Promoting responsible camping: research

3 Understanding irresponsible wild camping behaviour

After exploring the types of people that behave irresponsibly when wild camping and the typical attitudes that characterise these groups, interviews moved on to a more in-depth analysis of their behaviour, and drivers behind this.

3.1 Motivations to go wild camping

Understanding why some people exhibit irresponsible wild camping behaviours begins with exploring their motivation, knowledge and understanding of wild camping before they embark on their trip. In our interviews with people who had demonstrated irresponsible wild camping behaviour, we explored whether there were any motivations that could distinguish them from wild campers as a whole.

We have framed our findings through the ISM model to identify the individual, social and material context within which people are choosing to wild camp.

Individual factors

Many of the reasons people gave for choosing to camp outside managed facilities centred on individual motivations. These individual motivations do not seem to distinguish our participants from those going wild camping responsibly.

Research of visitor experiences in Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park found that most of those who opted to wild camp in parks did so to be close to nature (65%) or for a sense of adventure (61%)^[14]. Participants in our study were similarly drawn emotionally to wild camping to experience an adventure of going ‘off the beaten track’ and ‘discovering something new’.

For most, this adventure involved connecting directly with nature and the environment, while for some it included managing without any luxuries or home comforts. This emotional draw both to adventure and nature had been heightened by the pandemic; people had a new found appreciation of the natural landscapes available within the UK and desire to do something with an exciting edge. Participants were drawn to wild camping specifically as a result of:

The sense of freedom

• Coupled with the desire for adventure, participants wanted a sense of choice and control over exactly where they camped. For some, this was to do with the convenience of being able to wild camp in remote locations which they were visiting for recreational purposes, such as walking (as opposed to being confined to the specific areas where other forms of accommodation are located). For others it was about finding the most picturesque location, especially a beach or lochside.
• As part of this sense of freedom, getting away from other people and switching off from technology was another motivation to go wild camping.

“[The main attraction of wild camping is] the freedom of it, the ability to have some control about where you are and what you do. You’re freer than when around other people.”

(Male participant, 45)

Affordability

• Participants also referred to their desire to achieve an affordable holiday, in particular during the previous two years when other types of accommodation in Scotland were in high demand and prices were perceived to be inflated.
• This factor was evident in Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park, where 35% of visitors who chose to wild camp did so due, at least in part, to its affordability.[15]
• However, this was a secondary motivation to the sense of adventure and freedom wild camping provides. Participants were unlikely to have chosen to camp in a campsite had that option been available and affordable, despite toilet facilities at campsites being appealing for some.

“Money… that’s why to wild camp, and freedom. We weren’t limited to camping in a certain spot, we didn’t have to book ahead or have to pay.”

(Male participant, 23)

Social factors

Whilst many of our participants had been camping in managed facilities before, they tended to have had less experience of wild camping. They tended to have been introduced to the idea of wild camping through:

• Family and friends who have been before and who have recommended it.
• Social groups (e.g., camping/wild camping groups on social media).

When participants sought information about wild camping, it was less about how to do it, and more about where to go.

“My husband and son had been the previous week, and then I was off work and bored, and they had planned the trip and I said I might want to go… I’d been camping years ago but not for the last 20-30 years. It just seemed to be at that point that everyone was going camping.”

(Female participant, 52)

Material factors

Many of the material motivations for wild camping were borne from a desire to experience the freedom that wild camping is seen to provide. These include:

• Avoiding rules and regulations.
• The very absence of rules and regulations draws people to wild camping. Some of our participants believed there to be no rules at all.
• People camping in large groups spoke about wild camping providing an opportunity to avoid noise restrictions at managed facilities and ensure they were not causing nuisance to others.

“There’s more freedom [in wild camping], no one tells you what to do, I’m not really aware of the rules in place. It was more fun [than a campsite], you can be a bit fun and mischievous – campsites don’t like rowdiness.”

(Male participant, 21)

Covid restrictions

• Stakeholders interviewed suggest that the increase in numbers of campers in Scotland has been directly linked to the Covid-19 pandemic. Restrictions such as the cancellation of festivals and closures of bars and restrictions on foreign travel have encouraged more people to find ways of socialising outdoors in the UK.
• Participants talked of escaping day-to-day restrictions by going wild camping and being able to get as far away from the rules as possible, particularly when international travel was banned.

