Advertisement

Increasing Public Involvement to Reduce Depreciative Behavior in Recreation Settings

  • Harriet H. Christensen
  • Roger N. Clark
Part of the The Springer Series in Social Clinical Psychology book series (SSSC)

Abstract

A range of depreciative behaviors, such as vandalism, theft, and other rule violations, occurs in recreation settings. Managers and users have expressed concern about the occurrence of these problems and their impacts on the natural environment, public and private property, and the recreationists’ enjoyment of the area (Driessen, 1978; U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978; Downing and Moutsinas, 1978; Alfano and Magill, 1976; Clark et al., 1971b). Some recent estimates indicate the costly impact of some of these problems on agency budgets. The USDA Forest Service, for example, reports that vandalism and littering in the National Forests cost tax-payers over $7 million in 1974 (USDA Forest Service, 1975). The Bureau of Land Management, with fewer and more widely dispersed facilities, reports that vandalism costs $250,000 per year (Alfano and Magill, 1976). The Seattle, Washington, Parks and Recreation Department estimated that vandalism cost $236,000 during 1976 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1977). The problems of vandalism and other violations of rules permeates the entire recreation opportunity spectrum from urban parks to Wilderness Areas (Clark, et al., 1971b; Boston Parks and Recreation Commission, 1978; Hendee et al., 1978; Shafer and Lucas, 1978).

Keywords

Direct Intervention Apply Behavior Analysis Rule Violation Recreation Area Reporting Behavior 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alfano, Sam S., and Arthur W. Magill, ed. 1976. Vandalism and outdoor recreation: Symposium proceedings. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-17, 72 pp. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, Robert A., and Donn Byrne. 1976. Social psychology, understanding human interaction; 2d ed. 588 pp. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Bickman, Leonard. 1972. Social influence and diffusion of responsibility in an emergency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8: 438–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickman, Leonard. 1976. Attitude toward an authority and the reporting of a crime. Sociometry, 39(l):76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bickman, Leonard, and Susan K. Green. 1977. Situational cues and crime reporting: Do signs make a difference? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7(1):1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bleda, P. R., S. E. Bleda, D. Byrne, and L. A. White. 1976. When a bystander becomes an accomplice: Situational determinants of reactions to dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 12:9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boston Parks and Recreation Commission. 1978. Managing vandalism—a guide to reducing damage in parks and recreation facilities. Parkman Center for Urban Affairs, Boston, 58 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Burgess, Robert L., Roger N. Clark, and John C. Hendee. 1971. An experimental analysis of anti-litter procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4(2): 71–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, Fred L., John C. Hendee, and Roger N. Clark, 1968. Law and order in public parks. Parks and Recreation (December):28-31, 51-55.Google Scholar
  10. Christensen, Harriet H. 1978. Bystander intervention and litter control: An experimental analysis of an appeal to help program. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper PNW-287, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, 25 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Christensen, Harriet H., and Roger N. Clark. 1978. Understanding and controlling vandalism and other rule violations in urban recreation areas. Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry Conference, Vol. 1, November 13–16, 1978, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, R. D. III, and L. E. Word. 1972. Why don’t bystanders help? Because of ambiguity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3):392–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, R. D. III, and L. E. Word. 1974. Where is the apathetic bystander? Situational characteristics of the emergency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3): 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, Roger, N. 1976a. Controlling vandalism in recreation areas—fact, fiction, or folklore? In Vandalism and outdoor recreation: Symposium proceedings, pp. 62-72, S. S. Alfano and A. W. Magill, eds. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-17, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, Roger N. 1976b. How to control litter in recreation area: The incentive system. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Information Leaflet, 10 pp., Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, Roger N., John C. Hendee, and Fred L. Campbell. 1971a. Depreciative behavior in forest campgrounds: An exploratory study. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper PNW-161,12 pp., Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, Roger N., John C. Hendee, and Fred L. Campbell. 1971b. Values, behavior, and conflict in modem camping culture. Journal of Leisure Research, 3(3): 143–159.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, Roger N., Robert L. Burgess, and John C. Hendee. 1972a. The development of anti-litter behavior in a forest campground. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5(1):1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clark, Roger N., John C. Hendee, and Robert L. Burgess. 1972b. The experimental control of littering. Journal of Environmental Education, 4(2):1–7.Google Scholar
  20. Clinard, Marshall B. 1974. Sociology of deviant behavior, 4th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 685 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Downing, Kent, and Cynthia M. Moutsinas. 1978. Manager’s views of dispersed recreation along forest roads. Journal of Forestry, 76(9):583–585.Google Scholar
  22. Driessen, Jon. 1978. Problems in managing forest recreation facilities: A survey of field personnel. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Equipment Development Center, 106 pp. Missoula, Montana.Google Scholar
  23. Flickinger, Theodore B. 1976. Crime and law enforcement in Ohio’s State Parks. Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  24. Heberlein, Thomas A. 1971. Moral norms, threatened sanctions, and littering behavior. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 253 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Hendee, John C., George H. Stankey, and Robert C. Lucas. 1978. Wilderness management. Miscellaneous Publication 1365, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  26. Kohlenberg, Robert, and Thomas Phillips. 1973. Reinforcement and rate of litter depositing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6:391–396.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Latané, Bibb, and John M. Darley. 1970. The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 131 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Moriarity, Thomas. 1975. Crime, commitment, and the responsive bystander: Two field experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2):370–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muth, Robert M., and Roger N. Clark. 1978. Public participation in wilderness and backcountry litter control: A review of research and management. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper PNW-75, 12 pp. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland.Google Scholar
  30. Piliavin, J. A., and I. M. Piliavin. 1972. Effect of blood on reactions to a victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(3):353–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Powers, Richard B., J. Grayson Osborne, and Emmett G. Anderson. 1973. Positive reinforcement of litter removal in the natural environment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6:579–586.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shafer, Elwood L. Jr., and Robert C. Lucas. 1978. Research needs and priorities for dispersed recreation management. Journal of Leisure Research, 10(4):311–320.Google Scholar
  33. Shaffer, D. R., M. Rogel, and C. Hendrick. 1975. Intervention in the library: The effect of increased responsibility on bystanders’ willingness to prevent a theft. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5(4):303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1975. Recreation information management system, RIM Center, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  35. U.S. Department of the Interior 1977. National urban recreation study: Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, and National Park Service, Seattle, 363 pp.Google Scholar
  36. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1978. National urban recreation study. Executive Report, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Washington, D.C., 184 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harriet H. Christensen
  • Roger N. Clark

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations