理解和减少关于河流娱乐用途的冲突

IF 2.2 3区 社会学 Q2 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
Charlotte I. M. Brockington, Tavi Murray, Fiona Buttrey, David Charlesworth, Sofia Consuegra, Carlos Garcia de Leaniz
{"title":"理解和减少关于河流娱乐用途的冲突","authors":"Charlotte I. M. Brockington, Tavi Murray, Fiona Buttrey, David Charlesworth, Sofia Consuegra, Carlos Garcia de Leaniz","doi":"10.1080/01490400.2023.2267529","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The societal benefits of having greater access to rivers are numerous, but conflict sometimes ensues between recreational users. Using Wales as a case example, we conducted a survey to better understand the underlying beliefs and emotions of different river users in relation to river access. Sixty per cent of respondents felt there was conflict over river access, but perceptions differed with age and river usage. Most boaters wanted greater access to rivers, in stark contrast to anglers. Greater dialogue was highlighted as a necessary step to reduce conflict, but support for specific management actions such as usage tariffs, spatial or temporal zoning, or limiting the number of users were much less popular. River users differed in cooperativeness and assertiveness but consistently flagged water pollution as the most important factor detracting from their enjoyment of rivers. Sentiment analysis indicated that “trust” was the dominant emotion shared by all river users.","PeriodicalId":48087,"journal":{"name":"Leisure Sciences","volume":"234 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding and Reducing Conflict over the Recreational Use of Rivers\",\"authors\":\"Charlotte I. M. Brockington, Tavi Murray, Fiona Buttrey, David Charlesworth, Sofia Consuegra, Carlos Garcia de Leaniz\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01490400.2023.2267529\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The societal benefits of having greater access to rivers are numerous, but conflict sometimes ensues between recreational users. Using Wales as a case example, we conducted a survey to better understand the underlying beliefs and emotions of different river users in relation to river access. Sixty per cent of respondents felt there was conflict over river access, but perceptions differed with age and river usage. Most boaters wanted greater access to rivers, in stark contrast to anglers. Greater dialogue was highlighted as a necessary step to reduce conflict, but support for specific management actions such as usage tariffs, spatial or temporal zoning, or limiting the number of users were much less popular. River users differed in cooperativeness and assertiveness but consistently flagged water pollution as the most important factor detracting from their enjoyment of rivers. Sentiment analysis indicated that “trust” was the dominant emotion shared by all river users.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48087,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Leisure Sciences\",\"volume\":\"234 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Leisure Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2023.2267529\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leisure Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2023.2267529","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

拥有更大的河流通道带来的社会效益数不胜数,但有时休闲使用者之间也会发生冲突。以威尔士为例,我们进行了一项调查,以更好地了解不同河流使用者在河流通道方面的潜在信念和情感。60%的受访者认为在河流使用权问题上存在冲突,但看法因年龄和河流使用情况而异。大多数划船者想要更多地进入河流,与垂钓者形成鲜明对比。加强对话被强调为减少冲突的必要步骤,但对具体管理行动的支持,如使用费、空间或时间分区或限制用户数量,则不太受欢迎。河流使用者在合作和自信方面有所不同,但一致认为水污染是影响他们享受河流的最重要因素。情感分析表明,“信任”是所有河流用户共有的主导情感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding and Reducing Conflict over the Recreational Use of Rivers
The societal benefits of having greater access to rivers are numerous, but conflict sometimes ensues between recreational users. Using Wales as a case example, we conducted a survey to better understand the underlying beliefs and emotions of different river users in relation to river access. Sixty per cent of respondents felt there was conflict over river access, but perceptions differed with age and river usage. Most boaters wanted greater access to rivers, in stark contrast to anglers. Greater dialogue was highlighted as a necessary step to reduce conflict, but support for specific management actions such as usage tariffs, spatial or temporal zoning, or limiting the number of users were much less popular. River users differed in cooperativeness and assertiveness but consistently flagged water pollution as the most important factor detracting from their enjoyment of rivers. Sentiment analysis indicated that “trust” was the dominant emotion shared by all river users.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Leisure Sciences
Leisure Sciences Multiple-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
7.50%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: Leisure Sciences presents scientific inquiries into the study of leisure, recreation, parks, travel, and tourism from a social science perspective. Articles cover the social and psychological aspects of leisure, planning for leisure environments, leisure gerontology, travel and tourism behavior, leisure economics, and urban leisure delivery systems. Also published are methodological notes and philosophical and policy treatises, calendars of research meetings and conferences, announcements, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信