Infrastructure

• For much of our sample who were camping for social rather than recreational purposes, a lack of camping infrastructure was not a driver of their decision to wild camp. Those who were wild camping for recreational purposes tended to have a bit more experience camping and therefore were not put off by the lack of toilet facilities, for example.

3.2 The drivers of irresponsible wild camping behaviour

We explored the perceived drivers of irresponsible wild camping behaviour with stakeholders before testing those perceptions with participants in our study. Again, we have framed our findings using the ISM model differentiating between individual, social and material factors. While most predate the Covid-19 pandemic, others can be seen as specific to the times.

Individual factors

Lack of knowledge

Stakeholders reported that many campers behave irresponsibly because they lack awareness that what they were doing was wrong, and do not know what responsible action they should be taking. Stakeholders were particularly concerned about low awareness around the risks of fires and use of wood given:

• The risk of the fire spreading underground when peat is present.
• The impact of using up dead wood.
• The effect of removing bark from trees.
• Existing fire rings suggesting that fires are acceptable.

“People will see a fire ring and assume it's fine to light fire as it's been done there before. People think they're doing the right thing. People have no idea about peat.”

(Ramblers Scotland)

Stakeholders similarly perceived lack of knowledge to be the main reason for incorrect toileting practices, a finding that echoes several other studies, including in the USA and Canada, which identify lack of awareness, both of 'pro-environmental camping practices’ and of the consequences of one’s actions, as key factors in irresponsible behaviour among campers.[16] [17]

Low knowledge and understanding of how to behave responsibly also emerged as a key reason for irresponsible behaviour when speaking to campers themselves, as mentioned in the discussion above about campers being ‘unwittingly’ irresponsible. Some reported not being aware of any rules, nor being familiar with the SOAC (including even that they have the right to wild camp).

Others thought that they had heard of the SOAC or that it sounded familiar when prompted with an extract, particularly the concept and wording of ‘leave no trace’.

“I don’t know if I’m aware of any specific rules, just that you should not leave a trace – you should take everything with you.”

(Male participant, 37)

However, even those who were more familiar with the SOAC tended not to know the detail, falling back on ‘common sense’ to inform their behaviour. It was apparent that participants’ interpretation of ‘common sense’ varied, and did not correspond to that of the rangers, access officers and land managers we spoke to as part of the stakeholder interviews for this study.

For example, participants spoke of leaving campfire ash or biodegradable litter as still being in the ethos of ‘leave no trace’, whereas stakeholders considered this to be irresponsible.

Despite all of our sample having engaged in at least one irresponsible camping behaviour, only a few participants identified with being an irresponsible camper. Whilst some participants acknowledged they had done something that fell short of best practice when wild camping, most felt that to the best of their knowledge, they had still behaved well enough overall.

Others had their own sense of a hierarchy of irresponsible behaviours, often considering littering or leaving a tent behind as the most irresponsible but seeing, for example, collecting a small amount of deadwood for a fire as acceptable. Few considered the cumulative impact of their actions combined with large numbers of people wild camping.

“We didn’t do too much wrong […] I think we left the embers of the fire, but I wouldn’t have said that’s the worst, it’s just going to fix itself with the wind – we brought all our cans home.”

(Male participant, 19)

Cost of campsites

Stakeholders suggested that some campers could be deterred by the high and rising prices at campsites near to hotspots, leading them to camp where there are no facilities, despite a lack of experience doing so and a preference for the comfort and ease such facilities offer. This was identified by stakeholders as a potential cause of irresponsible toileting and fire lighting.

We did not find strong evidence for this among our participants. Whilst our participants were drawn to wild camping because it is affordable, those within our sample had not tried to book a campsite and been put off by the increasing cost or being unable to book.

Lack of respect for the environment and/or other people’s property

Some stakeholders felt that, particularly in the case of littering and abandoning equipment, a key cause of irresponsible camping behaviour was a lack of respect for the environment and/or for other people’s property. Stakeholders spoke of the ‘leave no trace’ ethos exhibited by responsible campers, which is felt to be lacking amongst irresponsible campers.

