Exploring Relationships of Trust in ‘Adventure’ Recreation

Abstract

A central concept in the notion of leisure, and therefore also of recreation, is freedom. In this article we argue that freedom in organised recreation, especially in activities involving some degree of deliberate risk‐taking (i.e. in adventure recreation), is preserved through relationships of trust between recreation organisers and participants. This article seeks to outline the theoretical field of trust and to begin to explore the concept of trust in the context of adventure recreation. A recent criminal conviction in New Zealand has highlighted the issue of trust in recreation and serves as a point of departure for the purposes of exploring conceptualisations of trust and their application to the adventure recreational context. Trust does not appear to have attracted attention in the recreation literature to date, yet it may provide a useful means of negotiating the contested terrain created at the nexus of recreation culture (in particular adventure recreation), recreation management and application of the law.

Keywords:

• adventure recreation
• trust
• risk
• responsibility
• risk management
• recreation values

Notes

1. Information collated by one of the authors (Lynch). At least 33 events were cancelled in 2003 and early 2004; other effects included postponements; alterations to route or type of event; increased insurance costs; increased entry fees; volunteer organisers withdrawing services; increased use of waivers; more stringent safety briefings.

2. Contemporary use of the term ‘adventure’ in recreation covers events such as Le Race. The word ‘adventure’ is used in association with many organised or guided recreational activities in New Zealand, includingoutdoor pursuits, skateboarding, orienteering, martial arts and indoor laser tag games (see, for example, http://recreation-sports.nzpages.co.nz). The inclusion of cycling components in multisport events has given endurance cycle events such as Le Race the mantle of ‘adventure’ as well.

3. In this way, the measurement of confidence intervals is a legitimate mechanism by which to engage in formal risk management. Our concern in this article, however, is to explore the more ephemeral and pervasive notion of trust.

4. As an aside, this may be one of the ways in which individuals develop a ‘swift trust’ of others, conferred ex ante of their meeting, as a result of their mutual trust of the third party that acts as a coordinator (Meyerson et al., 1996). Further empirical work is required before we can comment on swift trust in recreation settings.

5. While more could be said about ‘self‐policing’ from a sociological perspective, to do so would be beyond the scope of this particular article.