Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology (한국환경생태학회지)

Korean Society of Environment and Ecology (한국환경생태학회)
권호 표지

Hikers' Perceived Conflicts about Mountain Biking by Socio-demographic and Visiting Characteristics in Mudeungsan Provincial Park

인구사회학적 특성 및 방문행태에 따른 등산객의 산악자전거에 의한 상충인지 - 무등산도립공원을 대상으로 -

  • 김상오 (전남대학교 농업생명과학대학 임학과) ;
  • 김상미 (전남대학교 농업생명과학대학 임학과)
  • Received : 2011.06.01
  • Accepted : 2011.09.06
  • Published : 2011.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Increasing mountain biking (MTB) in forest recreation areas is changing the behavioral patterns in the areas where hiking has been a dominant activity, and it may cause ecological and social impacts to the areas. This study examined hikers' perceived conflicts by MTB including the relationship between socio-demographic and visiting characteristics and perceived conflict. On-site survey was conducted in Mudeungsan Provincial Park (MPP), Korea, during September, 2010. Out of 388 hikers participated in the survey, 374 responses were used for data analysis. 30.2% of the respondents encountered or saw MTB (avg.: 1.7 times) in MPP. Overall, 77.1% of respondents thought MTB in MPP was a problem. 73.5%~83.2% of respondents perceived conflict by four major MTB behaviors (e.g., too fast running MTB in trails; MTB bikes occupying trails; MTB bikes passing by hikers too closely; MTB bikers doing unpleasant behaviors to hikers). Based on the type of conflict, 48.5~62.4% of respondents fell in the type of "social values conflict (SVC)", 11.1~32.4%, "interpersonal conflict (IC)", and 16.8~26.6%, "no conflict (NC)", respectively. Types of conflicts were related with sociodemographic (e.g., gender, age, education) and visiting characteristics (e.g., number of visits, experience of encountering MTB). Such relationships were nonexistent in most cases when the "experience of encountering MTB" was controlled.

지금까지 하이킹 활동이 주를 이루어 왔던 산림휴양지역에 산악자전거 활동(MTB)이 도입되면서 휴양지역의 이용행태에 변화를 가져오고 있으며, 또한 MTB 활동의 증대는 휴양지역의 생태적, 사회적 문제를 초래할 우려가 있다. 본 연구는 인구사회학적 특성 및 방문행태에 따른 상충인지를 포함하여 MTB에 의한 등산객의 상충인지를 조사하였다. 자료수집은 2010년 9월중 무등산도립공원 등산객을 대상으로 현장설문조사를 통해 이루어 졌다. 설문조사에 참여한 388명 중 374명의 응답이 본 연구의 분석에 이용되었다. 응답자의 30.2%가 무등산도립공원내에서 MTB를 보거나 만난 것(평균: 1.7회/조사당일)으로 나타났으며, 응답자의 77.1%는 무등산 도립공원 내 MTB활동이 문제가 있다고 생각하였다. 응답자의 73.5~83.2%가 산악자전거인의 4가지 주요 행동(예, 등산로 상에서 너무 빨리 달리는 산악자전거, 등산로를 차지하고 있는 산악자전거, 등산객 옆을 너무 가까이 지나가는 산악자전거, 등산객에게 불쾌한 행동을 하는 산악자전거인)에 의하여 상충인지를 느끼는 것으로 분석되었다. 응답자의 48.5~62.4%가 "사회적 가치 상충", 11.1~32.4%가 "상호간 상충", 16.8~26.6%가 "상충 없음" 유형에 속하는 것으로 각각 나타났다. 상충유형은 인구사회학적(예, 성별, 연령, 교육수준) 및 방문(예, 방문횟수, MTB와의 조우경험) 특성과 관련이 있었다. 그러나 그러한 관계는 "MTB와의 조우 경험"을 통제하였을 때 대부분의 경우에서 성립되지 않았다.

