THE CONCEPT OF RECREATIONAL SPECIALISATION

Paper reprinted with permission from MERCER, D. (ed) Outdoor Recreation Australian Perspectives (Sorrett Press, 1980).

ELERY HAMILTON-SMITH, Department of Leisure Studies, Preston Institute of Technology, Bundoora, Victoria

INTRODUCTION

The concept of recreational specialisation has been recently introduced by Bryan, initially using the example of trout fishermen1 and later a wider range of outdoor pursuits2. Essentially Bryan argues that:

1. Within any given outdoor pursuit, participants may be placed upon "a continuum of behaviour from the general to the particular, reflected by equipment and skills used in the sport and activity setting preferences".3
2. Participants are likely to progress over time from novice through generalist to specialist, and specialisation may be either adjunct or direct.4
3. The concept of specialisation provides a framework for analysis of recreational behaviour which has a sound theoretical base5 and is likely to be of greater value to land management planning than previous formulations6.
4. The more specialised participants enter a distinctive "leisure social world"7 or "subculture"8 and the most specialised may "centre much of their lives and identities around their sports or hobbies."9
5. As specialisation increases, dependency on particular resource types will change and this change is likely to be in the direction of increased and more specific dependence.11

The heterogeneity of participants in any one specific pastime has long been recognised by both researchers and managers, while the impact of recreational specialisation upon individual behaviour has been a matter of common knowledge, even to the point of providing the base of many well known jokes12. However, Bryan contends that the specialisation dimension demands further scientific analysis, and that such analysis is likely to improve management practice. He is certainly correct that there has been little research upon specialisation, or indeed, other patterns of differentiation between participants in any one recreational pursuit. One recent Australian example is the work of Dixon on resource capability analysis for sailingl3. Interestingly, Dixon rejects the model as outlined in Bryan's first paperl4 but his data are not in any essential conflict with the broader model discussed in Bryan's later page15.

The most clearly related earlier research is doubtless that of Hendee and his colleagues. They firstly defined the difference between 'appreciative' and 'consumptive' uses of wildlife resources16 and then developed the notion of a continuum from general to specific recreational motivations.17 They also argue that the most satisfactory way of planning for recreational use of a resource would be to give priority to those users having the more specific motivations. Although their later research is more sophisticated, it is largely based upon the early concepts of 'appreciative-consumptive' activities and general-specific motivations.18 Other researchers have pursued examination of motivations, generally utilising cluster analysis of attitudinal inventories.19 Bryan argues that these motivational studies have not been particularly productive as guides to the everyday problems of managers,20 and that his approach enables researchers to focus upon behavioural outcomes. Although aligning himself with the increasing number of researchers who question the use of attitudinal measurements to predict behaviour2l much of his published data consists of attitudinal statements during interview rather than monitoring of behaviour. At the same time, it is true that appropriate data might be much more satisfactorily obtained by observation and recording of behaviour, and Bryan's work was, in fact, largely based upon observation.

Management practice will commonly divide any recreational land area into a hierarchical series of zones, ranging perhaps from facilities and development, through natural areas to wilderness and scientific reference zones.22 The assumptions underlying such zoning are rarely spelled out, but are often based at least on the Hendee general-specific model. Thus, visitors who come for general recreational purposes are likely to remain in the developed zone, or part only of the natural area. Those with slightly more specific innovations, e.g. to photograph the flora, may penetrate more deeply into the natural area, while only the most specifically motivated will undertake entry to the wilderness zone. Conservation principles may further dictate that only those with recognised research interests will be allowed to enter the reference areas.

It is not difficult to see in this example the very close parallel between the Hendee general-specific continuum and the Bryan novice-specialist continuum.

The aim of this paper is to apply the Bryan model to a further recreational pursuit, namely the visiting of caves, and then to examine the applicability of the resulting analysis to problems of managing caves. Just as Bryan's examination of trout fishermen owes something to his own leisure interests, so the present paper is based upon the author's relatively extensive experience of both caving as recreation and management planning for cave areas. However, the extent to which caves are reasonably discrete and clearly definable resources facilitates testing of conceptual approaches to the solution of management problems.

At first sight, the pursuit of cave visitation appears to fit the Bryan concept of specialisation. It would be relatively easy to suggest a continuum from the novice paying his or her first visits to caves through to the specialist explorer of the world's deepest caves. However, the real situation is far more complex than this.

