Outdoor Recreation Does Not Lead to Conservation

Last week, I was hiking in the Sandias and heard something behind me in just enough time to react and jump off the trail. Eight mountain bikers proceeded to whiz past me at a recklessly high speed. Admittedly, I had a variety of frustrations about this, one of which was the speed they were riding. Had I not been aware and moved quickly, someone would have gotten hurt. Also, I was hiking in a wilderness area. Bicycles are not allowed in federally-designated wilderness areas. And, the only way to get to this particular spot on the trail was to pass a very prominent “No bicycles” sign. 

 

This interaction reminded me of the myriad of peer-reviewed studies that have been published since before I was born, clearly laying out that engaging in outdoor recreation does not lead to increased environmental care or acts of conversation. Yet in my decades of being an environmentalist, I’ve often heard conservation and environmental organizations tout that increased outdoor recreation will lead to more conservation. I have yet to see a case where that is true; I can, however, point out dozens of lands that have been degraded as the result of increased outdoor recreation.

I often think how people assume that why they engage in the outdoors is the same for everyone when that’s simply not the case. People recreate outdoors for many reasons: Some people seek connection with the land or a spiritual connection, or even go to the wilderness to better understand themselves. Some people see the outdoors as a form of entertainment, or a place to get an adrenaline high. There are many reasons, and some of those motivations will lead to an increased appreciation and connection with the land that can lead to increased environmental concern and conservation action. For those for whom the outdoors is there to use and take, it will not lead to more conservation and will, in fact, lead to more environmental degradation. 

Let’s stop oversimplifying and bring the complexity back into the conversation of outdoor recreation and conservation. They do not go hand in hand, nor does one always lead to the other. It’s more nuanced than that, and people’s reasons for recreating outdoors have a lot to do with the outcome in terms of environmental protection and conservation versus degradation.

It’s time we bring this kind of nuance back into the conversation. When we can get real about why we’re recreating outdoors and the environmental impacts of that recreation, we can make better decisions about what types of outdoor recreation can be allowed and supported in different areas. Conservation can come from outdoor recreation, so let’s talk about the conditions that are needed for that to happen rather than just assume it’s an automatic. By being intentional, we can think about which areas need to be closed to all outdoor recreation and which outdoor recreation areas can also provide some limited space like wilderness areas. I believe there is a way to support the many uses and it starts with us being able to discuss that different uses have different impacts. Okay, time to get outside!

Note: There are many great studies and articles out there already covering this topic and if this is new information to you, I highly recommend checking out Outdoor Recreation Equals Conservation: Debunking The Myth by Todd Wilkinson.