Choosing Whether to Use Mobile Technology Outdoors

Abstract

The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore the lived experience behind the choice of whether to bring mobile technologies along while engaging in outdoor activities. Participant observer style interviews were completed in which the researcher engaged in an outdoor activity of the participants’ choice while conducting interviews. How participants experience their decision not to use mobile technologies while outdoors has essences of participants’ value of the outdoor experience; the relationships participants bring to the outdoors and hold with the outdoors; the tensions of work that mobile technologies bring to the outdoors; and the necessity of mobile technology to provide security. This study may help researchers understand why people choose whether to use mobile technologies while experiencing the outdoors. Designers may use the implications of these findings to leverage the perceived benefits to develop technology-enhanced applications for meaningful learning. By understanding how people experience mobile technologies outdoors, designers could develop applications for mobile devices that people value, use, and learn from while outdoors.

1. Introduction

Chiara steps into her Nordic skis. The snow glitters like tiny moonstone crystals in the sunlight and hangs like marshmallows from the conifers. Chiara can feel no wind. The air smells fresh and slightly piney and the lack of wind makes breathing easy. She sets off, her skis crunching against the snow. It is the only sound that breaks the silence of the outdoors.

Chiara made a conscious decision not to bring her mobile phone along. How does she feel about going tech free? Did she decide that going technology free increases her enjoyment of her morning ski, or does she worry about being out of reach? How do people reconcile their outdoor experiences with mobile technologies, if in fact there is a tension to reconcile?

Exploration of these questions focuses on the value people place on an outdoor experience, the value people place on mobile technologies, and the interaction of these values when people decide to leave mobile devices behind when experiencing the outdoors. Did Chiara bring along a mobile device, or did she choose to leave it behind? What might have influenced her decision and what may be learned from it? The author wished to understand why people find mobile technologies irritating, if they hinder enjoyment, or if they are not necessary while experiencing the outdoors. An interpretive phenomenological study following the philosophy of Heidegger was conducted to define the essence of this lived experience. Consideration of decision and value aspects forms the lived experience of going without technology while outdoors as a way of living. The author pursued the following research question: how does the choice of whether to bring mobile technologies to an outdoor experience influence that outdoor experience?

2. Background Literature

People have given various reasons why they bring or leave behind mobile technologies while they venture outdoors. The decision may hang on the purpose of the outdoor activity, and the criteria may be pragmatic (work contact, risk, or safety), social (travel or learning), and personal (flow state, self-discovery, or reflection). The sections below describe researchers’ findings regarding these reasons.

2.1. Travel and Work

Mobile technologies have changed how people travel and how the experience is shared with others. People use mobile technologies for information searches, entertainment during downtime, and to stay in contact with those at home [1]. When using applications (apps) such as maps, some think about the enjoyment (or lack of), while others focus on the usefulness of the technology [2]. People value social media for communicating with others who are not present [3]. This communication leads to a socially constructed practice of jointly looking at a place and enabling those not present to also experience a place [3]. People may perceive the value of mobile technologies differently depending on the travel experience.

Increasingly, one needs to always stay in contact with work, even while on vacation. Mobile technologies make this a possibility. People value keeping in contact with work while traveling [1]. Affordances of mobile technologies depend upon mobility, the device, the applications, and Internet access [4]. However, the perception of real-time connection between the user and the digital world may be positive or negative. Staying in contact with work may not allow one to shed one’s public façade and may hinder personal growth.

2.2. Flow in an Outdoor Space

People may immerse themselves in an outdoor experience. A participatory observation ethnographic study that explored concepts of play, flow, and peak experiences during informal outdoor learning activities found participants engaged in kayaking “for recreation or seeking calmness of nature” ([5], p. 25). Play is composed of a sense of deep happiness and cessation of the perception of time passing, but also includes some loss of control [5]. Flow is a controlled feeling of total involvement and engagement with an activity [6]. Flow may be achieved during an outdoor experience but may also be achieved while interacting with mobile technologies [7]. However, there are negative potential consequences to narrowing one’s focus of attention to mobile technologies while outdoors such as a perception of bothering other people [8] or wildlife [9]. It may be difficult to achieve flow by using mobile technologies while simultaneously immersing oneself in nature.

