Dear Shayne,

very interesting question! I am mainly thinking of hiking/climbing/skiing trails here in higher-altitude terrains. In that case, I'd probably say: Yes, high-risk sections certainly narrow the "viewscape" of the person traversing that space. More experienced climbers, skiers etc. will certainly automatically focus their view on the spatially immediate parts of the path before them most crucial for their next steps/moves in terms of safety. I think that's an automatic response (trigger). I don't think there's a fundamental difference between, say, hikers and bike riders (mountainbikers, for instance). Speed and thus focus are different, of course, but that should only change the angle of their viewing focus not the fundamental fact that they are on high alert and thus narrowing their overall viewscape. I am not so familiar with multi-use paths, but I have personally made the experience that risks posed by people crossing your own path by different means of transportation (hiker versus down-hill skier, e.g.) certainly distracts you from taking in the wider landscape - especially from appreciating its more scenic qualities. However, I think many people actually underestimate the risk of serious accidents resulting from collisions with other people as opposed to natural hazards such as steepness, narrowness of path etc. Perhaps it's a natural sensation of humans to feel safer surrounded by other human beings than by a difficult, purely "natural" terrain. Just my two cents worth...

Best,

Julius

Obviously it will, but maybe definitive data will come only from field surveys.

This question is very interesting. I agree with Julius that there is no fundamental difference in how recreationists perceive the field viewscape across activities, with the premise that those recreationists are skillful enough to travel across this section safely. In other words, skill and experience levels might determine their views and ability to focus.

I do think that social experiences might influence those recreationists' views. A hiker might feel uneasy on that section when seeing a mountainbiker riding toward her/him at a high speed. On the other hand, when seeing peers or other parties cruise that challenging section might increase one's confidence and thus change her/his view. My two cents.

Thanks for sending this interesting question!

So Julius and Koran - If we narrow the subject to a short section of a cycling and walking track - part of a network that runs through rural, suburban, and urban settings. The section I have in mind is generally flat with undulations except for one short section (~300m) which drops steeply at a slope ranging from 12-17 degrees of incline. So it is a bit of a state change in the trail. The trail is also closely bounded (~5m total width) on either side by a wire fence that cyclists dropping down the trail are very keen not to hit. Strava speeds for bikes going downhill on this section reach into the 40-50kmh range. Occasionally sheep escape the neighbouring paddock of this section - creating a hazard. Cyclists, walkers and runners are known to bring their dogs along on this section - leashed or unleashed. Approximately 61,000 people traversed this section in the past year (some Covid Effect there). The trail system is generally designed to a grade 1 or 2 level, however this short section is grade 4 (of 6).

The main risk it seems would be the cyclists coming downhill at speed - either directly effecting other users (walkers, runners traveling in either direction) or effecting their own experience (braking to avoid, over braking down the hill causing ruts, or leaving the trail to avoid and crashing into a fence, or just blasting through past the other users). The increase in E-bikes has increased the proportion of bikes going uphill, and the increased mass of an E-bike also effects the mechanics of downhill riding.

Given this context, I’m thinking that the uphill and downhill experience of this trail are very different and that the experience varies by user type. However, it seems to me that the underlying behavioural mechanisms (risk perception and self-preservation) are the same regardless of user type - even though the actual risk is dependent on mode of travel (wheels v feet). At this point my working hypothesis is that the state change in the trail itself drives a greater degree of attention to events/conditions in the path corridor over that of the viewscape from the trail. Having ridden this trail, I can say that even when the trail is free of other users (and sheep) my attention is directly on the trail due to the speed at which I am bombing down it.

I’ve no data to support this - other than observations - however it would follow the above that users with higher degrees of risk aversion (i.e. elderly, unfit, inexperienced) may well feel constrained to engage with this section of trail. Feel free to challenge this. Really appreciate the feedback!

Kofan Lee Julius Riese

Dear Shayne,

many thanks for this interesting and very detailed description of the setting. Now that you've told us so much about it, I am really eager to know the specific location of this trail - is it somewhere in New Zeland or Australia? I agree with your (working) hypothesis regarding the focus of bikers coming downhill. From what you're describing, it seems that this is, indeed, a quite challenging and potentially very dangerous section. Are there any signs warning users of other user groups, oncoming traffic, intruding sheeps etc.? The maximum speeds you cite for cyclists there are very high. I have experienced similar situations myself and have at times felt quite uneasy (as a hiker/walker going uphill facing downcoming mountainbikers travelling at high speeds and often displaying erratic steering behavior [this was on a very narrow, steep mountainbike path within a forested area]). If you want to produce quantitative empirical data on the question of users' focus (viewing angle, viewing focus etc.), you may want to contemplate using eye tracking technology. It should be relatively easy to install such a device on the handlebar of a mountainbike, for instance. Probably more difficult to do this with walkers, but certainly possible for cyclists/motorists etc.!

Best,

Julius

Hi, Shayne,

Thanks for showing us more about the context of this study. I think it is correct that the risk aversion populations would be distracted from rather than engage in activities related to this trail. I wonder if these different attention levels between groups can be detected by eye trackers, as Julius suggested.

I also wonder what would be the outcomes affected by different levels of on-trail attention. There are studies out there showing that nature exposure is beneficial to our cognitive and emotional wellness. I am not sure if there are enough studies suggesting that adventure recreation activities would do the same, especially to risk-aversion groups.

Thanks for this great question!

KoFan

I would like to pick up on Kofan's last point about the connection between exposure to nature and physical and mental health. I find this very interesting. Perhaps a further connection can be made here to Shayne's original question: I would put forward the hypothesis that users of the trail who are less inclined to take risks during recreation such as walkers or hikers may actually take in more of the scenary, landscape and thus of "nature" in general than people who opt to travel such trails by more risk-prone means such as mountainbikers - for the simple reason that the latter group simply has to focus more on the immediate path and manoeuvres ahead of them and thus can afford less time taking in and enjyoing the environment. What do you think? Would more risk-prone recreationists therefore also benefit to a smaller degree from the positive health effects of enjoying "the great outdoors"?

I agree with a lot of what Katrina has been saying. I'd just add that in my view, there are, indeed, certain "objective" risks, i.e., risks presenting themselves to human beings inherent to a certain physical site. But - on a lighter note - this may actually connect to Katrina's point about Aristotle. Because, if we go back to his great teacher Plato, we may argue that to every accident or incident manifesting itself as the incarnation of its associated risk, as it were, there is an "Idea" of that materialized risk. I even feel tempted to connect this to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics, whereby an incident/accident occurring - to stay in the above analogy - would equal the wave function collapsing. But I better leave it at that for the moment :-) Happy weekend to all!