Skip to main content

Assessing the Transactional Nature of Wilderness Experiences: Construct Validation of the Wilderness-Hassles Appraisal Scale

Abstract

Concerns over the increasing popularity of wilderness recreation have resulted in attempts to determine the amount of use that different areas can tolerate without adverse affects to the resource. Early attempts to establish recreational carrying capacities focused on managers’ assessments of biophysical impacts. The perceptions of wilderness visitors, however, are now considered integral to capacity decisions. This study used a stress appraisal framework to understand wilderness visitors’ perceptions of on-site conditions. It was based on the premise that negative appraisals of wilderness conditions produce stress and that individual perceptions vary based on personal and situational characteristics. The purpose of the study was to assess the validity of a wilderness-hassles appraisal scale by testing hypothesized relationships between experience-use history (EUH), place attachment, and stress appraisal. Data collection occurred through a postal survey of hikers (n = 385) contacted in the High Peaks and Pemigewasset Wilderness Areas during the summer of 2004. An exploratory factor analysis indicated that stress appraisal is a multi-dimensional construct. Validity testing procedures were restricted to those dimensions that were consistent between study areas and provided partial support for the hassles scale. As hypothesized, EUH did not influence perceptions of wilderness conditions. Place attachment, on the other hand, was positively correlated with stressful appraisals of social and managerial conditions. Although Kruskall Wallis tests revealed significant differences in visitors’ perceptions of managerial conditions between study sites, perceptions of social conditions did not vary significantly. Implications for management and recommendations for further refinement of the wilderness hassles construct are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Blahna DJ, Smith KS, Anderson JA (1995) Backcountry lama packing: visitor perceptions of acceptability and conflict. Leisure Sciences 17:185–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Bricker KS, Kerstetter DL (2000) Level of specialization and place attachment: an exploratory study of whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sciences 22:233–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmines EG, Zeller RA (1979) Reliability and validity assessment. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–017. Sage, Newbury Park, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole DN (1996) Wilderness recreation use trends, 1965 through 1994. Res. Pap. INT-RP-488. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,Ogden, UT, p 10

  • Cole DN (2004) Wilderness experiences: what should we be managing for? International Journal of Wilderness 10:25–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychological Bulletin 52:281–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czaja R, Blair J (1996) Designing surveys: a guide to decisions and procedures. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasman RF (1964) Wildlife biology. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis RF (2003) Scale development: theory and applications, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver B, Brown P, Stankey G, Gregorie T (1987) The ROS planning system: evolution, basic concepts, and research needed. Leisure Sciences 9:201–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods 4:272–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folkman S, Moskowitz JT (2000) Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist 55(6):647–654

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Godschalk DR, Parker FH (1975) Carrying capacity: a key to environmental planning? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 30:160–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt WE, Backlund EA, Bixler RD (2004) Experience use history, place bonding and resource substitution of trout anglers during recreation engagements. Journal of Leisure Research 36:356–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt WE, Backlund EA, Bixler R (2006) Place bonding for recreation places: conceptual and empirical development. Leisure Studies 25:17–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt WE, Knauf LR, Noe FP (1989) A comparison of user vs. researcher determined level of past experience on recreation preference. Journal of Leisure Research 21:202–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendee JC, Dawson CP (2002) Wilderness management: stewardship and protection of resources and values, 3rd edn. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob GR, Schreyer R (1980) Conflict in outdoor recreation: a theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 12:369–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanner AD, Coyne JC, Schaefer C, Lazarus RS (1981) Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 4:1–39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyle G, Absher J, Graefe A (2003) The moderating role of place attachment on the relationship between attitudes toward fees and spending preferences. Leisure Sciences 25:33–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyle G, Bricker K, Graefe A, Wickham T (2004) An examination of recreationists’ relationships with activities and settings. Leisure Sciences 26:123–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyle G, Graefe A, Manning R, Bacon J (2004) Effect of activity involvement and place attachment on recreationists’ perceptions of setting density. Journal of Leisure Research 36:209–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus RS (1990) Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry 1:3–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus RS (2000) Toward better research on stress and coping. American Psychologist 55:655–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus RS, Folkmnan S (1984) Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning RE (1999) Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for satisfaction, 2nd edn. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller TA (1997) Coping behaviors in recreational settings: substitution, displacement, and cognitive adjustments as a response to stress. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Montana, Missoula

  • Miller TA, McCool SF (2003) Coping with stress in outdoor recreational settings: an application of transactional stress theory. Leisure Sciences 25:257–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore RL, Graefe AR (1994) Attachments to recreation settings: the case of rail-trail users. Leisure Sciences 16:17–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Netemeyer RG, Bearden WO, Sharma S (2003) Scaling procedures: issues and applications. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Peden JG, Schuster RM (2005) Stress and coping in the High Peaks Wilderness: an exploratory assessment of visitor experiences. In: Bricker K, Millington S (eds) Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-326. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newton Square, PA, pp 29–38