Similarly, other studies have found that people’s concern for the environment is significantly influenced by their life experiences involving nature, such as childhood experiences of natural areas and outdoor activities, and having family members who value the environment.[18]

Even if a lack of respect for the environment is indeed a factor in irresponsible behaviour, this did not resonate with participants in our study. They often cited the ‘leave no trace’ ethos and talked of others who paid no respect to this. However, some participants admitted to irresponsible behaviour as a result of being lazy – for example, leaving litter next to a bin if the bin was full.

Perceived impunity

A few stakeholders felt that campers behave carelessly because they believe they will face no consequences for damaging the environment and/or private land.

“There were 2,700 people from July to the end of the season. Every single camper was educated there [by the rangers]. But we still found 250 messy campsites and 20 fires extinguished either by themselves or by a fire brigade. That’s still a lot of people not being responsible. I don’t think it is because they don’t know what the rules are – [they] think they can get away with it.”

(City of Edinburgh Council)

Although low awareness of the guidance was the key driver of irresponsible behaviour among our participants, for some, the remoteness of their camping location, free from restrictions, was an incentive to behave irresponsibly without fear of the consequences.

Alcohol

Most stakeholders highlighted how alcohol and drugs could be a key driver of irresponsible behaviour. People are more likely to cause damage and disruption when they are intoxicated and, in turn, more likely to abandon tents and equipment the next morning rather than face clearing up.

This was confirmed by our participants, with many citing drinking and hangovers as a reason for their own or others’ littering (including two left tents), loud noise, careless fire lighting, and potentially dangerous behaviours such as swimming in lochs at night. Two explicitly stated that their camping trips were for birthday celebrations, with a further 7 participants describing ‘social’ camping in large groups as part of a short holiday.

“If people are just going to get drunk, have a good time, take drugs, they might just get carried away, start fires, swing from trees.”

(Male participant, 35)

Social factors

Lack of outdoor education

Some stakeholders were concerned that a decline in outdoor education, either through schools or youth groups, such as Scouts Scotland, was driving a rise in irresponsible camping behaviour due to lack of knowledge. Whilst a minority of participants had completed Duke of Edinburgh expeditions or camped from a young age with their families, the majority had not learned wild camping practices early and so were arriving ill prepared for their trip, lacking essentials such as a trowel to bury human waste or bin bags to take their litter home.

“If you’re a new camper, you might not even be aware there’s a code – quite a few of the guys had never been camping… [There should be] talks in schools – here are some nice spots, and here are some rules. Tips are needed.”

(Male participant, 22)

The ‘curse of knowledge’ cognitive bias

Our conversations with stakeholders and campers, coupled with our own exploration of the available guidance, have identified that those who are experienced in spending time outdoors are affected by the ‘curse of knowledge cognitive bias’. This means that the behaviours or etiquette they have learned from, for example, an ‘outdoorsy’ upbringing, feel like common sense. When they communicate with others on the topic, they assume that they will have a similar level of background knowledge. Whilst the SOAC and associated guidance go a long way to defining how to behave responsibly, derived messages and advice from those who are more experienced can sometimes fall back on the assumption that it is obvious, easy, or common sense, to know what to do.[19]

“People don’t take common sense with them when they go away.”

(Highland Council)

What we heard from campers suggests that this phenomenon can backfire, with inexperienced campers interpreting such advice according to their own common sense, which can be at odds with what is actual responsible behaviour. For example, a participant explained that he thought toileting in a loch was a responsible behaviour, because any pollution is immediately washed away by the water (as opposed to understanding that this behaviour polluted the water source).

Romanticised ideas of camping

A number of stakeholders felt that imagery in the media of idealised camping trips is influencing people’s behaviour. For example, showing people lighting campfires to gather round and toast marshmallows, without communicating when and where it is safe to light fires when camping. Several participants noted that fires are widely seen as an indispensable part of a wild camping trip, due to depictions of camping on television and in films. Within social norms more widely, campfires are valued for the warmth they provide and the ability to cook or heat food. This resonates with findings that recreational behaviours which are perceived positively, such as letting a dog off the lead in a forest setting (seen as positive for both the individual and the dog), are harder to change.[20]

“People want fires, it’s a romanticised aspect of camping that people want.”

