Post on 13-Dec-2015
PurposeCreates a framework from which we can
understand why/how people choose based upon the benefits they receive from certain choices/behaviors.
How reinforcement, experience, and/or compromising those benefits may impact behavioral choices
To define the benefits from taking part in a certain behavior, or recreating in a certain manner
Basic TheoryRecreation (and other behaviors) is a
psycho-physiological experience As a result it isn’t just the behavior or activity
itselfBenefits are the result of taking part in
certain activitiesThese come in many forms (i.e. psychological,
physiological, etc)Help the user “function more effectively”
There could be “good” or “bad” experiences
Benefits are optimized when experience most closely matches desired experience
Basic Theory continued“Problem” occurs when there is a gap between the
existing state and a preferred stateA behavior (activity) may help solve this “problem”
If the “problem” is not big enough, the state may be maintainedConstraints may hinder the solutionBehavior (recreation) may help solve this “problem” by
producing benefitsThe decision to take part in behavior/activity is
purposefulChoice between alternativesNot necessarily the same as the “economic man” and may not
be totally rationalBehavior may be trial and error, habit, etc
Stuart’s Fishing Trip
Stuart goes fishing
Stuart remembers that he
likes fishing
Stuart needs a break
from work
Get away from the
office
Time alone
Sense of achieveme
nt
YumStuart thinks
he is a bonafide
hottie in his waders
Some AssumptionsBehavior is not random
Even though the person may not be aware of all consequences and benefits
Many behaviors can fitUser does not have to maximize benefits
Behaviors can mitigate “problems”Behaviors produce benefits
AdvantagesHelps understand why people choose certain
activitiesConditions for certain choices
Helps define types of motivation for activitiesProduction of the Recreation Opportunities
SpectrumAnd Wilderness Opportunities Spectrum
Many practical applications to land and recreation managersImproves education, knowledge, marketingDevelop clearer management objectives
Some Possible Disadvantages and CriticismsDifficult to measure many benefits
Difficult to quantify if they are producedDoes it gloss over negative
effects/impacts?Does it exaggerate leisure benefits?
Does it view humans as too rational?Do land/recreation managers really
produce the benefits?Some question the theory and empirical
support for heavy use in recreation management
References Decker, D.J., Brown, T.L., Driver, B.L., and P.J. Brown. 1987. Theoretical developments in assessing social
values of wildlife: Toward a comprehensive understanding of wildlife recreation involvement. In D.J. Decker and G.R. Goff. (Eds.), Valuing Wildlife: Economic and Social Perspectives. Boulder: Westview Press.
Driver, B.L. 1976. Toward a better understanding of the social benefits of outdoor recreation participation.
Proceedings of the Southern States Recreation Research. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Ashville, N.C.
Driver, B.L., Bruns, D., and K. Booth. nd. Retrieved October, 2008 from
http://www.prr.msu.edu/trends2000/pdf/driver/pdf Driver, B.L., and S.R. Tocher. 1970. Toward a behavioral interpretation of recreational engagements, with
implications for planning. In B.L. Driver (Ed.), Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms Mich.
Harris, C.C., Driver, B.L., and E.P. Bergersen. 1985. Do choices of sport fisheries reflect angler preferences
for site attributes? Proceedings – Symposium on Recreation Choice Behavior. Missoula, MT, March 22-23, 1984. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service Research Station.
Hendee, J.C., and Dawson, C.P. 2002. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources
and Values. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. Manfredo, M.J., Driver, B.L., and M.A. Tarrant. 1996. Measuring leisure motivation: A meta-analysis of the
recreation experience preference scales. Journal of Leisure Research. 28(3): 188-213.