Promoting responsible camping: research

4 Preventing irresponsible camping behaviour

4.1 Addressing individual and social factors

In order to reduce irresponsible camping behaviour, we need to address the individual and social context affecting motivations to wild camp, and attitudes to protecting the natural environment that are driving the behaviour.

We have plotted each of the irresponsible behaviours against the axes of awareness and acceptance below. The behaviours that participants are most likely to accept are irresponsible broadly correlate with those they have more awareness of. For example, whilst the environmental impact of littering is clear, and ‘leave no trace’ is widely accepted among our sample, participants are less aware of the environmental impact of collecting deadwood, and less likely to accept guidance not to as they do not see it as problematic.

Figure 4. Diagram showing relationship between prior awareness of guidelines about certain behaviour and how accepting participants were of the guidance

The diagram displays relationships between prior awareness of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (SOAC) around certain behaviour and how accepting the research participants were of the guidance. The least awareness and least acceptance of the guidelines are at the top, with the levels of awareness and acceptance ascending towards the bottom:

• Collecting deadwood (least awareness and acceptance);
• Toileting less than 30 metres from water;
• Only have campfires when safe and with responsibly sourced fuel;
• Keep groups small and don’t stay too long;
• Bury faeces;
• Park safely and considerately;
• Avoid excessive alcohol;
• Don’t play loud music;
• Littering (most awareness and acceptance).

We explored with participants what they think would help reduce the different types of irresponsible behaviours based on their own awareness and attitudes – although as we have highlighted, none of our participants consciously identified themselves as an ‘irresponsible wild camper’. The most inexperienced wild campers tend to be unaware of the guidance and the consequences of their actions, whilst more experienced campers may have high levels of awareness but hold values about the acceptability of an action that differ from those trying to maintain the landscapes.

4.1.1 High awareness/high acceptance behaviours

Out of all the irresponsible behaviours discussed as part of this research, our participants singled out littering. Properly disposing of rubbish is felt to be common sense guidance and widely accepted, even by participants who admitted to littering on occasion. On the rare occasions when a couple of participants have littered, these instances were characterised by being as a result of other irresponsible behaviours (e.g., being hungover), fitting in with others (e.g., littering if friends did) or as a result of thinking they were doing a responsible thing (e.g., leaving litter next to a full bin, or leaving biodegradable litter). As a result of the acceptance that littering is unacceptable, further education will likely do little to change behaviours.

“No litter is going to be the obvious [rule] […] I’m pretty sure we left stuff, we lit a massive burnhole, and I’m pretty sure one of the guy’s tents.”

(Male participant, 21)

Nearly all spontaneously mentioned the importance of caring for the environment and could see how actions such as littering or abandoning equipment caused immediate damage both to the natural environment and its enjoyment by others.

4.1.2 Medium awareness/medium acceptance

The behaviours in the middle of the diagram can feel open to interpretation, or have the reasoning behind them questioned. This group of behaviours can present particular difficulties for inexperienced campers who are seeking very simple instructions rather than guidance that requires them to exercise their judgement over how much is ‘too much’ or in the wrong place and could cause damage. For example, participants understood that driving off road could damage wildlife, but questioned if it really made much of a difference when simply parking on the verge next to the road. There are, however, challenges with creating a blanket set of black and white instructions, which are discussed in more detail in the ‘Tailoring communications’ section below.

Of all the irresponsible behaviours we discussed there was most uncertainty about campfires. Participants were keen to light fires as part of a perceived ideal camping experience but knew little about whether or where fires were acceptable. Seeing evidence on the ground of fires built by previous campers further reinforces perceptions that campfires are permitted in that particular place. In areas where fires are not appropriate, it will be particularly challenging to break this romanticised connection between campfires and wild camping.

“The whole point of camping is that you get a wee fire going – I thought that was a legitimate part of camping. When it’s saying don’t do it, definitely people will.”

(Male participant, 19)

Some behaviours, such as large groups, drinking alcohol, length of stay or volume of music, don’t make sense to participants. Going to remote locations is seen to be a real driver for going wild camping, and most believe that the impact of these behaviours is low because they are not disturbing other people in such a rural location.

“Being quiet… If you’re far away from anything, you should be okay, I don't see much of a problem.”

(Male participant, 22)

“It’s the laughter, the freedom, just have a carry on without repercussions.”