In common with an increasing number of recreational pursuits, caving as a recreation overlaps with a recognised field of scientific enquires. Speleology has attracted the attention of virtually all disciplines, has an extensive professional literature, a number of research institutes devoted to its studies, and a number of researchers in educational and other institutions pursuing cave-based research23. The boundary between caving as recreation and speleology as scientific study is a diffuse one, as much research has been carried out by "amateurs" in the course of recreational caving, and much of the professional literature is based upon data gathered by such cavers.

Again in common with other pursuits, many cavers join organised associations in order to pursue their interest, but others do not. Bryan notes the extent to which involvement in organised groups may serve to accelerate the process of specialisation. A further issue which will be familiar to any researcher who has attempted to investigate aspects of outdoor recreation is the extent to which it is much easier to gather data concerning those who belong to such associations than those who have no such affiliation. In Australia, many of these associations have adopted the term 'speleological society' as part of their title, and a national body, termed the Australian Speleological Federation, was established in 1956 (it, in turn, is a member of the International Union of Speleology).

Bryan measures specialisation in terms of the equipment and skills used and the nature of preferred settings for the activity.

The data relating to cave visiting suggest that it will be more useful to firstly deal with the characteristics of equipment and skills, then to separately examine the question of preferred settings. Figure 1 summarises the results of describing cave visitors according to the criteria of skills and equipment. Although this figure and the more detailed discussions below are based entirely upon Australian data, similar patterns appear to occur in other countries known to the author. However, the prevalence of specific levels of specialisation may vary widely from one country to another.

The visitor who exercises the least skill and requires least specialised equipment (none) is the one who "buys" the experience by visiting a developed tourist cave as a member of a guided party. Even in the case of self-guided tours (as at Yarrangobilly or Wombeyan in New South Wales) or 'wilderness cave' tours (as at Chillagoe in Queensland or Ida Bay in Tasmania), skill requirements are minimal and any equipment is supplied by the managing agency. Currently in Australia this form of pursuit involves almost a million person-visits per annum. Although many of these visitors will only visit one cave, or only visit caves as a diversion in the course of their annual vacation, others will deliberately seek out appropriate caves. This latter group may even arrange holiday venues accordingly, undertaking extended journeys (sometimes on an international level) in order to visit a large number of caves and to make their own comparative judgements of the cave experience. Although these "repeating" visitors are shown in Figure 1 as having a higher level of skill, it is questionable whether one can properly use the term to denote this higher level of interest. However, terminology aside, the repeating tourist does develop a degree of skill, and does require a different response from management than does the novice visitor.

The casual visitor is defined here as the person who enters a cave only very occasionally, probably in the course of bushwalking, picnicking, boating or some other outdoor pursuit, using no more specialised equipment than an ordinary torch. Some individuals may make further visits to the same or other caves, acquire increased skill, and adopt further equipment such as improved lighting or a safety helmet. These are referred to here as low-skill cavers. At least some of those falling into these two categories are children (shades of Mark Twain!) and a number will belong to some kind of Association such as a bushwalking club. The frequency of this kind of cave visitation has probably been underestimated in the past, but recent data from log-books placed in caves indicates that such visitors make a substantive contribution to the recreational use of caves.

One log-book, placed in a remote cave on the Nullarbor Plain in 1956, was inspected by the present author in 1978 and found to list 415 visitors.

Comments recorded in the book indicated that virtually all could be placed in the casual visitor category. During 1971-73, a book was placed in one of the caves near Texas in Southern Queensland (in an area now inundated by the waters of the Glenlyon Dam). Although controversy regarding the proposed dam construction had attracted public attention to the caves, they were situated some 330km from Brisbane, located well away from major roads and relatively difficult to find. In spite of this, 1128 visitors were recorded, and again, most could be identified as belonging to the casual visitor or low-skill categories. Most had travelled from Brisbane or even further.24 More recently, log-books in a series of caves in South Western Australia have revealed a similar pattern with most visitors travelling some 300km from the Perth area. Hart estimates that these visitors account for a total of some 10,000 person-visits to the caves concerned in any one year.25 A similar study, currently in progress in the Buchan area of Eastern Victoria, has led the Victorian Speleological Association to a preliminary estimate of some 4,000 person-visits per annum.26