(Male participant, 23)

Survivalist television

More extreme damage to surroundings, such as chopping down trees and lighting larger fires, was perceived by several stakeholders to be inspired by ‘survivalist’ television shows such as Bear Grylls and Who Dares Wins, particularly as the latter is set in Scotland. These programmes were thought to confuse the boundaries between acceptable and irresponsible behaviour.

“Where we [the police] get more involved is with the groups in their late 20s-early 30s, all male, watching Who Dares Wins or Bear Grylls, and going away for weekends with slabs of beers, taking chainsaws to cut down trees and cans of petrol to set them alight.”

(Police Scotland)

None of our participants identified these television shows as a direct source of inspiration, nor did anyone admit to causing this kind of serious harm to their surroundings.

Peer pressure

Both previous studies and some stakeholders pointed to the effect of peer pressure and norms on outdoor behaviour, particularly for younger age groups.[21] As a result, people may be more likely to litter and abandon equipment after seeing friends do so.

“There's probably a bit of peer pressure as well if they're in a group that if, you know, one of them says ‘let's just leave it’ well the rest of them don't feel like tidying up. It's just laziness and they think they can get away with it.”

(City of Edinburgh Council)

Several of our participants cited peer pressure as a reason for their own poor behaviour, that of their wider group or other campers, in particular when it comes to littering. Even one experienced and environmentally conscious participant – who camps regularly with his young sons – reported being less conscientious when camping with friends due to not wanting to be seen as too ‘militant’.

Different social norms in different locations

Existing research suggests that different ‘sites of practice’ (i.e. in this circumstance, places where people go wild camping in tents) can encourage behaviours not regularly displayed in other settings – which therefore may be true for individuals who otherwise have limited experience of holidaying in this way.[22]

Material factors

Covid-19 impact

Whilst escaping Covid-19 restrictions was a motivation to go wild camping for many, the pandemic has also led to a removal of the opportunities to socialise, whether in bars or at festivals, or to travel further for foreign holidays.

Almost all stakeholders we spoke to attributed the more serious irresponsible camping behaviour in recent years to the cancellation of festivals and closure of bars and nightclubs. Groups of young people were using the outdoors for social gatherings and adopting a ‘festival culture’ of littering and abandoning their tents. This was only explicitly mentioned by one participant who attended a camping ‘party’ for one night, although the lack of other socialising opportunities can be assumed to have influenced a number of other participants given their descriptions of their trips.

“I’ve camped more regularly since Covid. It can’t be cancelled, that’s probably why […] We only went for one night – a Saturday – it was really just a boozy Saturday night.”

(Female participant, 32)

Similarly, without the opportunity for foreign holidays, stakeholders reported a sharp increase in the proportion of people taking a holiday in Scotland to go wild camping, who had little or no previous camping experience. Several of our participants did have limited camping experience prior to the pandemic and were inspired to go due to a lack of other holiday options, although these were not necessarily more irresponsible than those who had camped beforehand.

Lack of facilities and infrastructure

Many stakeholders cited a lack of infrastructure as contributing to irresponsible behaviour.

Several highlighted the lack of bins in hotspot areas as a cause of litter, and the lack of toilets as a key factor in irresponsible toileting.

“A lot of the time, if it’s a spot that’s less isolated, then usually you find the bins are full, it just really depends. Where there’s a car park and toilet facilities, you find those bins are overflowing.”

(Male participant, 35)

Some felt that more basic campsites in beauty spots would be attractive to inexperienced campers. Instead, demand for tent pitches escalated during the pandemic and the camping provider market turned to providing more profitable ‘glamping’ – a type of camping that is more comfortable and luxurious than traditional camping – sites for campers who would have previously taken more luxurious holidays. This could be following a trend found in Australia and New Zealand, where a rise in glamping has been thought to be displacing other campers into the more affordable practice of ‘freedom camping’.[23] Freedom camping is similar to wild camping in that it takes place outside of managed facilities and the costs associated with those facilities, particularly the more expensive glamping sites. It was felt that additional infrastructure would benefit inexperienced campers who prefer simpler options.