(Female participant, 32)

Tackling irresponsible behaviours in this middle ground needs to be particularly sensitive to people’s concern about being reprimanded for behaviours where they are not confident about the right thing to do, and do not necessarily see the harm of their ‘one off’ evening of, for example, drinking in a large group.

Instead, they are seeking positive information about how to enjoy their camping experience within the parameters of what is permitted – such as how to deal with the remains of a campfire in a responsible way, or where to park considerately to lessen the environmental impact. They want to know how to sustain the natural environment rather than being told not to do things. Much of this can be built on the ‘leave no trace’ ethos that is well known and received.

4.1.3 Low awareness/low acceptance

Across these low awareness/low acceptance behaviours, not seeing the irresponsible behaviours as an issue is a barrier to changing behaviour. Participants need to be shown why it is problematic and persuaded to consider the wider consequences.

This is consistent with findings from other research on a range of behaviours in different contexts, including littering;[25] allowing dogs to roam off-lead in unsuitable areas;[26] irresponsible disposal of human waste in an alpine context;[27] and lighting campfires.[28]

In our research, the guidance around not collecting deadwood did not make sense to participants, who saw that it was on the ground, and therefore not problematic should they collect it and use it for a fire. Communication could therefore emphasise the fragile inter-dependencies of eco-systems, showing the connection from deadwood on the ground to the insects that rely on it to feed, up to the birds that feed on those insects. This is supported by findings from Natural England research, which found that identifying the victim of irresponsible behaviour, such as an image of a hedgehog caught in plastic, was easy to understand and increased engagement with positive behaviours around litter.[29]

Similarly, whilst some participants were aware of the need to bury waste, the guideline for toileting more than 30 metres from a water source was not intuitive. Showing how human waste can pollute drinking water and habitats for fish can help to explain why they should bury waste more than 30 metres from a water source.

• Some participants were reluctant to talk about toileting behaviours while camping and felt that communications could relay a serious message with good humour. Simple language about poo and wee was preferred, and simple messaging such as ‘bag it and bin it’ for dog waste was felt to be appropriate.

“If we’re doing things as responsible as we could, we might ignore rules like the 30m from open water if we didn’t understand the reason why.”

(Male participant, 23)

When presented with the SOAC guidelines, participants tended not to hone in on guidance that contravened their established habits. It is unlikely to be the case that people who behave irresponsibly when wild camping will change their behaviour by reading a long list of rules. Instead, approaches that engage with this audience on a regular basis and highlight the impacts of irresponsible behaviour, are likely to be more effective.

However, even those less experienced campers who are particularly open to guidance are not likely to be researching this before their trip. As a result, campaigns and messages need to meet campers where they are – such as by showing practical information (where to go, walking routes etc.) whilst showing responsible camping behaviours. This need for positive messaging is consistent with the 2022/23 priorities for visitor management in the Cairngorms National Park.[30]

4.2 Addressing material factors

Beyond the individual and social context, the research suggested a number of changes to the material context that could reduce levels of irresponsible behaviours when wild camping.

4.2.1 Interventions

When asked directly about what kind of interventions could tackle irresponsible behaviour, the wild campers we spoke to instinctively referenced methods to enforce rules and punish offenders. Our participants did not feel that enforcement was either common or strict enough to deter people. This is consistent with findings elsewhere about littering; fines do not cause people to modify their behaviour unless they think they may actually be penalised.[31] One stakeholder interviewed also described how campers would purposefully go off the beaten track to avoid the risk of being caught by rangers.

“We see people going to more obscure places. We’re not sure why they’re doing it, but judging by the state they’ve left behind it’s to avoid rangers.”

(Perth and Kinross Council)

For example, participants suggested using closed-circuit television (CCTV) in hotspots, giving rangers the power to administer on-the-spot fines and having a hotline or equivalent for members of the public to report others who are behaving irresponsibly. It is likely that these suggestions were derived from participants’ experiences of strong deterrents on other issues that are well suited to such methods, such as speeding fines or CCTV in urban areas to deter antisocial behaviour.

Discussions revealed that this appetite for more enforcement was embedded in the belief that it is ‘other people’ that behave irresponsibly and that this kind of enfrocement should only be used for extreme instances, such as serious littering. Participants implied that they did not expect to get into trouble themselves, having not done anything ‘seriously’ wrong. A study of freedom camping in Aotearoa, New Zealand similarly found that campers wanted more enforcement to combat the poor behaviour of ‘others’.[32]

“[There should be] a fine in place to make sure everybody behaves - a large fine to scare people. There probably is a fine in place already, but I don’t think people are aware.”