The next step towards specialisation involves using a wider range of equipment, including specially chosen clothing, wire ladders, ropes, multiple lights and certainly safety helmets. Apart from the greater skills demanded in using some of this equipment, cavers so equipped are able and likely to enter caves which are more difficult to traverse. The extent to which this level of specialisation demands group cooperation and usually group ownership of equipment means that the majority of these medium-skill cavers will belong to an association, which may be a general outdoors activity group or one of the speleological societies At least a number of the visitors recorded in the latter three log-book studies reported above are likely to belong to this category, but log-books often provide inadequate data to enable discrimination of skill levels. An increasing number of youth organisations (particularly the Scout Association) and many schools are also providing for caving at this level within the context of outdoor education programmes.27 However, the young people who visit caves in this way are usually so led and organised that they themselves are probably little more skilled than the tourist visitor to a "wilderness" cave tour. So, they are indicated in Figure 1 as a further and separate category in relation to skill on one hand and equipment used (hence level of difficulty likely to be attempted) on the other suggests potential risk of accident. The absence of systematic recording of cave accidents in Australia makes it difficult to assess the reality of the potential risk, but overseas experience suggests that such groups are particularly vulnerable.

Speleologists are defined for present purposes as those who utilise a range of even more complex equipment, and who, in particular, are likely to record their caving experience in the form of maps and written reports.28 They are likely to belong to speleological societies, but may be associated with Scout groups, and in very rare instances, may not belong to any formal association. Within this category, one finds those whom Bryan describes as centering 'much of their lives and identities around their sports or hobbies'. Although the number of individuals involved is relatively small, probably never exceeding 1,000 throughout Australia at any one time, their frequency of cave visiting is high. A currently unpublished questionnaire study of Australian speleologists indicated that 35% of those responding had spent 25 days or more of caving in the previous twelve months. The extent to which speleologists are willing to travel in order to pursue their interest is indicated by the fact that almost 50% of respondents had visited caves in three or more States.

The highly specialised cavers and speleologists comprise an extremely complex and diversified category. Some have followed the major line of development indicated in Figure 1, having a high level of proficiency in the physical skills of cave exploration and often using highly specialised equipment such as single-rope techniques29 or underwater diving equipment.30 The increasing efficiency and effectiveness of modern equipment means that many cavers at this level are undertaking extreme levels of challenge in their search for the deepest, longest, largest, most remote or most difficult caves. At least a number of the expeditions undertaken in recent years have only been feasible because of technological innovation in equipment design and production. Initially, equipment of this kind was fabricated by the specialist cavers for their own use, but it is now becoming increasingly available through retail outlets. Obviously, this may well have some impact upon the activity pattern of medium-skill cavers.

There are also many who have developed proficiency in what Bryan terms adjunct specialisation, and in speleology this may include surveying, photography, documentation, editing of publications, design and manufacture of innovative equipment or involvement in one of the specialist disciplines of scientific speleology (e.g. geology, mineralogy, zoology, microbiology, archaeology). These adjunct specialists may or may not also possess considerable skills in the physical tasks of exploration, may or may not use specialised equipment, but will often call upon skills or knowledge derived from other aspects of their life experience. Many will have undergone a process of socialisation to caving as a leisure pursuit through experience at the 'lower' levels of specialisation, but some may enter virtually directly to speleological activity at this level as a result of their adjunct skills and knowledge (e.g. professional scientists).

Figure 1 indicates a strong correlation between the skill and equipment factors, but also shows that the situation is more complex than the simple uni-dimensional models of specialisation proposed by Bryan. Although Bryan referred to the 'buyer' of experience, in this example represented by the tourist visitor, he neglected the potential development of specialist interest and knowledge (rather than skill) by the 'repeating' buyer. The equivalent position of the outdoor education visitor indicates a significant departure from the overall correlation and was not recognised by Bryan.

Figure 1. Specialisation within recreational cave visiting.

He similarly does not give adequate attention to the potential importance of the adjunct specialist who enters directly to the recreational system on the basis of skills and knowledge gained through some other aspect of life experience. Similarly, although he refers to the possibility of varying points of entry to the recreational system, he gives it scant attention. In the example of caving, at least five important points of entry can be distinguished, each with somewhat differing patterns of socialisation to the pursuit, and these are marked in Figure 1 by arrows.

Consideration of Bryan's third factor - activity setting preferences - demonstrates even more strongly the inapplicability of a uni-dimensional model. Cave visitors can readily be grouped into four categories, indicated in Figure 1 by dotted lines, and their preferences are defined below:

Category A : Tourists and outdoor education visitors
Management resources (guides, provision of equipment, marked trails, lighting) are essential; accessibility and ease of traversing cave are important.