2.3. Risk and Safety

For some people, meaningful outdoor experiences involve taking risks. Engaging in outdoor play may risk injury or death either by physical mishaps or by natural hazards. An outdoor play session involves moving from safety to risk and back to safety [5]. “If play is experienced, outside the borders of control and safety, the perspective shifts from just learning toward adventure” ([5], p. 36). Researchers described the perceived risk of injury or death as one attribute of a meaningful outdoor experience [10]. A lack of communication via mobile devices may add to this perceived risk, thereby elevating the meaningfulness of the outdoor experience, the sense of potential danger, or both.

On the other hand, the lack of ability to communicate brought about by leaving behind a cell phone may remove a safety net. People place value on mobile technologies to help them feel safe in an unfamiliar area [11]. In fact, using mobile technologies for backchannel, unofficial communication is often a more efficient way to deliver information targeted to those who need it [12]. The lack of a safety net may heighten or facilitate a sense of play, flow, or peak experiences, or it may cause stress or worry about one’s safety.

2.4. Self-Discovery

The tension between risk and safety is not the only component of an outdoor experience influenced by mobile device use. In a phenomenological study of a university outdoor education program, researchers found that shedding one’s public façade was an essential part of the lived experience of outdoor education [10]. Social media is part of one’s public façade and is often accessible via mobile devices. Without a mobile device with access to social media, a person may shed the public façade, even if only for the duration of the outing. Without mobile devices to remind of one’s public façade, a person may discover a true self. Researchers described self-discovery or reconstruction leading to personal growth as a necessary attribute of meaningful outdoor learning [10]. Self-discovery may be affected by leaving behind a technological connection to social media and, by extension, to society in general, while engaging in activities outdoors. A disconnection from society and one’s ordinary life for a time may be necessary to achieve personal growth.

2.5. Meaningful Learning

Using mobile technologies while outdoors and having a meaningful outdoor experience may not need to be mutually exclusive. Researchers have offered strategies for reconciling the two and argued that a meaningful outdoor experience need not be technology free [13]. They concentrated on integrating mobile technologies with the engagement of the five senses and the practice of mindfulness [13]. Suggestions included incorporating the five senses into the outdoor experience by taking photos and/or videos to capture the visual and auditory experience of the outdoors, recording natural sounds, listening to music, and even combining these activities to create art [13]. Others have found that using cameras on phones sharpened observation skills by users comparing leaf shapes [14]. Posting for others via a blog, podcast, or uploads to social media may spark conversation and social connection. By not abandoning mobile technologies but rather integrating them into sensual encounters with nature, mobile technologies become a tool to capture and extend the outdoor experience by sharing it with others [13].

2.6. Reflection

Using mobile technologies while outdoors may alter time spent reflecting. Researchers explored the use of mobile technologies in experiential education and found that mobile technologies hindered both sensory experience and reflection [15]. They found that it was difficult to design an activity that combined mobile device use and outdoor experience because the connection to others prevented separation from society [15]. They concluded, “The use of mobile technology might present a risk of superseding the sensory experience, which is one of the most valuable aspects of experiential learning” ([15], p. 115). Thus, using mobile technologies while engaging in experiential learning may counter-effect the intended outcome. Others have mentioned the unintended negative consequences of innovative ideas, “Innovation doesn’t always equal success, particularly if the innovative product is unusable” ([16], p. 476). Instructors of outdoor recreation courses have indicated a reluctance to allow mobile technology use, citing a fear of student use leading to the disruption of a meaningful outdoor experience [17]. Perhaps the reminder of others via mobile devices prevents one from focusing on self-awareness and reflection.

On the other hand, using mobile technologies while outdoors may produce consequences that could enhance learning. Periods of rest and activity fit well with cycles of action and reflection during a wilderness course, and that could be leveraged with the use of mobile devices [18]. Students in a comparison study of a pencil and paper versus a mobile technology-enhanced outdoor activity reported significantly more motivation, perceived learning, and satisfaction using technology [19]. Instructors of outdoor recreational experiences and courses have found ways to navigate tensions mobile technologies present by thoughtful consideration of both the benefits and drawbacks of students using them while engaged in the experience [20]. These findings highlight the tension between using mobile technologies and the outdoor experience and present a gap in research that could be filled by exploring how people perceive their actions to leave behind a mobile device while engaging in outdoor activities.