(Female participant, 52)

Legal action is considered suitable only as a last resort by the police and site managing bodies. Enforcement sits on a hierarchy of action comprising Engage-Explain-Encourage, and only then Enforce. Instead, stakeholders emphasised that it is crucial to have a visible presence of rangers or authority figures on the ground, who can then engage with campers and encourage them to behave responsibly.

This method also aligns with the idea that behaviour change interventions should lead with a positive message, rather than negative, a view that is strongly supported by both participants and stakeholders.

4.2.2 Infrastructure

Infrastructural improvements to aid behavioural change are consistently found to be effective in existing literature. The most effective of which is reported to be the installation of bins or bin bags to tackle littering, both as a means for disposal and acting as a visual prompt.[33]^{, [34]} Kolodko and Read (2018) also note the importance of bin design: making bins convenient, appealing and easy to use.[35]

The wild campers we spoke to likewise felt that it could be convenient to have more bins and (to a lesser extent) more toilets. However, it was important for some that these did not detract from the ‘wilderness’ and sense of escapism which make wild camping so appealing. On balance, better signposting to existing facilities, whether virtual or physical, was felt to be a more effective way of guiding those who are looking for more infrastructure.

Nevertheless, the scarcity of facilities in more remote areas means that a signposting approach would have to be accompanied by building more facilities, even if these are located in car parks or on the roadside, so as not to interfere with the landscape.

“If the big concern is going to the toilet in bodies of water, there could have been better toilets along the route […] Bins were pretty good, but toilets could have been better. That said, if you start putting bins everywhere it does ruin the scenery a bit.”

(Male participant, 21)

Although abandoning equipment was agreed to be a serious problem, there was no support amongst our camping participants for attempting to regulate a minimum pricing for camping equipment.

A number of our participants had older or borrowed equipment and would not have been affected by this, but they were also concerned that this could create barriers to others enjoying the outdoors – especially as the low cost of wild camping is part of its appeal.

4.3 Tailoring communication strategies

4.3.1 Communicating the desired behaviours

Stakeholders, wild camping participants and the literature all point to the importance of communicating with clarity and consistency when promoting responsible behaviour.[36]

“[It would help] if the Scottish Outdoor Access Code was clearer, more black and white at national level.”

(Perth and Kinross Council)

Clear and consistent messaging across Scotland has been a key aim of communications by NatureScot and other national bodies during the pandemic. However, it still remains a challenge to strike a balance between making guidance as detailed and specific as possible (so that it is clear what campers should and shouldn’t do), with the need for short, simple messages that also make it easier for communications to be consistent.

Consolidating the current guidance, choosing unambiguous terminology, communicating the rationale and utilising local, site-specific messages could help to address this challenge. None of these approaches provide a straightforward solution and it is likely that combining elements from all four strategies will be most effective.

We have summarised this challenge in the table below:

Communication approach

Consolidating wild camping guidance into one central “landing page

Reasons for pursuing this approach

• The SOAC and associated guidance provide advice on various aspects of wild camping, but currently the content, level of detail and explicitness vary across different channels and organisations.
• For example, the SOAC doesn’t give much detail on how antisocial behaviour in remote areas, or playing loud music, are considered to be irresponsible.
• A well sign-posted, definitive set of guidance would be useful for land managers and rangers (as well as wild campers) as a reference tool.

Limitations of this approach

• Responsible camping encompasses a wide range of behaviours (which are difficult to distil into succinct guidance).
• The uncertainty about the rules shown by our camping participants also suggests that adding any extra detail to the rules would be challenging to communicate in a meaningful way.
• It is perhaps unrealistic to expect wild campers to refer to detailed guidance prior to their trip (given how little preparation many of them currently do).

Communication approach

Using terminology that is as unambiguous as possible

Reasons for pursuing this approach

• Some of the communications derived from the SOAC ask campers to refer to ‘common sense’ or use terminology that risks being interpreted in different (and incorrect) ways.
• For example, ‘not causing any pollution’ can mean different things to different people and participants didn’t always make the link with inappropriate toileting practices.
• Subjective words, for example referring to ‘dry’ periods as inappropriate for campfires may be less effective than stating specific months of the year when it is likely to be dry.
• Behaviours with lower baseline awareness and intent need the most specific, clear, terminology, for example: ‘If the bin is full, don’t dump’ rather than ‘Please remember to take your rubbish home to help look after the natural environment’.