  • Proshansky HM, Fabian AK, Kaminoff R (1983) Place identity: physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3:57–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramthun R (1995) Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences 17:159–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider IE (1995) Describing, differentiating, and predicting visitor response to on-site outdoor recreation conflict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Clemson University, Clemson

  • Schneider IE (1999) Response to conflict among wilderness visitors. In: Cole D, McCool S, Borrie W, O’Loughlin J (eds) Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference (Vol. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula, MT, pp 160–163

  • Schneider IE (2000) Responses to conflict in urban-proximate areas. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 18:37–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider IE, Hammitt WE (1995) Visitor responses to on-site recreation conflict. Journal of Applied Recreation Research 20:249–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreyer R, Lime DW, Williams DR (1984) Characterizing the influence of past experience on recreation behavior. Journal of Leisure Research 16:34–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster RM (2000) Coping with stressful situations and hassles during outdoor recreation experiences in wilderness environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Clemson University, Clemson

  • Schuster RM, Hammitt WE, Moore D (2003) A theoretical model to measure the appraisal and coping responses to hassles in outdoor recreation settings. Leisure Sciences 25:277–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuster RM, Hammitt WE, Moore D (2006) Stress appraisal and coping response to hassles experienced in outdoor recreation settings. Leisure Sciences 28:97–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector PE (1991) Summated rating scale construction: an introduction. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Stedman RC (2002) Toward a social psychology of place: predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior 34:561–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols D, Schumaker SA (eds) (1981) People and places: a transactional view of settings. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (1996) Using multivariate statistics, 3rd edn. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaske JJ, Donnelly MP, Heberlein TA (1980) Perceptions of crowding and resource quality by early and more recent visitors. Leisure Sciences 3:367–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaske JJ, Donnelly MP, Wittmann K, Laidlaw S (1995) Interpersonal versus social-values conflict. Leisure Sciences 17:205–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorkinn M, Riese H (2001) Environmental concern in a local context: the significance of place attachment. Environment and Behavior 33:249–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson AE, Cronn R (1994) How previous experience relates to visitor’s perceptions of wilderness conditions. Trends 31:43–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Waston AE, Niccolucci MJ (1992) Defining past-experience dimensions for wilderness recreation. Leisure Sciences 14:89–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson AE, Niccolucci MJ, Williams DR (1994) The nature of conflict between hikers and recreational stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research 26:372–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson AE, Roggenbuck JW, Williams DR (1991) The influence of past experience on wilderness choices. Journal of Leisure Research 23:21–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Whisman S, Hollenhorst S (1998) A path model of whitewater boating satisfaction on the Cheat River of West Virginia. Environmental Management 22:109–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilderness Act (1964) Public Law 88–577:88th United States Congress

  • Williams DR (1989) Great expectations and the limits to satisfaction: a review of recreation and consumer satisfaction research. In: Watson AH (ed) Outdoor Recreation Benchmark 1988: proceedings of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-52:422–348

  • Williams DR, Patterson ME (1999) Environmental psychology: mapping landscape meanings for ecosystem management. In: Cordell HK, Bergstrom JC (eds) Integrating social sciences and ecosystem management: human dimensions in assessment, policy and management. Sagamore Press, Champaign, IL, pp 141–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams DR, Patterson ME, Roggenbuck JW, Watson AE (1992) Beyond the commodity metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences 14:29–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams DR, Roggenbuck JW (1989) Measuring place attachment: some preliminary results. Paper presented at the NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research, San Antonio, TX

  • Williams DR, Schreyer R, Knopf RC (1990) The effect of the experience use history on the multidimensional structure of motivations to participate in leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research 22:36–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams DR, Vaske JJ (2003) The measurement of place attachment: validation and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science 49:830–840

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the McIntyre-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program. The authors would like to acknowledge the support that was provided by Rebecca Oreskes of White Mountain National Forest, and Kris Alberga of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. We would also like to thank Chad Dawson, Diane Kuehn, and Lianjun Zhang for their valuable assistance with the project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John G. Peden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peden, J.G., Schuster, R.M. Assessing the Transactional Nature of Wilderness Experiences: Construct Validation of the Wilderness-Hassles Appraisal Scale. Environmental Management 42, 497–510 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9124-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9124-4

Keywords

  • Experience-use history
  • Place attachment
  • Stress appraisal
  • Wilderness
  • Recreation