Category B : Casual visitors and low-skill cavers
Management resources are rejected; accessibility and ease of traversing caves are important.

Category C : Medium-skill cavers and speleologists
Management resources are rejected; accessibility is of some importance (largely because of economic constraints) but difficulty of access poses a degree of challenge and occasional trips will be undertaken to remote areas; difficulty in traversing caves becomes an important and sought-after challenge.

Category D : Highly specialised cavers and speleologists
As emphasised above, this category is a complex and diverse one; setting preferences are very dependent upon the nature of specialist interests. At one extreme, the high-skill explorer will utterly reject management resources, seeking out challenge in remote places, relatively undeterred by difficulty of access and excited by the difficulty of traversing caves. At the other, some with a research bias will be dependent upon management resources (e.g. availability of electric power supply) and will seek out caves which are readily accessible and easy to traverse in order to enable the conduct of research studies. Within either of these two positions some will require caves with very extreme specific characteristics, e.g. the zoologist specialising in bats will only be interested in water-filled caves. Others, engaged in comparative or areal studies, may well be interested in any caves. Some, e.g. bibliographers, will not necessarily require caves at all.

The discussion above suggests that the relative simplicity of the basic model which Bryan derived from his study of trout fishermen demands re-examination and elaboration in respect to at least some other activities. Although Bryan draws upon a number of dimensions in developing his notion of specialisation, the basic model tends to be a uni-dimensional one, in which an individual might be placed somewhere on a continuum between novice and specialist. At least in caving, the picture presented here is a more complex one. It might be argued that the present treatment of adjunct specialists includes in the specialist speleologist category people, e.g. researchers, to whom caving is secondary to a primary activity of research, and that this approach is inappropriate. However, the present author's experience is that these individuals are recognised by other cavers as being specialist cavers. Moreover, the land manager is rarely able to perceive them in any other way (although there are exceptions to this generalisation).

These issues of detail do not mean that specialisation analysis is inappropriate or unprofitable. Some comments have already been made on the possible relevance of the present analysis, and this issue is pursued more systematically below.

As with other natural resources used for recreational purposes, the manager of a park or other area containing caves has a dual and internally conflicting responsibility, namely to provide for the recreational use of the resources and at the same time, to minimise their degradation.

Just as zoning has been adopted as a basic tool in general park management, so Australian managers of cave areas have commenced to look towards classification of caves for management purposes.31 Although each of these proposals has been arrived at without any very systematic exploration of specialisation within recreational caving, virtually all have been based upon knowledge of and assumptions about this.

The underlying assumptions appear to be two in number. Firstly, it is clearly assumed that cave visitors can be categorised into a hierarchical system, comprising categories such as tourists, casual visitors, generalist speleologists and specialist speleologists. Secondly, as one proceeds from the first to the last of these categories, so one will find a greater awareness of the need to preserve natural resources and a greater sense of responsibility, coupled with the skills and knowledge to effectively implement the sense of awareness and responsibility. The resulting classification systems are each intended to operate as the basis of a screening process, with access being progressively limited by such means as gating, concealment of location and permit systems to more specialised levels of visitor. Interestingly, all but one of the proposals can be readily related to the categories outlined in the previous section of this paper, and rather than detailing all proposals, this can be adequately illustrated by the commonly agreed classification determined by a recent national conference of cave managers32 (See Table 1).

Proposed cave* classification		Category of Visitor	Assumed environmental impact
1.	Limited access caves	Specialist speleologists and high-skill cavers	Minimal
2.	Wild caves	Generalist speleologists and medium-skill cavers	Low
3.1	Adventure caves	Low-skill cavers, casual visitors, outdoor education    visitors.	High
3.2	Show Caves	Tourists	High, but confined (largely due to the actions of management in providing necessary resources for visitors).

TABLE 1 : The relationship between a proposed classification of caves and specialisation categories of cave visitors.

* This proposed classification is further developed in the paper by Worboys, Davey & Stiff presented in this volume

DISCUSSION

Some limitations of detailed aspects of the Bryan model have been commented upon above. The discussion which follows is concerned with the utility or otherwise of analysing recreational specialisation in relation to solving practical problems of management.

The validity of the assumption that there is a close correlation between levels of specialisation and environmental responsibility should probably be questioned. This assumption is fundamental to any very useful linkage between specialisation analysis and practical management planning. In the case of caving, there is insufficient empirical evidence to firmly establish such a correlation. At the same time, the extent to which speleological societies and some other associations focus the attention of their members upon environmental responsibility, and the evidence available in respect to actual damage caused by varying types of visitors suggests that there is at least a prima facie case for support of the assumption. It does not appear that this is related to the nature of the socialisation processes associated with joining such associations, rather than with exposure to the experience of caving. At the more general level, although Dunlap and Heffernan33 argued a correlation between involvement in outdoor recreation and environmental concern, this has not been supported by later research by Geisler et al34 or Pinhey and Grimes. From this, one can argue the case for continuing monitoring of environmental behaviour, and for further analysis of the socialisation of individuals into the distinctive leisure sub-cultures associated with outdoor pursuits.

If one accepts this particular assumption as having adequate validity for working purposes, then a number of practical benefits arising out of specialisation analysis can be demonstrated from the current study. At the simplest level, the analysis herein provides a basis for assessing the adequacy or otherwise of classification proposals to other management tools. As an example, one of the schemes proposed for classification36 suggested only three categories of caves, and combined the classes 2 and 3.1 shown in Table 1. In practice, this would mean wither that the high environmental impacts of low-skill cavers would be spread across a larger number of caves, with negative impacts upon the satisfaction of other visitors, or that an undue proportion of caves would be placed in the limited access class, which would limit recreational opportunities and increase the practical tasks of managers in policing limitation of access. Alternatively, one can argue that the analysis contained in this paper supports the basic soundness of the cave classification shown in Table 1.

This paper also serves to direct attention to the special problems posed by the outdoor education visitor category, and to more clearly define the nature of the problem. A number of strategies are then indicated. Such visitors should be directed to Class 3.1 caves rather than Class 2 caves. Tomalin's argument that all such visitors should be given systematic training and preparation to ensure that their level of skill is adequate for the difficulties of any cave visited37 should be heeded by education authorities or youth groups concerned.

The level of skill required by leaders of parties should be recognised as belonging at the highly specialised level than the medium-skill level which is so often the case at present. The current analysis also draws attention to two further areas of heterogeneity amongst cave visitors which demand adequate recognition. The first is amongst tourists, where the needs of repeating visitors are inevitably different from those of first time or occasional visitors. This particular issue has not yet been tackled by cave managing authority, nor is there any research upon which to base programs. This is probably an issue of considerable importance if the quality of the cave tourism experience is to be improved. The second, and much greater heterogeneity, is within the highly specialised category. If one assumes, as is often the case, that caves will be placed in Class 1 for narrowly specific reasons, e.g. the presence of archaeological relics, then one cannot assume that all highly specialised speleologists have any knowledge of the appropriate discipline, e.g. archaeology. Thus, no matter how environmentally responsible such a person may be, he may well do damage merely as a result of ignorance. The strategic implication seems clear, namely, that the reasons for and nature of limited access should be clearly defined for each Class 1 cave.

Thus, I would argue that this paper demonstrates the potential value of specialisation analysis. Although the nature of the behaviour patterns are likely to be very different between different pursuits, each is likely to offer useful insights for planning purposes. Many of the management problems are not dissimilar, and one could draw parallels between the examples discussed here and issues which arise in respect to bushwalking, skiing, climbing, canoeing or any one of a number of other pursuits. Although the present volume is concerned with outdoor and essentially non-urban recreation, perhaps it should also be said that the outstanding examples of the failure to recognise heterogeneity and specialisation amongst recreational participants occur in urban recreational arrangements, including sporting pursuits and clubs for 'special' population categories. In my opinion, Bryan has done a useful service by drawing attention to the importance of this issue, and it deserves more attention, particularly in urban recreation.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES

1. BRYAN, H., Leisure value Systems and recreational specialisation : The case of trout fishermen, J Leis. Res., 9(3) 174-187, 1977.
2. BRYAN, H., Conflict in the great outdoors, University of Alabama Sociological Studies, 4 : 1-98, 1979.
3. Footnote 1, p. 175.
4. Footnote 2, pp 87-8.
5. Ibid., pp. 88-93.
6. Ibid., pp. 93-6.
7. Footnote 1, p. 186.
8. Ibid., p. 174.
9. Footnote 2, p. 88.
10. Ibid., pp. 95-6.
11. Footnote 1, pp. 181-2.
12. See, for instance, Marginal Note, New Society, 50 889 : 137, 1979.
13. DIXON, G., Resource capability analysis for water-based recreation : The example of sailing, Monash University, Dept. of Geography Working Paper, 9 : 1-68, 1979.
14. Footnote 1.
15. Footnote 2.
16. HENDEE, J.C., Appreciative versus consumptive uses of wildlife refuges : Studies of who gets what and trends in use, Trans. N. Amer. Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 34 : 252-64, 1969.
17. HARRY, J. A., J. C. HENDEE & R STEIN, A sociological criterion for outdoor recreation resource allocation, Unpublished paper to Annual Meeting, American Sociological Association, 1972, quoted in Bryan, 1979.
18. eg, HENDEE, J.C., R.P. GALE, & W.R. CATTON, Typology of outdoor recreation activity preferences, J. Envir. Educ., 3(1) : 28-34.
19. eg, DITTON, RB., T. L. GOODALE & P.K. JOHNSEN, A cluster analysis of activity, frequency and environmental variables to identify water-based recreation types, J. Leis. Res., 7(4) : 282-95, 1973 : Hautaluoma, J & P.J. BROWN, Attributes of the deer-hunting experience, J. Leis, Res., 10(4) : 271-87, 1978.
20. Footnote 2, p. 92.
21. For an overall review of this issue, see McGUIRE, W.J., The concepts of attitudes and their relations to behaviour, in SINAIKO, H.W. & L.A. BROEDLING (Eds.), Perspective's on attitude measurements : Surveys and their alternatives, Champaign, Ill : Pendleton Press, pp. 7-31, 1976.
22. Cf. SMITH, F.G., National Park Management Policies, National Parks Authority of Western Australia, 1977, p. 8.
23. For an indication of the current state of speleology as a science, one might consult, for instance, FORD, T.D. & C.H.D. CULLINGFORD (Eds.), The Science of Speleology, London : Academic Press, 1976, xiv + 593 pp.
24. Pike Creek Dam : A Preliminary criticism of the Queensland Irrigation and Water Supply Commission's environmental impact study, Brisbane : Queensland Conservation Council and University of Queensland Speleological Society, 1973, p. 2, App. II.
25. HART, R., Recreational caving in Western Australia, Unpublished paper to Conference of Aust. Speleological Federation, Perth, Jan. 1979.
26. WHITE, N., research in progress.
27. TOMALIN, W.M., Caverneering : Extra-curricular, Tas. J. Educ., 6(3) : 58-61, 1972.
28. The extent of documentation involved is indicated by the last published volume of Australian Speleo Abstracts (1975) which listed 947 references.
29. MONTGOMERY, N., Single rope techniques, Sydney : Sydney Speleological Society, 1977.
30. CAVE DIVERS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA INC., Conference on cave diving, Mount Gambier 1977.
31. Documented proposals for cave classification include:
    • HAMILTON-SMITH, E., Introduction to the management of caves and karst areas, J. Sydney Speleo. Soc., 21(1) : 3-15, 1977.
    • MACROW, P & GOBBY, R., Tourist cave management in South Australia, Cave Management in Australia II : 27-37, 1977.
    • SKINNER, A.D., Mass recreation at Ida Bay : The development of Exit Cave, Unpublished thesis, Tasmanian College of Advanced Education, 1973.
    • WILSON, P., Managing the limestone caves of Chillagoe and Mungana, Report for the National Parks and Wildlife Service of Queensland, 1977.
    • WORBOYS, H., A basis for cave management, Proc. 11th Conf.
    • Aust. Speleo Fed., Canberra 1977, pp. 7-16.
    • WATSON, J., Caves in Western Australia, Dept. Cons. & Envir. Bull. 51, A brief comparative summary of all these proposals can be found in Cave Management Newsletter, 1 : 2-4, 1978.
32. ROBINSON, A. (Ed.), Cave management in Australia III (Proceedings of 3rd. Australian Conference on Cave Management and Tourism, Mt Gambier, 1979), in prep.
33. DUNLAP, R.E. & R.B.HEFFERNAN, Outdoor recreation and environmental concern : an empirical examination, Rural Sociology, 40(1) : 18-30, 1975.
34. GEISLER, C. C., 0 B. MARTINSON & E.A. WILKENING, Outdoor recreation and environmental concern : a restudy, Rural Sociology, 42(2) : 241-9, 1979.
35. PINHEY, T.K. & M.D. GRIMES, Outdoor recreation and environmental concern : a re-examination of the Dunlap- Heffernan thesis, Leisure Sciences, 2(1) : 1-11, 1979.
36. Footnote 31, MACROW, P. & R. GOBBY, op. cit.
37. Footnote 27.