Promoting responsible camping: research

2 Irresponsible wild camping behaviour

2.1 Types of irresponsible wild camping behaviour

In Phase 1 of this project we conducted stakeholder interviews to help define irresponsible camping outside of managed facilities, and gauge perceptions of its scale and impact on the natural environment in Scotland. The behaviours stakeholders defined as irresponsible included:

• Littering, from small items such as cans through to abandoning tents or other equipment that could be classified as fly tipping;
• Irresponsible toileting behaviour, such as not burying faeces;
• Inappropriate campfires, including cutting down live trees for wood;
• Antisocial behaviour, such as causing nuisance noise;
• Camping in inappropriate locations, such as near historic sites or in heavily used areas;
• Inconsiderate, dangerous, or damaging parking.

The stakeholders we spoke to felt that these types of behaviours were a problem in Scotland and that the impact had been exacerbated by the significant increase in visitors to Scottish landscapes during the Covid-19 pandemic. Whilst many people camp responsibly and few are reported to exhibit all of the irresponsible behaviours, stakeholders note that with such large numbers accessing the Scottish countryside, the combined effect of those who exhibit just one or two such behaviours has the potential for significant adverse impacts.

Phase 2 of our study deliberately recruited participants who had camped outside of managed facilities in Scotland in the last two years, and engaged in at least one ‘irresponsible behaviour’, as defined in the section 1.1.2. In the interviews we explored the full range of irresponsible behaviours that they had engaged in and examined which behaviours occurred most frequently across the sample. We summarise the frequency of those behaviours and how our participants talked about them in the diagram and table below.

Figure 2. Frequency of mentions of irresponsible camping behaviour by participants

The most mentioned behaviours are at the top of the list, with the least mentioned behaviours at the bottom:

• Collecting deadwood (15 mentions);
• Inappropriate campfires (14);
• Toileting less than 30 metres from water or not burying faeces (11);
• Large groups of campers (9);
• Loud music (9);
• Excessive alcohol (9);
• Littering (6);
• Staying too long (2);
• Driving off-road and causing obstruction (2).

Behaviour

Inappropriate campfire starting and not clearing up

How our participants talked about the behaviour

Most of our participants reported lighting campfires on their trip.

Participants described leaving embers burning, ash remains and scorch marks from fires during dry periods on grass or a beach. Some used a stone ring if they came across one that had already been set up and felt that to be more responsible.

Only a handful of participants spoke about only lighting their fire if the weather was damp or the site was safely away from woods. The fact that some used wood from the surrounding area for their campfire suggests that they were likely close to wooded areas.

Behaviour

Collecting deadwood

How our participants talked about the behaviour

Those who had lit campfires reported that they had collected wood for their fire from the surrounding area.

Behaviour

Inappropriate toileting

How our participants talked about the behaviour

Some participants reported burying their faeces. Others talked about strategies to avoid defecating in the outdoors, such as taking medication to treat diarrhoea, such as Imodium.

Very few consciously toileted 30m away from open water. Two participants had purposefully urinated in lochs and streams, thinking it to be more hygienic than on land.

Behaviour

Camping in a large group

How our participants talked about the behaviour

Nearly half of the participants in our study described their camping trip explicitly as a social gathering of three or more unrelated people.

Behaviour

Littering and abandoning equipment

How our participants talked about the behaviour

Although participants were most likely to identify littering as an irresponsible behaviour, a few did report that they – or others in their camping party – had littered. One pair of participants reported that they had abandoned a tent at their camping location.

Some participants distinguished between types of litter, saying that they had left behind litter that would decompose, such as food waste, whilst making a conscious effort to remove non-compostable litter, such as cans.

Behaviour

Loud music

How our participants talked about the behaviour

Consistent with the social motivations some had for wild camping, a number of those who had gone camping as part of a group reported playing loud music. But others were clear that they were wild camping to escape rowdy groups at campsites and enjoy the peace.

Behaviour

Excessive alcohol

How our participants talked about the behaviour

Similarly, many of those we spoke to had consumed alcohol on their trip. A couple reflected that they, or someone in their party, had drunk to excess.

