The Uneasy Relationship Between Technology, Outdoor Recreation and Protected Areas

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, technology 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 contained 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 recreationists 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 always 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 consumer 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 technological 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,

Load more