Psychological studies linking attributions of responsibility for accident causation, risk perception, and safety have largely considered occupational settings, such as factories, and everyday routines, such as driving cars. A second body of scholarship situates attribution of responsibility in the larger context of risk management and seeks to explain how individuals attribute responsibility for preventing accidents (i.e., for ensuring safety) in cultural, moral, and ethical terms. While these two literatures share an attention to risk perceptions, risk management, and risk-taking behavior, no apparent research has attempted their integration. This research links these two approaches to attribution theory with theories of risk perception and communication to explore risk management and safety promotion in three U.S. national parks.
With a mandate to conserve natural resources while attracting a diverse visiting public, the National Park Service relies on a variety of risk management techniques to promote visitor safety. In these settings, who (or what) is perceived as responsible for causing injuries, as well as ensuring that such incidents do not occur? To date, limited research has considered these questions. Employing a survey and in-depth interviews, this study will examine the perspectives of park visitors and NPS employees. Awareness of both groups? attributional beliefs, in turn, can help inform future risk communication strategies in parks, especially in locations where engineering or law enforcement strategies are inappropriate or impossible, and given diverse visitor populations.
Hosting hundreds of millions of visitors each year, U.S. national parks represent one context in which unintentional injuries are both recurrent and often fatal. With a mandate to conserve natural resources while attracting and protecting a diverse visiting public, the National Park Service (NPS) relies on a variety of risk management techniques, from paving walkways to posting signs, to promote visitor safety. In these settings, characterized by unique constellations of risks and recreational opportunities, who (or what) is perceived as responsible for causing injuries, as well as ensuring that such tragic incidents do not occur? Given increasing attention to the value of national parks, as both popular tourist destinations and exemplars of America’s natural and cultural legacy, such questions become critical to creating and implementing effective risk management strategies, as well as ensuring their support; however, to date, limited research has considered them. To begin to fill this void, we surveyed visitors and park staff at Mount Rainier National Park (Washington), Olympic National Park (Washington), and Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (New Jersey/Pennsylvania), and conducted interviews with staff at each park. The online survey allowed us to compare visitors’ and employees’ interpretations of a hypothetical visitor accident, and we found statistically significant differences in how each group perceived the cause of the accident. For example, employees were more likely to view environmental conditions at the park (e.g., uneven terrain) as important factors in causing the accident, whereas visitors were more likely to perceive bad luck as an important factor. As distinct populations with varied goals and responsibilities, these differences are not unexpected; however, such differences indicate that risk management decisions may not necessarily align with visitors’ expectations or needs. For instance, if visitors are apt to attribute an unintentional injury to bad luck, they may consider the event to be random, and therefore not preventable. This could result in their failure to change their behavior in the future. Alternatively, employees who over-attribute responsibility to the visitor, such as his or her unpreparedness, could fail to identify and implement prevention strategies. Differences in perceptions of the hypothetical accident also occurred within the employee and visitor samples, and seemed to be contingent upon whether the individual (or a known other) had experienced a similar accident. For example, employees who had experienced a similar accident, and who were involved in their park’s search and rescue efforts, were less likely to blame the accident on aspects of park management, such as a lack of safety infrastructure. Likewise, visitors who had experienced a similar incident attributed less responsibility to park management and more to bad luck. The in-depth interviews with park staff provided another angle on our topic of interest. While all interviewees agreed that ensuring visitor safety was a commitment shared with park visitors, they differed somewhat in how they allocated accountability for achieving this goal; though some viewed the responsibility as evenly split between visitors and park staff, others preferred to hold visitors more accountable. According to interviewees, prior to coming to a national park, visitors must take responsibility to prepare themselves for their trip, including seeking information from the NPS and other sources. Within park boundaries, visitors must also take responsibility to behave appropriately. Interviewees also discussed what could be considered challenges to enacting these responsibilities, such as the new sights, sounds, and activities that could distract park visitors from being vigilant about their own safety. At the same time, they expressed the belief that visitors’ actions and decision-making often seemed to indicate a lack of "common sense." When interrogated further, interviewees explained that lacking common sense seemed more a reflection of a visitor’s unfamiliarity with a park setting, including expectations regarding how to behave in these places, and their inherent risks. Somewhat differently, interviewees also suggested that risk encountered in a national park could be desirable, and an integral part of the experience. Importantly, though, the perceived acceptability and desirability of this risk seemed to depend, at least in part, on its origin and the circumstances with which it was encountered, as well as an individual’s biography. That serious unintentional injuries and fatalities occur seems reason enough, from a public health perspective, to direct increased attention and resources to promoting visitor safety in national parks. In so doing, investigating park audiences’ perceptions of such incidents will be critical. Such attributions of responsibility, which can vary based on experience and sociocultural background, are associated with normative judgments about how we value, manage, and communicate about these special places. A better understanding of these perceptions of both visitors and employees provides the scientific basis for designing and implementing more effective prevention strategies, including tailored communication, that ultimately achieve the goal of decreased incidents and increased visitation to and stewardship of our national parks.