Behaviour

Staying too long

How our participants talked about the behaviour

Two of the participants we spoke to had stayed for four nights in one place.

Behaviour

Driving off road / inconsiderate or dangerous parking

How our participants talked about the behaviour

A couple of participants had parked off road but generally campers in this study had used car parks or arrived by public transport.

2.2 Who is demonstrating irresponsible camping behaviour?

In order to understand who might be demonstrating irresponsible camping behaviour, we first explored the characteristics of all groups who go wild camping in Scotland.

2.2.1 Socio-demographic characteristics

In a UK-wide online poll we commissioned as part of the set-up of this study, 4% said that they had wild camped (not in a campsite) in Scotland in the past 2 years.[10] Whilst the survey was opt-in and not designed to be nationally representative, comparing the demographics between those who did camp against those who didn’t reveals some patterns:

• Around 3 in 10 lived in Scotland, a much higher proportion than the total sample (29%, compared to 10% overall). It is worth noting, however, that in a 2019 report on visitor experiences of Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park, 68% of wild campers came from within Scotland.[11]
• However, a sizeable minority of those who had wild camped lived in London (11%) and the South East (14%). Although these proportions are comparable to the overall sample, it is notable given the geographical distance to Scotland.
• More likely to be male: 55%, compared to 43% of all respondents (with the overall sample slightly skewed towards female).
• More likely to be younger, with 35% aged 25-39, compared to 16% of all respondents. Likewise, 85% of wild campers in the study of Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park were aged under 55.[12]
• There was no strong pattern by socio-economic group.

Stakeholders reported that each area had a unique combination of visitors from different locations. For example, many campers in Perth & Kinross were reported to be from Fife, whilst the Highlands – in particular the North Coast 500 scenic route (NC500) – are seen to draw more English tourists, and the national parks also see visitors from outside the UK.

We asked stakeholders whether there might be any particular socio-demographic groups who are more likely to demonstrate irresponsible behaviour within this population of wild campers. Stakeholders were reluctant to generalise or to focus on one particular group at the expense of tackling behaviours that cut across different types of camper, from littering to lighting fires.

However, their observations revealed groups that they perceive to be more likely to go wild camping and behave irresponsibly, detailed in the table below:

Group

Young people

Irresponsible behaviour reported

All stakeholders identified cases of young people exhibiting irresponsible camping behaviour. Some wild camp in large social groups of friends, with alcohol or drugs. This was broken down further by some stakeholders into two groups:

• Under 20s, often celebrating the end of exams, drinking, and lighting fires.
• An older group, in their 20s, who would have attended music festivals or travelled to European party destinations if not for Covid-19. These campers were characterised by abandoning camping equipment and litter, as has become common at festivals.

“A lot of those who are least aware [of the need to camp responsibly] are in the 18-30 age group, and it’s the festival culture. Music festivals haven’t taken place, so they go to Aldi, buy beer, a tent, the cheapest sleeping bag… It’s the leave it behind culture of festivals.”

(Scottish Land and Estates)

Group

All male groups

Irresponsible behaviour reported

Several stakeholders also identified all-male groups (sometimes older), demonstrating quite different types of irresponsible behaviour. These included:

• More ‘extreme’, quasi-survivalists – inspired by shows such as Who Dares Wins and Bear Grylls – who exhibit more intentional behaviours such as using chainsaws to cut down trees and petrol cans to start campfires.
• Groups who travel after work, often in vans and with alcohol, to camp (as opposed to for other recreation) and leave litter behind.
• Fishermen, or campers who are also fishing.
• An older group characterised as having a ‘traditional’ view of what camping should look like – with a campfire and beers – and who are reluctant to change their behaviour.

2.2.2 Knowledge and attitudes

Stakeholders pointed to attitudinal commonalities of those who might be more likely to display irresponsible behaviours whilst wild camping. Within this, they included people with less experience or interest in the sustainability, environmental, and conservation aspects of enjoying the outdoors.

“It’s a whole spectrum […] What you’ve got to understand is that a lot of people are just the general public, they just don’t know the right thing to do.”