The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore multiple meanings behind the choice not to bring mobile technologies along while engaging in outdoor activities. The author wished to understand why people find mobile technologies irritating, valuable, or not necessary while experiencing the outdoors. This phenomenological study was designed with an interpretive, constructivist, and subjectivist framework. The philosophy of Heidegger was followed to help define the essence of this lived experience and formed the basis of this interpretive phenomenological study.

3. Materials and Methods

This section begins with articulating how certain terms are used in this study. In this article, mobile technologies are synonymously used with mobile devices and mobile and cell phones to mean hand-held devices that may offer access to social media and applications such as photo, video, and cell coverage. Outdoors is a place outside of a building, which may or may not have access to wireless or cell coverage. It may be a local trail, part of a National Forest, or a city park. A choice might entail not owning a mobile device, not bringing a device along to the outdoors, or not using a device while outdoors.

3.1. Conceptual Framework

The philosophy of Heidegger formed the conceptual framework of an interpretive, phenomenological, and qualitative study that draws from constructivist ontology and subjectivist epistemology [21]. The explanation of Heideggerian philosophy is explained as being in: participants are in the outdoors; they are in touch with the outdoors and in touch with others; and they may or may not be plugged into mobile technologies [22]. Interpretivism provides the theoretical perspective for this study [23]. The participants interpreted the value they placed on using mobile technologies while outdoors. Each participant constructed a reality of the nature of the outdoor experience and subjectively determined the influence mobile technologies bring to the outdoor setting. By talking about relationships with the outdoors and mobile technologies, participants manifest the phenomenon and “find-themselves-in states of being” [22] (p. 39). They each found themselves in the experience of the interview while thinking about their relations with the outdoors and mobile technologies.

3.1.1. Ontology and Epistemology

Constructivism ontology was followed for this study [24] because the participants constructed their own reality of what the outdoors and mobile technologies mean to them in terms of value. Although one participant’s reality of mobile technologies outdoors is not any truer than another’s, the realities can share commonalities. The author strove to reach a relative consensus from participants’ “sometimes conflicting social realities” concerning mobile technologies outdoors [24] (p. 113). Emergent themes are rooted in the relative consensus of how participants interact with and value the phenomenon.

Although the author’s knowledge background is in geology, which provides a positivist bias, a subjectivist epistemological stance was taken for this study. Epistemology is defined as how we know what we know, the nature of knowledge, how we decide what knowledge is possible, and how we ensure that knowledge is adequate and legitimate [23]. Because a person imposes meaning on objects, subjectivist views of the outdoors and mobile devices as objects were considered [23]. People give the outdoors and mobile devices meaning. The object, either the outdoors or the mobile device, does not hold meaning intrinsically. It just is, in that sense, an objective type of reality. The outdoors and the mobile device do not act upon people. People give or assign meaning to the inanimate object. They embrace or dismiss the outdoors and assign value accordingly.

3.1.2. Researcher Stance

The author discloses an ambivalent stance towards using mobile technologies outdoors and holds a mixed opinion about whether it is appropriate. Mobile technologies outdoors have been used, over-used at times, and other times not used. The author views mobile technologies overall as a benefit, not a menace, to society. While outdoors, however, the author sometimes reaches for a mobile phone to take a picture, but other times purposefully leaves the phone at home or in a backpack. Because of that ambivalence toward mobile technologies outside, the author attempted to bracket prior mobile device experiences to understand participants’ views towards not using mobile technologies outdoors.

The author has enjoyed the outdoors her entire life and places great value in engaging all senses including a spiritual sense. The author meditates outdoors and incorporates nature into thoughts and emotions. The author purposefully engages in outdoor activities because she feels doing so is important for mental health. Distant Norwegian relatives practiced a type of nature religion, which resonates with the author. However, not all the participants valued the outdoor experience as she did. Thus, the author attempted to bracket a love for the outdoors so as to allow for insight into the participants’ perspectives and realities.

The author found it more difficult to bracket a passion for the outdoors than thoughts about mobile technologies. A positive bias towards being in the outdoors is evident by the thick and rich description found throughout the article, which represents a choice in what to observe. An epoché involves acceptance of the participants who may not share the researcher’s stance; apprehending the phenomenon; and active listening by repeating back the participants’ words or asking follow-up questions [25]. The positive bias toward outdoor activity and an ambivalent stance towards the role of mobile technologies outside forms the epoché for this study.

