Impact of the “Chalk” on perceived visual quality and the willingness to climb: a research on sports climbing

Keywords: sports climbing, visual impacts, chalk, willingness to climb, perceived visual quality


Background and Study Aim: Rock climbing is a popular outdoor recreation and tourism activity practiced in natural areas. Rock climbing, like all of the other outdoor activities, has a variety of impacts on nature and visitors. Understanding these impacts is important for ensuring the sustainability of natural environments and activities practiced in these areas. The goal of this study was to analyze the impacts of chalk density on the rock surface, on the perceived visual quality and the willingness of participants to climb. Material and Methods: The visual research method was used in the study to analyze the perceived visual quality of climbers. Photographing technique, one of the visual research methods, was utilized in the study to determine the perceived visual quality of climbers. Eleven photographs, prepared for this purpose, were presented to 213 voluntary participants and the obtained results were evaluated. Results: Repeated measures analysis of variance test results indicate that the chalk level increase specifically designed and presented in the photographs statistically changed the perceived visual quality of participants. Impacts of the variables of gender, climbing experience, climbing level and chalk density level on perceived visual quality are compared with the ANOVA test. The results indicate that within-group variance in terms of the climbing level is statistically significant. Conclusions: According to the results of the study, the increase in chalk use density on rock surfaces has a negative impact on the perceived visual quality and willingness of participants to climb.


Download data is not yet available.

View Counter: Abstract | 476 | times, Article PDF |

Author Biographies

Güney Çetinkaya, Akdeniz University; Department of Recreation,  Faculty of Sport Sciences, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.
Abdullah Güngör, Akdeniz University; Department of Recreation,  Faculty of Sport Sciences, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.
Dicle Aras, Ankara University; Ankara University, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Golbasi, Ankara, Turkey.


1. Lorite J, Serrano F, Lorenzo A, Cañadas EM, Ballesteros M, Peñas J. Rock climbing alters plant species composition, cover, and richness in Mediterranean limestone cliffs. PLoS ONE, 2017; 12(8): 1–14.

2. Bowker JM, Askew AE, Cordell HK, Betz CJ, Zarnock SJ, Seymour L. Outdoor Recreation Participation in the United States—Projections to 2060: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment [Internet]. Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC: General Technical Report SRS-160, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service; 2012. [cited 2020 Mar 5]. Available from:

3. DAV Duetscher Alpenverein [Internet]. DAV Duetscher Alpenverein; 2020. [cited 2020 Feb 1]. Available from:

4. McMillan MA, Larson DW. Effects of rock climbing on the vegetation of the Niagara Escarpment in Southern Ontario, Canada. Conservation Biology, 2002; 16(2): 389–398.

5. Vogler F, Reisch, C. Genetic variation on the rocks – the impact of climbing on the population ecology of a typical cliff plant. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2011; 48: 899–905.

6. Clark P, Hessl A. The effects of rock climbing on cliff-face vegetation. Applied Vegetation Science, 2015; 18: 705–715.

7. Tessler M, Clark TA. The impact of bouldering on rock-associated vegetation. Biological Conservation, 2016; 204: 426–433.

8. Holzschuh A. Does rock climbing threaten cliff biodiversity? - A critical review. Biological Conservation, 2016; 204: 153–162.

9. Huddart D, Stott T. Outdoor Recreation Environmental Impacts and Management. Cham: Springer Nature; 2019.

10. Sevenant M, Antrop M. Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 2009; 9: 2889–2899.

11. Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Hallikainen V. Effect of the season and forest management on the visual quality of the nature-based tourism environment: a case from Finnish Lapland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 2017; 32(4): 349–359.

12. Jones CD. Evaluating visual ımpacts of near-view rock climbing scenes. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 2004; 22(3): 39–49.

13. Baker B. Controversy over use of rock-climbing anchors may be missing the mark. BioScience, 1999; 49(7): 529.

14. Jones CD, Hollenhorst SJ, Hammitt WE. Assessing the social construction of visual-spatial preferences for wilderness impacts. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 2004; 22(3): 50–68.

15. Borden DS, Mahamane S. Social marketing and outdoor recreational advocacy groups: Lessons from a rock climbing campaign. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 2020; 29, 100262.

16. Li FX, Margetts S, Fowler I. Use of `chalk’ in rock climbing: sine qua non or myth? Journal of Sports Sciences, 2001;19, 427–432.

17. Kilgas MA, Drum SN, Jensen RL, Philips KC, Watts PB. The effect of magnesium carbonate (chalk) on geometric entropy, force, and electromyography during rock climbing. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 2016; 32: 553–557.

18. Wood KT, Lawson SR, Marion JL. Assessing recreation impacts to cliffs in Shenandoah National Park: Integrating visitor observation with trail and recreation site measurements. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 2006;24(4): 86–110.

19. Monz CA. Climbers’ attitudes toward recreation resource impacts in the Adirondack Park’s Giant Mountain Wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness, 2009; 15(1): 26–33.

20. Martin S, McCool S, Lucas R. Wilderness campsite impacts: Do managers and visitors see them the same? Environmental Management, 1989; 13: 623–629.

21. Shelby B, Shinder B. Interest group standards for ecological impacts at wilderness campsites. Leisure Sciences, 1992; 14, 17–27.

22. Manning R, Jacobi C, Marion JL. Recreation monitoring at Acadia National Park. The George Wright Forum, 2006; 23(2): 59–72.

23. Eriksson L, Nordlund AM, Olsson O, Westin K. Recreation in Different Forest Settings: A Scene Preference Study. Forests, 2013; 3: 923–943.

24. Arnberger A, Ebenberger M, Schneider IE, Cottrell S, Schlueter AC, Ruschkowski E, et al. Visitor preferences for visual changes in Bark Beetle-impacted forest recreation settings in the United States and Germany. Environmental Management, 2018; 61: 209–223.

25. Manning R, Freimund W. Use of visual research methods to measure standards of quality for parks and outdoor recreation. Journal of Leisure Research, 2004; 36(4): 557–579.

26. Brown TC, Daniel, TC, Richards MT, King DA. Recreation participation and the validity of photo-based preference judgments. Journal of Leisure Research, 1988; 20: 40–60.

27. Hill D, Daniel, TC. Foundations for an ecological aesthetic: Can information alter landscape preferences? Society & Natural Resources, 2007; 21(1): 34–49.

28. Daniel TC, Smidt, RK. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004; 66(4): 239–255.

29. Acar C, Kurdoglu BC, Kurdoglu O, Acar H. Public preferences for visual quality and management in the Kackar Mountains National Park (Turkey). International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 2006; 13(6): 499–512.

30. George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 17.0 update. Boston: Pearson; 2010.

31. Manning RE. Parks and carrying capacity: Commons without tragedy. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2007.

32. Gibson AW, Newman P, Lawson S, Fristrup K, Benfield JA, Bell PA, Nurse GA. Photograph presentation order and range effects in visual-based outdoor recreation research. Leisure Sciences, 2014; 36: 183–205.

33. Draper N, Giles D, Schöffl V, Konstantin Fuss F, Watts P, Wolf P, et al. Comparative grading scales, statistical analyses, climber descriptors and ability grouping: International Rock Climbing Research Association position statement. Sports Technology, 2016; 8(3-4): 88–94.

34. Chen CF, Chen FS. Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 2010; 31(1): 29–35.

35. Ansari AM. Understanding the motivations of rock climbers: A social worlds study. Las Vegas: University of Nevada; 2008.

36. Waldrup R, McEwen D. Rock-climbing and wilderness: a study of climber’s attitudes toward wilderness, climbing impacts and regulation. Trends, 1994; 3: 38–42.

37. Bryan H. Conflict in the great outdoors. Alabama: University of Alabama Press, Bureau of Public Administration; 1979.

38. Schuster RM, Thompson JG, Hammitt WE. Rock Climbers’ attitudes toward management of climbing and the use of bolts. Environmental Management, 2001; 28(3): 403–412.

39. Marion JL, Leung Y, Eagleston H, Burroughs K. A Review and synthesis of recreation ecology research findings on visitor impacts to wilderness and protected natural areas. Journal of Forestry, 2016; 114(3): 352–362.

40. Schwartza F, Taffa BD, Lawhon B, Pettebone D, Esser S, D'Antonio A. Leave No Trace bouldering ethics: Transitioning from the gym to the crag. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 2019; 25: 16–23.
How to Cite
Çetinkaya G, Güngör A, Aras D. Impact of the “Chalk” on perceived visual quality and the willingness to climb: a research on sports climbing. Pedagogy of Physical Culture and Sports. 2021;25(1):15-3.

Most read articles by the same author(s)