(Police Scotland)

Overall, the picture from stakeholders was that for the most part, irresponsible camping behaviour tended to be demonstrated by relatively local people going on a short camping trip with little or no experience of wild camping, rather than by visitors travelling from elsewhere. These people tended to travel to their destinations by car and camp near their car, and were ‘camping for camping’s sake’ rather than camping alongside another activity such as hiking or canoeing. Critically, these people tend to think they are ‘doing the right thing’, rather than deliberately behaving irresponsibly.

2.2.3 Participants in this study

Our participants broadly reflected the characteristics that were highlighted in the scoping stage of this study, in that they were often relatively young and going camping for social rather than recreational purposes. Discussions also supported the findings from stakeholders that campers behaving irresponsibly did so predominantly because of low knowledge and understanding of how to behave responsibly.

We can broadly classify the types of participant by their attitudes and experience of camping.[13] Very few of our participants were consciously irresponsible, showing no regard for the environment. However this finding should be treated with caution as the selected sample may not be representative of the whole and some participants may be hesitant to voice the real reasons for their actions.

Most were unwittingly irresponsible; some because they are simply inexperienced campers, while others are more experienced but are not aware that something they are doing could be harmful to the natural environment.

Figure 3. Diagram of three groups of camper based on knowledge and behaviour

Descriptions of three groups of camper, based on knowledge and behaviour, assessed by the research:

• Consciously irresponsible: showing no regard for the environment;
• Unwittingly irresponsible and inexperienced: simply inexperienced campers;
• Unwittingly irresponsible and experienced: campers who are not aware that something they are doing could be harmful to the natural environment.

Illustrations of these types of campers are outlined in the pen portraits of selected participants in our study, below.

Consciously irresponsible

Nick*, 37, lives in Fife. He enjoys spending time cycling and hiking outdoors and frequently wild camps with friends in both the summer and winter months.

He is aware of the importance of leaving ‘as little trace as possible’ when camping and, when shown the SOAC, felt this was mostly common sense, although he does not always act in accordance with the guidance.

He admits that greater awareness about the SOAC would not change his behaviour. In some cases, this is because he does not understand or agree with the rules, for example he does not perceive it to be irresponsible to light a campfire in a remote area where previous campers have left a stone circle.

But he also sometimes knowingly acts irresponsibly, such as when he left a tent behind because there were lots of midges.

“I’m really embarrassed that I’ve left a tent before – the midges were horrible, so we thought stuff it and left it. I think it’s just laziness and drunkenness… If I do something wrong, I know I’m doing something wrong.”

Unwittingly irresponsible (inexperienced)

Ellie* is 21 and lives in West Lothian. She has enjoyed hillwalking during the pandemic, though does not camp on these trips as she feels she lacks the skills. After seeing others camping on a nearby beach, she started travelling by car to camp there overnight with her boyfriend when the weather was good.

She was not aware of the SOAC but described the importance of not ‘making a mess’ or causing a nuisance. She feels that most of the guidance is common sense and matches the advice other people have given her.

She was unaware of some specific details of the SOAC, such as where to go to the toilet, but felt she still camped responsibly. She felt her campfire was responsible because other people nearby had them too, and she took steps to ensure her personal safety.

“We started going a year ago – we’d been to the beach a few times and sat with campfires, and we noticed quite a few people camp there, so that inspired us to one day give it a go. If you want to have a drink, you can’t drive home that evening, and we wanted to try something new.”

Unwittingly irresponsible (experienced)

Mark* is 35 and lives in Lincoln with his family. He spends much of his free time in the outdoors and particularly enjoys weekend climbing and camping trips to the Scottish Highlands.

He is very aware of the SOAC but feels he would behave just as responsibly even without the guidelines in place, motivated by a passion for protecting the environment and maintaining the beauty of the areas he visits.

He does, however, query the rule about not collecting deadwood, arguing that it is in such abundance in certain places that collecting a small amount would not have an impact.

“I didn’t really camp until around 6 or 7 years ago. I came across the code later. The point about dead wood – I understand that, but in some places there’s an abundance… It’s about using your judgement with that one.”