“Some people are going out into the countryside and are not expecting to be self-reliant. A lot of people enjoy semi-wild camping. That very inexpensive, simple infrastructure is lacking in a lot of the countryside – standpipe, portaloo, somewhere to put the car. Low cost, simple sites. That’s lacking.”

(Mountaineering Scotland)

Research of Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park found that 35% of those who chose to camp in semi-formal, low-cost campsites wanted a sense of adventure but the comfort of essential facilities.[24] This indicates that a lack of such facilities may be a factor for some campers.

However, none of our participants reported seeking out inexpensive light touch camping facilities and failing to either find or book a campsite. The fact that freedom was felt to be a major attraction of wild camping suggests that the appetite for even light touch facilities would not necessarily be higher even if the facilities were present.

A few participants spontaneously mentioned a lack of bins, overflowing bins, and the long distance to the car park with their belongings as reasons for themselves or others to litter.

Although the lack of toilet facilities troubled a minority of participants, it did not mean that that managed campsites were considered as a preferable alternative. Instead, irresponsible toileting behaviour was more commonly reported to be caused by a lack of preparation and awareness on the part of the campers. It is likely that the provision of more toilet facilties at roadside locations or car parks would be welcomed as an alternative.

Availability of cheap equipment

Stakeholders consistently attributed the rise in equipment being left behind to the increased availability of very cheap camping equipment, from budget supermarkets and some high street outdoor equipment retailers.

Abandoning camping equipment is consistent with a general rise in ‘disposable culture’.

“The availability of extremely cheap camping equipment is definitely a factor I get frustrated with, and the notion of a ‘festival tent’… It's like a disposable tent, available for 14 quid from [a supermarket], and the temptation for people just to use that, get rained on, realise it leaks or it's ripped, and then just leave it is obviously high.”

(Ramblers Scotland)

Only one participant, and another participants’, friend abandoned tents at the end of their trips, citing midges, bad weather, and hangovers, rather than the cheap cost, although this likely played a role.

Another pair of participants reported purchasing tents from a budget supermarket but did not abandon them in Scotland as they planned to reuse them for a festival. Other participants owned tents and other kit that they reused or borrowed from friends or family.

Insufficient investment

More generally, stakeholders did consider that the rise in numbers enjoying outdoor recreation, even before the pandemic, has not been matched by investment in protecting the natural environment. Both landowners and authorities lack the staff, resources, and infrastructure to accommodate visitors.

One participant noted that a lack of investment could be a driver for irresponsible behaviour, linking this to a lack of infrastructure (bins, toilets) and enforcement (patrols).

“If they realised the value of the first-class nature in the Highlands, they would put in infrastructure to help people do it responsibly, otherwise they’re leaving it up to people’s own sense of responsibility.”

(Male participant, 37)

Accessibility

Stakeholders highlighted how camping hotspots occurred primarily in roadside locations. Campers travelling to camp for social rather than recreational purposes can bring more belongings, such as crates of alcohol, music equipment, chairs and tables if they can camp close to their cars and not have to carry their equipment far.

In turn, the risk of littering or engaging in anti-social behaviour is higher if people are not travelling light.

“[The festival brigade] are taking everything from close proximity to car, in a shopping trolley, then leaving everything.”

(Police Scotland)

Most of our participants drove close to their camping location, but only one pair reported camping right next to the car park. For another pair, having a car did enable them to bring more equipment, but it also made it easier to take away all their belongings and rubbish.

The great outdoors

Stakeholders felt that sometimes, the unpredictable weather and experience of midges can contribute to irresponsible camping behaviour. Inexperienced campers can pitch their tent in an area that floods when it rains or be overwhelmed by midges, both circumstances causing them to abandon their equipment. Several of our participants had experienced bad weather and midges, and whilst the majority accepted this as part of camping in Scotland, both factors caused a participants’ friend and another participant to leave tents behind.