Limitations of this approach

• Removing ambiguity can result in longer and more detailed phrasing, which poses similar challenges to those outlined above (i.e. adding extra detail can become confusing and make it less likely that people will read it in full).
• Attempts to remove ambiguity could leave little room for behaviours that are dependent on the local context, resulting in inappropriate and potentially counterproductive restrictive messaging at certain times or places.

Communication approach

Tailoring messages to the local context and making them specific to each site

Reasons for pursuing this approach

• Blanket national messages may be difficult to justify in all locations and are less likely to be accepted and acted upon.
• Location-specific messages can be more concise and explicit because they only need to accommodate a limited range of circumstances.
• Given the target audience is hard to reach, local communication may be more effective than a national campaign.
• Especially as local communication can make use of more traditional, offline channels, such as noticeboards, radio adverts and in-person communication.

Limitations of this approach

• There is a risk that local or site-specific messaging will undermine the consistency of a national campaign, causing confusion amongst campers and uncertainty amongst stakeholders.
• Stakeholders stressed that local organisations have limited media reach and look to national guidance to inform their advice to campers.

Communication approach

Explaining the rationale behind behavioural asks or using outcome-focused messaging

Reasons for pursuing this approach

• Explaining why campers should behave in a certain way will help to increase acceptance of messaging by tapping into behavioural levers at the individual and social level.
• Focusing on the outcome could reduce the need for detailed behavioural instructions, making it easier to create succinct messages.

Limitations of this approach

• Focusing on outcomes could still leave room for ambiguity if campers don’t have the knowledge or skills to behave in a way that achieves the outcome.
• For example, messages that focus on the outcome of not causing pollution through incorrect toileting might still require accompanying instructions asking campers to defecate away from water and bury waste, due to low knowledge of these actions.

4.3.2 Reaching the target audience

Stakeholders interviewed for this study recognised that designing communications to reach and influence those demonstrating irresponsible camping behaviours is challenging, given they are unlikely to engage with messaging targeting those who regularly engage in outdoor activities in Scotland.

And, although those demonstrating irresponsible behaviours may be more likely to be young, male and camping for social rather than recreational purposes, it would be unwise to only target communications at these audiences. We also know that communication must reflect the level of research campers are likely to conduct before a trip, varying from:

• Those who do no research beforehand, because they are already familiar with the area, or rely solely on advice from more experienced friends or family.
• Those who use ‘unofficial’ information sources, such as Facebook groups, online forums, or simply Googling ‘wild camping spots’.
• Those who, in addition to ‘unofficial’ sources, actively seek out more ‘official’ information before their trip, typically those planning recreational activities.

4.3.3 Communications touchpoints along the journey

Initial planning:

• Research around ‘Leave No Trace’ in the US has found that messaging about behaviours is most effective when received at the time of decision-making, such as in the planning stage.[37]
• However, as highlighted, participants in our study tended not to conduct significant research before their trip, and some were unconvinced that a targeted campaign encouraging certain behaviour would stick in their minds. That said, most did do some research, usually looking for general information about where to go or to plan their routes.

“When you’re preparing to go and planning, you could find [information] on the internet. You’re actively looking for it. I guess also TV, advert, radio, then you’re not looking for that info – it’s just there.”

(Female participant, 37)

• Many stakeholders suggested point-of-purchase messaging in shops selling cheap camping equipment, including supermarkets and high street outdoor activity retailers. NatureScot has explored this approach but has not found it to be effective in the past. Participants were also unlikely to consider this a viable option given that many of them already owned, or were borrowing, existing equipment.
• However, there could be value in partnering with outdoor activity retailers to promote responsible behaviours indirectly, or at the very least to ensure that they are not inadvertently perpetuating social norms that lead to irresponsible behaviour. For example, this could include working with retailers to eliminate any imagery of open campfires that could perpetuate romanticised ideas of wild camping.[38]

On the journey:

• Given that many drive to their camping destinations, another potential medium for communications was thought to be navigation apps such as Waze, Google or MapsMe, with the latter used more for hiking trails and identifying possible camping spots.

At bed and breakfasts, hostels, or managed camping facilities:

• It is common for campers to combine wild camping with stays in bed and breakfasts, hostels, or managed camping facilities, to use showers and cleaning facilities. This suggests that these would be useful sites for reminding campers of best practice for responsible camping.

Close to or at destinations:

• Similarly, as identified by stakeholders, businesses located close to hotspots are thought by campers to be an appropriate site for communicating messages about responsible camping. Additionally, given that many described driving from major towns or cities, service stations along routes to key hotspots could be another suitable site, an approach which has also been previously used by NatureScot.
• Most stakeholders and campers alike would like to see more and better signage in hotspots, along walking routes, and in car parks reminding visitors of what they can and cannot do, or offering location-specific guidance, for example about fires. Some existing research from New Zealand has found high levels of compliance to signage.[39]
• Another study in Scotland finds that repeat visitors are unlikely to read permanent signage, emphasising the need for a dynamic approach in which signs are, if possible, used only when genuinely required.[40]
• There was also appetite for signage that directs campers to facilities that they can use whilst still enjoying the wild camping experience, including bins, toilets, and designated fire pits, giving an indication of distance or walking time. This highlights the potential importance of positively managed provision for camping in key places.

“There should be facilities to [light fires safely] where possible, and some signs to show where those are. They [campers] might not know about dry periods. There should be a sign stating there’s a place this far away, rather than saying you can’t do it. Also, more signage to let people know that in this many miles there are toilets/services.”

(Male participant, 22)

• For example, one camper commented on the signage in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, which made it clear that there are specific restrictions in that area. He proposed using colour-coded signage to make it clear where there is specific guidance for that local area.
• A few stakeholders and more experienced campers did express concerns about the aesthetics of signage, fearing they would look out of place in remote locations. There is likely to be a tension between making signs visible but not visually intrusive and designs would need to learn from best practice elsewhere.

Targeted reinforcement:

• Almost all stakeholders identified rangers as the key people to deliver messages on responsible camping. Although our participants, many of whom were inexperienced campers, did not spontaneously mention rangers to the same degree, they held them in great respect and felt they would listen to any advice they gave. Part of this response was driven by an underlying desire not to get in ‘trouble’.

“The camp ranger came and spoke to us. They woke me up […] I’ve always been a bit more careful since… So somebody being there. I don’t like getting in trouble, and [it was] educational because we thought it was fine because people had already had a fire there.”

(Male participant, 37)

• This is consistent with several studies which show that personally delivered messages by credible or respected messengers are more effective than other communication media.[41]
• A small number of stakeholders and participants suggested pushing location specific text messages with key points of the guidance to people arriving in hotspots. This approach would likely prove challenging to implement, and may only be possible via an opt-in method, for example by getting campers to download an application and opt in to notifications.
• This method would therefore be unlikely to reach those campers who are not already engaged with current guidance and communications.

4.3.4 Online communications

Advertising campaigns:

• Existing literature on behavioural change in a range of contexts demonstrates that positive messaging tends to be more effective than alternatives. This includes being welcoming rather than hostile to visitors, explaining land management concerns, promoting the personal benefits of more responsible behaviours, and accommodating the experiences desired where possible (even if this means identifying less sensitive places or times).^{[42],[43],[44]}

“I think the approach they should take is don’t make it sound like you’re telling people off – the majority of people do this well, and it’s important to keep doing it. Keep it upbeat and positive.”

(Female participant, 21)

• Participants were enthusiastic about advertising that promoted and encouraged wild camping in Scotland while showing a range of responsible behaviours. This would have broad appeal across all types of campers, including those who conduct no research prior to going camping.
• Although some referred to television and radio, most thought this could be effective on social media feeds targeted at people showing an interest in Scotland, the national parks or outdoor recreation, or in advertisements preceding content on platforms such as YouTube.
• Local people were pinpointed as potentially trusted sources to communicate the messages in an advertising campaign. Participants felt that locals are knowledgeable and have relevant experience, and are therefore thought to be far more influential than a political or official figure.
• That said, endorsement from nationwide bodies including NatureScot, the National Trust for Scotland, Historic Environment Scotland and Forestry and Land Scotland is felt by some to be a necessary badge for a campaign to be authoritative.

“Probably when you go camping you meet a lot of people, the local people. You’d trust them more than someone from the Scottish Government who’s never walked a path.”

(Female participant, 32)

• Some participants were enthusiastic about celebrities appearing in campaigns, with several suggesting that knowledgeable figures in the outdoor space, such as David Attenborough, Ray Mears, or Bear Grylls, could help draw attention and give weight to a campaign.
• Consistent with stakeholder views, a positive, light-hearted tone was felt to be crucial to engage the target audience, particularly those who are not already passionate about the environment. A minority propose using humour, such as comedy sketches, although there is a risk of making these clichéd.
• It was notable that most are strongly opposed to negative messaging, feeling that this is patronising and will be disregarded by campers, particularly given the wealth of rules people were asked to follow during the pandemic.

Social media influencers:

• Social media influencers were also highlighted as having great potential as channels for communicating messages about responsible camping with young people, as their content is felt to be more relatable and credible than an advertisement. There are, however, several important considerations to increase the likelihood of success:
  • Content must be ‘quick turnaround’ to be up-to-date with the trends in any given week;
  • The influencers must be relatable, ‘normal’ people with a substantial following;
  • They should not already be associated with the outdoors, as their target audience does not necessarily identify as ‘outdoorsy’.
• A few young male campers felt that influencers would have little or no impact on their behaviour, which suggests this method should not be relied on exclusively to target young people.

Social media groups, online forums and blogs:

• For those who engage with online groups and forums, e.g., ‘WalkHighlands’, and other blogs about camping and related outdoor pursuits such as Munro bagging, there is felt to be some benefit to promoting positive messages about wild camping.[45]
• People are interested in tips about finding wild camping spots and about how to get the most from their trips. Again, guidance must be framed as educational and not judgemental.

“The tone of the message is important. It needs to be educational rather than judgy. I talked about that Facebook page, you get a lot of people who act as if they have authority, but it just irritates me. But if you just educate people informally. When people go on preaching it’s just irritating.”

(Male participant, 37)

Accessible online official information and Search Engine Optimisation (SEO):

• Some participants felt that SEO – a set of practices that improve the appearance and positioning of web pages in search results – designed to put guidance at the top of the search list would be an effective way to raise awareness of how to behave responsibly.
• Participants struggled to recall seeing any reference to the SOAC or other guidance when conducting pre-trip online searches, which is likely as a result of searching using terms such as ‘wild camping spots Scotland’, rather than searching specifically for SOAC-related guidance.
• From internet searches conducted as part of this research, it was clear that there are many websites advertising information on wild camping in Scotland. Such sites emphasise the freedom and beauty of wild camping and direct campers to hotspots, thereby increasing the likelihood of environmental damage from cumulative use. Although these same websites sometimes reference the SOAC or similar guidance, it tended to be light-touch and not be positioned prominently.
• For example, the Redbull website lists 10 locations for wild camping, encouraging readers to ‘forget about campsites with their rules and regulations’. The only reference to responsible behaviour is to do with littering, without mentioning the SOAC or other behaviours, such as fire lighting and toileting.[46]

Figure 5 below gives an indication of search results using a popular internet search engine, with the Redbull example featuring on the first page of the results.

Figure 5. Screenshot of Google search for “wild camping spots Scotland”

• This finding suggests there could be value in investing in SEO to ensure that user friendly guidance and tips appear at the top of a wide range of searches relating to the outdoors and camping in Scotland, rather than relying on campers seeking out guidance specifically.

“Maybe if [a webpage with the SOAC] was better publicised or if you could make it common knowledge through an ad campaign. We didn’t even know to look for this particular code. Beyond that, if they wanted to guide where people went, websites with recommendations of where they have good facilities for wild camping.”

(Male participant, 23)

4.3.5 Other communications opportunities

NatureScot has recently collaborated with Young Scot to develop videos for young people and is developing updated SOAC educational resources for schools. These activities underline the continuing importance of this type of engagement.

In schools and youth groups:

• Aligning with stakeholders’ suggestions, several participants suggested that there would be value in engaging with young people at school and college, both to encourage young wild campers and to share tips for camping responsibly before their first experience of wild camping.
• Older students may be planning social camping trips as they leave school or college, and younger students may take home messages to their families about the guidance.

“A talk in school, saying here are some nice spots, and here are some rules. When you’re younger you might be more likely to camp irresponsibly, and tips are needed.”

(Male participant, 22)