Outdoor participation and intent among indoor climbers: findings from the U.S. and Canada

ABSTRACT

Although rock climbing is thought of as a quintessential nature sport, much contemporary climbing takes place on indoor walls of plastic and wood – figuratively (and sometimes geographically) far from the outdoor settings where rock faces are found. In this paper, we leverage data from a survey of thousands of indoor climbers in the United States and Canada to examine differences between indoor-only climbers and those who also climb outdoors or intend to in the near future. Among other findings, our results suggest that climbing is less central in indoor-only climbers’ routines and tends to be less motivated by the managed risk-taking that was once considered an inseparable element of the sport. Our results also offer insights into possible shifts in the marginalisation of groups and identities other than cisgender white men in outdoor recreation activities and contexts – and the role of indoor facilities in such shifts.

KEYWORDS:

• Recreation
• leisure
• indoor climbing
• rock climbing
• climbing gym

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Other modelling approaches also warrant attention. First, we considered a two-step Heckman (1976) model to account for possible selection bias in the indoor-only sample. We decided against it for theoretical and analytical reasons. A Heckman analysis calls for at least one variable in the selection equation that is not in the step two equation. Because our step one and step two analyses essentially model the same decision (whether or not to climb outdoors), we identified no theoretically justifiable variable to omit. When we ran an ordered probit Heckman selection analysis (introducing a new variable to step one), the results indicated problematic correlation between predictor variables of the step one and two analyses, and a Wald test of independence indicated that the selection model performed no better than independent analyses. Second, we ran a conditional multinomial model simultaneously comparing outdoor climbing and intent to climb outdoors against indoor-only climbers. The results were overwhelmingly consistent with those presented here. Third, we ran analyses with fixed effects by state, with no difference in findings.

2. We believe that most of the non-climber respondents were parents/family members of climbers who received the survey notification because of familial (or similar) relationships.

3. We tested the models’ sensitivity to the dropped observations by omitting household income and parenthood status in alternative analyses. There were predictable changes in some results; for example, respondent age became statistically significant. The results of less logically connected variables (e.g. climbing practice attributes) were unchanged. We opted to report the current models, reduced observations notwithstanding, as they arguably offer more complete and accurate accounts of the factors related to an indoor climber’s decision or intent to climb outdoors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

David P. Carter

David Carter is an assistant professor in the Programs of Public Affairs at the University of Utah Department of Political Science. His research examines on public policy design and administration, local government, and collective action among climbers, alongside other topics.

Laura Allured

Laura Allured is the Senior Manager of Membership & Marketing at the Climbing Wall Association. She has worked in the indoor climbing industry for almost five years and enjoys climbing and hiking in the mountains of Colorado.