Revisiting and revising recreation conflict research

Since conflict emerged as a recognizable outdoor recreation problem in the 1960s, some argue that its conceptualization, modeling and management have been sufficiently addressed such that a viable construct and management issue exists. Others are uncertain and offer ideas for potential improvement. A member of the latter group, I see several critical opportunities to advance conflict research, conceptually and methodologically. Therefore, a call for improved recreation conflict research and management is issued with the intent to enhance both visitor experiences and management ability. Conceptually, recreation conflict is constrained because it remains uncertain and insufficiently modeled. This construct called conflict remains relatively unknown, a hybrid of other varieties of recreation challenges such as crowding and norm violations (Owens, 1985). Conflict, like the majority of our constructs, has been researcher defined. The most commonly used definition, presented by Jacob and Schreyer in 1980, is "goal interference attributed to another's behavior" (p. 369). Still, with little regard to this definition, many researchers investigate `conflict' and, depending on their results, declare it flourishing or in decline. Oftentimes, however, rather than defining conflict as goal interference, researchers inquire about visitors' perceived `problems' without considering if and how `problems' and `conflicts' differ and, subsequently, how their management might also differ. Such misnomers cannot be ignored if conflict research and management are to advance. The conditions necessary for conflict perception have been modeled, but significant strides to synthesize its development remain absent. Conflict was both formally introduced and modeled in 1980 by Jacob and Schreyer and others (Lindsay, 1980; Bury, Holland & McEwen, 1980). Jacob and Schreyer's model remains dominant despite minimal comprehensive testing and validation. Is it a wonder that conflict is not consistently and significantly predicted? Methodologically, a quantitative bias, lack of emic knowledge and outdoor focus further impede the advance of recreation conflict research and its subsequent management. The initial quantitative bias in recreation research may have limited explicit investigations of conflict's connotation to visitors; but what is preventing such inquiries in 2000 and beyond? Before we can understand how to mitigate and manage conflict, we need to understand its content. Existent inconsistencies in meaning and measurement impede advancement. Efforts to better understand conflict will maximize continuity in its meaning among visitors, managers and researchers and enable accurate assessments of its prevalence among recreation areas and visitors. Beyond semantics, the effects of recreation conflict are too often slated as negative when, conflict can symbiotically exist among other conditions and highlight opportunities. How conflict is managed determines its toxicity; thus, the conflict management process is of imminent importance (Dustin & Schneider, 1998). Further, although a variety of conflict types exist, there seems to be a myopic focus on outdoor recreation conflict. Granted, group level conflict and resolution has been addressed in natural resource management (cf. Wondolleck, 1988), but most certainly recreation conflict exists in other recreation environments and levels. Why do outdoor recreation researchers study recreation conflict while others concern themselves with benefits? Does conflict occur so infrequently that leisure researchers have dismissed it or, conversely, does conflict occur so frequently that it is presumed managers already adeptly contend with it? Whatever the case, it is time to re-examine the conflict construct and recognize its occurrence indoors. Beyond conceptual and methodological areas for conflict research improvement, expanding the content foci of conflict is suggested. Perhaps the greatest opportunities for research and management lie in the inherent conflict that emerges from the diversity of both our customers and service providers. …