Keywords

References

  1. Arnberger, A. and C. Brandenburg(2007) Past on-site experience, crowding perceptions, and use displacement of visitor groups to a peri-urban national park. Environmental Management 40: 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0355-8
  2. Blahna, D., K. Smith and J. Anderson(1995) Backcountry llama packing: Visitor perceptions of acceptability and conflict. Leisure Sciences 17: 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409509513256
  3. Carothers, P., J. Vaske and M. Donnelly(2001) Social values versus interpersonal conflict among hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences 23: 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400150502243
  4. Cessford, G.R.(2002) Perception and reality of conflict: Walkers and mountain bikes on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand. In: A. Arnberger, C. Brandenburg, and A. Muhar (Eds.), Proceedings of the monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational and protected areas. Vienna, Austria: Bodenkultur University, pp. 102-108.
  5. Cordell, H.K. and M.A. Tarrant(2002) Forest-based outdoor recreation in the U.S. south's timber sector in 2005: A prospective analysis of recent change. In: D.N. Wear, J.G. Greis(Eds.), Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: USDA, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. pp. 269-282.
  6. Gibbons, S. and E. Ruddell(1995) The effect of goal orientation and place dependence on select goal interferences among winter backcountry users. Leisure Sciences 17: 171-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409509513255
  7. Gramann, J. and R. Burdge(1981) The effect of recreation goals on conflict perception: The case of water skiers and fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research 13: 15-27.
  8. Hammitt, W.E. and C.D. McDonald(1983) Past on-site experience and its relationship to managing river recreation resources. Forest Science 29: 262-266.
  9. Ivy, M., W. Stewart and C. Lue(1992) Exploring the role of tolerance in recreational conflict. Journal of Leisure Research 24: 348-360.
  10. Jackson, E. and R. Wong(1982) Perceived conflict between urban cross-country skiers and snowmobilers in Alberta. Journal of Leisure Research 14: 47-62.
  11. Jacob, G. and R. Schreyer(1980) Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 12: 368-380.
  12. Kang, J.Y. and H.S. Kim(2006) The structural equation modeling of the public MTB(mountain bike) facility on citizens' satisfaction, image, attitude and trust. Korea Sport Research 441-450. (in Korean with English abstract)
  13. Kim, H.C. and I.H. Nam(2005) A study of policy plan for the activation of MTB. Korea Sport Research 16: 337-346. (in Korean with English abstract)
  14. Kim, H.S. and T.H. Yoon(2006) The influence the service quality of MTB park and citizens' satisfaction, word-of-mouth intention and revisit. The Korean Journal of Physical Education 45: 315-324. (in Korean with English abstract)
  15. Kim, S-O and B. Shelby(1996) Influence of expectations, norms and motives on perceived conflict: At a campground in Chirisan National Park. Journal of Korean Forest Society 85: 647-655. (in Korean with English abstract)
  16. Lee, D.S. and H.S. Kim(2006) The structural equation modeling of the public MTB facility on residents' image, satisfaction, attitude and trust. Journal of Sport and Leisure Studies 26: 175-186. (in Korean with English abstract)
  17. Lucas, R.C.(1964) Wilderness perception and use: The example of the Boundary Water Canoe Area. Natural Resources Journal 3: 394-411.
  18. Manning, R.E.(1999) Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 374pp.
  19. Ramthun, R.(1995) Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences 17: 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409509513254
  20. Ruddell, E. and J. Gramann(1994) Goal orientation, norms, and noise induced conflict among recreation area users. Leisure Sciences 16: 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409409513222
  21. Shelby, B.(1980) Contrasting recreational experiences: Motors and oars in the Grand Canyon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 35: 129-131
  22. Vaske, J., M. Donnelly, K. Wittmann and S. Laidlaw(1995) Interpersonal versus social-values conflict. Leisure Sciences 17: 205-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409509513257
  23. Vaske, J., R. Dyar and N. Timmons(2004) Skill level and recreation conflict among skiers and snowboarders. Leisure Sciences 26: 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400490432145
  24. Vaske, J.J., M.D. Needham, and R.C. Cline(2007) Clarifying interpersonal versus social values conflict among recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research 39: 182-195.
  25. Watson, A., D. Williams and J. Daigle(1991) Sources of conflict between hikers and mountain bikers in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 9: 59-71.
  26. Watson, A., M. Niccolucci and D. Williams(1994) The nature of conflict between hikers and recreational stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research 26: 372-385.
  27. Watson, A.E.(2001) Goal interference and social value differences: Understanding wilderness conflicts and implications for managing social density. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P 20, pp. 62-67.