un- conflicts, environmental impacts, touched by human activity, there is a and commercialization in the parks. strong, often-forgotten relationship The degree to which outdoor rec- between protected areas and human reation and protected areas have be- technology. The rise of Romanticism come commercialized is demon- and Transcendentalism—generated strated by the now ubiquitous use of in large part from the widespread natural images and outdoor recrea- social and environmental impacts of tion activities to sell everything from the technology which created the cars to calendars and the related Industrial Revolution—laid the “corporatization” of municipal and foundations for the creation of first public recreation agencies urban, then national parks. More (Crompton 1998; Helmuth 1999; specifically, without the technologi- Juniu 2000; Schwartz 1998; Searle cal innovation of the railroad, and the 2000; Stormann 2000). The use of critical support of railroad barons, it outdoor recreation and wilderness is unlikely that early North American images in marketing has proven to be national parks such as Yellowstone problematic, in that the messages and Yosemite in the USA and Banff contained within advertisements, and Glacier in Canada would have both explicit and subliminal, are of- been legislated (Nash 1982; Shultis ten antithetical to the low-impact 1995; Runte 1997). practices espoused by park managers The ability of Henry Ford’s as- (Huffman 2000). Even more dis- sembly line to create affordable turbing, there is empirical evidence automobiles had even greater impli- that the commercial media’s repre- cations for parks (Quin 1997). Even sentation of nature leads to a deval- John Muir, the most strident sup- ued emotional attachment to the porter of wilderness and national land, particularly in local settings parks, grudgingly agreed that keep- (Levi and Kocher 1999). This find- ing the newfangled automobile out of ing supports McKibben’s warning the parks would be counterproduc- that, through the hubris of advanced tive. In retrospect, Muir and other technology, supporters of the automobile were correct: allowing automobiles into
Volume 18 • Number 1 2001 57 (2000) recently listed unregulated ATV use as the most important is- sues facing parks and wilderness in the year 2000. Consumerism has become ram- pant among many recreationists. A recent newspaper article suggests that “money, leisure time, and an appreciation for the finer things in life have turned the Great Outdoors A closely related economic and into just one more place to enjoy a social force of the twentieth century, latte” (Florio 2000, 1): rather than consumerism, has also had indelible “communing” with nature, people impacts on the outdoor recreation are now “consuming” with nature experience, and thus park manage- (see also Hasselstrom 1994). Ewert ment. Falk (1994, 94) identifies three and Shultis (1999) essentially make related characteristics of the con- the same point, suggesting that while sumer society: “(a) the constitution of most recreationists use technology to desire exceeding the “necessary,” (b) visit the backcountry, an increasing the limitlessness of the desire and (c) number visit the backcountry to use the endless longing for the new” their technology (cf. Hill and (italics in original). Our consumption McLean 1999). Again, the key point patterns now directly relate to the here is that outdoor recreation and way in which we measure our happi- parks are culturally defined, and thus ness and quality of life. In addition, cannot escape the so-called tyranny our economy has become largely de- of consumerism that either curses or pendent upon this upwardly spiral- blesses contemporary society, de- ing consumption of material goods. pending on one’s perspective. Perhaps most importantly for park managers, consumerism has led to the creation of politically active con- sumer groups, many of which now While park and outdoor recrea- wield considerable economic and tion managers have been reacting to political power. For example, in the an influx of technology since the field of outdoor recreation, groups birth of the national park systems in supporting the increased presence of the mid-to-late nineteenth century, ATVs (all-terrain vehicles) and other the battle lines seem to be drawing motorized vehicles in wilderness and ever closer at the dawn of the twenty- parklands have become an increas- first century (Petersen and Harmon ingly powerful force in legislation 1993; Shultis 2000). This increasing and policy development. In re- concern over technology among out- sponse, The Wilderness Society door recreationists seems related to:
58 The George Wright FORUM (a) the accelerating rate of techno- logical innovations affecting outdoor recreation and the speed at which Hull’s warning about the social they enter the mass market; (b) the and political ramifications of tech- increasing amount and level of social nology is echoed by Volti (1995, 22), (e.g., conflict, crowding, and dis- who notes that “technologies do not placement) and environmental (e.g., stand or fall on their intrinsic merits. increased erosion and disturbance of The decision to develop and deploy wildlife) impacts created by these a new technology is often shaped by accumulating technologies; and (c) the distribution of power in society.” the impact that this synergy of new The proliferation of user groups, of- technologies may be having on the ten enabled and defined by technol- outdoor recreation experience and ogy, has helped propel recreation thus (d) the very structure and cul- managers into the age of the special- tural roles of parks and nature itself. interest group, a pluralistic and post- Some of the major impacts of tech- modern world in which a multitude nology and the implications of these of consumer-based groups actively impacts are reviewed in Table 1. lobby governments to enact legisla- For example, new forms of trans- tion and policy that reflect their col- portation—e.g., personal watercraft lective point of view. Managers are (jet skis), snowmobiles, and moun- thus forced to adjudicate between tain bikes—have greatly increased the competing special-interest groups number of distinct types of recrea- wielding considerable, though dif- tionists who must share outdoor rec- fering levels of economic and politi- reation areas with growing numbers cal power. This is an excellent ex- of visitors. Recreation managers are ample of what Weil and Rosen forced to deal with the disparate re- (1997) term “technoStress”: the in- quirements and demands of special- dividual and societal costs of dealing ized user groups, as each new tech- with the consequences of technol- nology-based activity creates a cli- ogy. entele with distinct motivations, at- The impact of “technoStress” on titudes, values, and desired setting park management and the outdoor and management attributes (Bryan recreationist is hard to underesti- 1977; Bryan 2000). As a result: mate. The (good?) old days, where canvas tents and tinned goods were considered lightweight, where wool and cotton were the only available fabrics, now seem like ancient his- tory. Innovations only a few decades old, such as nylon, fiberglass, freeze- dried foods, and plastic are now con- sidered “traditional” camping
Volume 18 • Number 1 2001 59 equipment (see Anonymous 2000b). lutionary, and, like the automobile The impact of these synthetic fabrics before it, propelled outdoor recrea- and materials was particularly revo-
Category Examples Impacts Major Implications / Issues Access / Automobiles, Increased use and type Managers need to deal Transportat- airplanes, ATVs, of users, recreation with increasing conflicts, ion snowmobiles, jet conflicts, human–natural carrying capacity issues, skis, mountain environment environmental impacts, bikes, interactions (e.g., infrastructure helicopters, wildlife) development, and a more BASE jumping diverse set of recreationists (e.g., experience levels) Comfort Synthetic fabrics, Longer visits, increased Increased attention to plastics, internal- use, expanded use (e.g., carrying capacity, frame packs, by families, the less fit, environmental impacts, light-weight tents the elderly), increased search and rescue, visitor desire for facilities demands for amenities (e.g., showers, etc.) Safety Synthetic fabrics, Longer and more remote Incongruence between stronger visitation, recreation the type of situation (i.e., materials, more during the “shoulder level of danger) and the effective means periods” (e.g., winter); a skills and experience of of protection general “pushing back” the individual; (e.g., climbing of the perceived margin expectation that aids, non- of safety, more risk- “experiences” will be low collapsible taking activities risk kayaks) Communica- Radio, cellular More rapid linkages to Increased safety and tion and digital other groups; planning capability; phones, GIS, expectation that remote expectations that GPS, datalink backcountry tripping information and ability to watches, “Palm” can stay “connected” to “connect in” will be computers outside world available (e.g., park radio frequencies, avalanche warnings at the site, etc.); more demand for search and rescue Information Television, Increased awareness, Primarily external-driven satellite TV, use and appreciation, messages: managers will Internet more informed public, be forced to respond to increased options and images portrayed by opportunities commercial interests and provide their own 60 The George Wright FORUM information in a variety of formats tion activities and areas into the mass technological innovations or their market. In addition, they had (and impacts make these decisions even continue to have) enormous implica- more problematic for outdoor rec- tions for recreational use patterns reation managers (Wilkinson (e.g., frequency and length of trips, 1999b). To this end, Section 4.1.4 of distance traveled per trip) and, per- Parks Canada policy maintains: haps most importantly, for the expe- riential component of outdoor rec- reation activities (e.g., safety, com- fort) and their social and environ- mental impacts (Ewert and Shultis 1999). Among the many new tech- nologies that may challenge park managers in the near future include folding mountain bikes and “all-ter- rain” in-line skates and skateboards (Anonymous 1999). The Internet and virtual reality programs will also change the way in which we per- ceive, visit, and experience protected While this proactive stance is laud- areas. able, and often lacking in other agen- Declining budgets have wreaked cies, the current lack of appropriate havoc on the ability of land manage- levels of funding, personnel, and re- ment agencies to deal with the po- search capacity in Parks Canada tential impact of new technologies. (Searle 2000), which prevents them For example, the director of the U.S. from dealing with these issues, makes Bureau of Land Management (BLM) the assurances ring a little hollow. noted that “improved technologies The aforementioned societal am- mean people can now travel into ar- bivalence towards technology is eas- eas that were once inaccessible” and ily found among park and other out- admitted that “BLM planning, staff- door recreation managers. At one ing and budgets have not kept pace end of the spectrum are those who with the need to manage these activi- wholeheartedly embrace all forms of ties and reduce the impacts to the new technology in outdoor recrea- natural systems” (Bureau of Land tion areas. Douglass comes out firmly Management 2000a, unpaginated; on this side in his discussion of cel- see also Wilkinson 1999a). In addi- lular phones in the backcountry: tion, our inability to predict future
Volume 18 • Number 1 2001 61 restricted, but radios, televisions, portable tape decks, outboard mo- tors, and pets are also prohibited in this park (Austin 1996). But Caverly is by no means alone. Restrictions on recreation technol- ogy have been increasing throughout protected areas, with NPS recently banning snowmobiles and jet skis in many, though not all, national park units (National Park Service 2000a; National Park Service 2000b). Many other parks disallow specific activi- ties such as BASE jumping (para- chuting off cliffs), slack lining (a combination of rock climbing and bungee jumping) and mountain bik- It is interesting that Douglass’ ra- ing either throughout parks or in tionale for supporting cellular specific areas of a park. BLM, typi- phones in backcountry location are cally seen as the USA’s most pro- equivalent to those used on behalf of ATV federal land-managing agency, automobiles in the early 1900s. It has recently agreed to review its poli- appears that for many recreation cies on ATVs (Bureau of Land Man- professionals (and recreationists), agement 2000); previously, it had public use is still the highest function ignored presidential directives from of protected areas. Searle (2000) the 1970s to better study and regu- suggests that this is the primary po- late the impact of these technologies sition and argument in Parks Can- in their jurisdictions. ada, despite legislation that clearly These conflicting attitudes to- recognizes the supremacy of the wards technology are also found preservation (as opposed to use) among recreationists. Perhaps the function. Similar concerns have been most revealing place to examine rec- expressed about the U.S. National reationists’ attitudes to technology is Park Service (NPS) (Wilkinson within the many popular magazines 1999a). dedicated to this user group. Maga- At the other end of the technology zines such as Backpacker and Sierra spectrum are those like Baxter State clearly display paradoxical attitudes Park Director Buzz Caverly, who, towards technology. On one hand, despite opposition from a variety of the newest recreation- related tech- pro-and anti-development groups, nologies are extolled by the numer- has created strict regulations in the ous companies advertising through- park. Not only are cellular phones out these magazines, and the maga-
62 The George Wright FORUM zines have come to rely upon adver- modified landscapes outside of park tising revenues. Regular editorial systems, that these restrictions will columns display the newest “gear,” continue to escalate in the near fu- normally in a non-critical manner ture. which ignores their potential social These restrictions will be wel- or environmental impacts. On the comed by environmental and anti- other hand, occasional articles be- technology groups such as the Les moan the current state of the “tech- Miserables Primitives and the Soci- nological wilderness,” profile anti- ety of Primitive Technology in the technology recreationists, or roman- USA. These groups are the vanguard ticize about the wilderness experi- of a growing “Neo-Luddite” move- ence in the “good old days” before ment (named after a nineteenth-cen- zippers, chain saws, Gore-Tex, and tury group who eschewed the tech- satellite phones (e.g., McGivney nology that forced them from their 1996; McGivney 1999; Anonymous jobs during the Industrial Revolu- 2000c; Greenwald 2000; Tilton tion) centered in the USA (Hill and 2000). McLean 1999). These and like- Despite these inconsistencies minded groups will be pitted against among both recreationists and man- pro-technology groups who rely agers, however, the overall trend upon consumerism and groups who seems clear. While there are power- believe in the primacy of use in the ful opponents, outdoor recreation ever-present preservation-versus-use agencies have become increasingly debate. willing (or, more correctly, willing to A contemporary example of this be convinced by external lobby debate can be seen in the current groups) to alter policy to limit the use battle over the continuation of the or impact of technology. Consumer- Recreation Fee Demonstration Pro- group opponents will likely continue gram. Originally embraced by a wide to focus their arguments on the need range of interest groups, proponents to increase the public’s use and sup- (largely representing pro-ATV inter- port of parks and the importance of ests and so-called wise use groups) increased visitor safety, while sup- are now battling with environmental porters of restrictions will point to and non-mechanized recreation the social and environmental impacts groups to dismantle this program. It of unregulated technologies in the has become a controversial, divisive backcountry. It seems likely, given issue among park and wilderness (1) the related trend of agencies to agencies (McManus 1999; Paige emphasize preservation rather than 1999; Watson and Herath 1999; use functions of parks, (2) the in- Collins 2000; Woodside 2000). Per- creasing social and environmental haps the final winner of this battle impacts within parks, and (3) the will serve as an indicator of the speed increasing rarity of relatively un- at which technology will be restricted
Volume 18 • Number 1 2001 63 in the near future, in that it will dem- cially in local areas. This may be onstrate the current power of com- critical to our future relationship to mercial/consumerism and preserva- the land: Aldo Leopold strongly ar- tion/environmental interests within gued that local attachment to land- land agencies and the wider society. scape is the most critical need for the long-term conservation of healthy ecosystems (1999). Technology has proven to be a This paper has emphasized that double-edged sword for outdoor rec- recreationists, managers, and the reation and protected area managers. general public will continue to have Technological advances have greatly conflicting attitudes towards the use facilitated public recreation in pro- of technology in outdoor recreation tected areas by improving access, areas. In the short term, until social transportation, safety, comfort and attitudes and values towards con- information on parks. The resulting sumerism and commercialization in increases in park use have height- protected areas change, managers ened social concern and appreciation will find it difficult to place restric- for the natural environment and tions on technology in protected ar- protected areas (or vice versa). How- eas: in their own best interests, pro- ever, technology also has changed technology consumer groups and how individuals perceive nature and their industry backers will attempt to pursue outdoor recreation. Increased block such efforts. participation rates have not only Managers must do a better job at served to generate additional tech- firing the hearts of recreationists to nological innovations, but may also participate in a debate over the pur- have led to increased consumerism in pose of protected areas and the ap- protected areas. For many recrea- propriateness of specific technolo- tionists, the “psychological focus of gies within these areas. Organiza- the leisure activity actually becomes tions supporting parks must also the technology itself (particularly its help generate and contribute to these acquisition and use) rather than the difficult discussions. The battle for activity” (Hill and McLean 1999, high-quality recreational experiences 16). and protected areas may rely on The limited empirical evidence these groups’ ability to prove Op- available suggests that the increasing penheimer wrong: while humans use of technology in outdoor recrea- have been loathe to reflect upon the tion will have fundamental effects on impacts of technology in the past, the emotional relationship between perhaps a better understanding of the humans and the natural environ- severity of technology’s ramifications ment, resulting in a lessened emo- in protected areas will convince us to tional attachment to the land, espe- initiate such a process.
64 The George Wright FORUM Anonymous. 1999. Technology in wheel time. Design News 54:15, 72-76. ———. 2000a. British government criticized for the handling of Canadian GM seed scare. Canadian Press, 3 August. ———. 2000b. The ultimate gear list: A simple way to make sure you remember everything. Backpacker 28:2, 144. ———. 2000c. The “perfect” trip. Backpacker 28:8, 11-12. Austin, P. 1996. Paradise or private club? Backpacker 24:7, 52-56, 58, 136. Bryan, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: The case of trout fish- ermen. Journal of Leisure Research 9, 174-187. ———. 2000. Recreation specialization revisited. Journal of Leisure Research 32:1, 18-21. Bureau of Land Management. 2000a. BLM National OHV Strategy: Director’s Letter.
John Shultis, Resource Recreation and Tourism Program, University of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada V2N 4Z9; [email protected]
66 The George Wright FORUM