3.2. Research Design

A qualitative approach for this study was chosen because the author was interested in gathering accounts of life experiences regarding how people approach the outdoors and technology individually rather than in a generalizable way. The author chose a phenomenological approach because it best fits in the following ways: the outdoors is an experience; it is a way of living; incorporating mobile technologies into that experience is another lived experience; and that too is a way of living [22]. The research design of this study explored the intersection of two phenomena: the experience of outdoor activity and the choice of whether to use mobile technologies while outside. This study seeks to discover the structure of that experience. Using the outdoors as the interview setting may aid memory [26]. Interviews, observations, and reflections helped to understand the phenomena. The author functioned as the primary instrument for collecting and analyzing the data [27]. This study was crafted following an interpretation of Heidegger’s in-ness by incorporating an active, outdoor experience into the interview, therefore allowing the author to participate in the research and use a voice recorder as a necessary mobile technology [22]. By playing an active role in the research, the author experienced the interview in an authentic way—outdoors using mobile technology—the same experience participants were asked to discuss. The author assumed the role of “passionate participant” and “actively engaged” in the interviews [24] (p. 115). Context is important. How people construct their subjective reality of using mobile technologies while immersed in the outdoor experience may vary according to their setting. Engaging in an outdoor activity may have brought additional thoughts to mind regarding mobile technologies or outdoor experiences.

The author obtained permission from the Institutional Research Board to conduct this qualitative study. The interviews were unstructured. Each interview began with the author asking the central question: what is your experience of the outdoors and mobile technologies, and how does the choice not to bring mobile technologies interact with the experience? The author asked follow-up questions and probes until the saturation point was reached, when the “possibilities of further descriptions of the experiences are not possible” [28] (p. 31). Silence and concentration on the outdoor activity (the sound of skis or the sound of snowshoes noted on the transcript) seemed to signal that saturation had been reached on that topic.

This study took place in a small mountain town associated with a university. In this four-season environment, outdoor recreation is valued both formally (e.g., university majors offered in tourism, ecology, and fieldwork) and informally (e.g., outdoor clubs or a network of accessible trails and parks). Interviews took place throughout the month of April, which offered a variety of outdoor activities and weather conditions.

Participants

The author used a request sent through email to recruit participants for the study, using a lighthearted approach of conducting an interview while participating in an activity of the person’s choice (“I may not be able to keep up”). Due to the study setting and interview design, participants needed to reside near the university where the study took place. Therefore, the author contacted potential participants through university email, which explained the study and invited individuals to reply to opt into the study. A total of 10 emails were initially sent out to individuals in the graduate program the author was a member of as well as a university department the author worked at. Upon receiving a reply, the author selected participants by two criteria: they used mobile technologies, and they engaged in outdoor activities. These criteria were met by replying to the initial email and suggesting an outdoor activity to engage in during the interview. Thus, participants both self-selected to participate in the study and selected an outdoor activity to pursue during the interview. At that point, the author obtained consent forms and worked out the logistics of the interview. In this fashion, four participants engaged in an outdoor activity with the author and were simultaneously interviewed to allow for data collection for this study. Although all participants were acquainted with the author through work or school, the author had not interacted with any participants in a social setting, i.e., considered friends. Study participants did not consist of a representative population in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, or socio-economic status. As qualitative research is not generalizable [29,30], representative sampling served little purpose. Additionally, the author did not want to make the participants feel uncomfortable or otherwise influence the interview by asking demographic questions, being sensitive to the possibility that participants might feel pressure to represent what they perceived as a demographic agenda (did she ask me because I am disabled…Black…a lesbian?). The participants provided some self-disclosed demographic information during the interviews. Based on those disclosures, all the participants were female, adults, and employed.

3.3. Method

Researchers have suggested researchers describe observations as specifically as possible [23]. The author observed the participants using a mobile device and how they reacted to carrying a mobile device voice recorder during the interview. The author observed whether they brought along a mobile device. Weather, location, and other physical and environmental aspects of being in the outdoors were noted. The author engaged in the outdoor activity as well while interviewing. The author typically brought a mobile phone along but did not use it. The participant held the voice recorder during the interview.

3.3.1. Interviews

The interviews took place in an outdoor setting of the participants’ choice while engaging in a physical activity. Some examples of physical activities included strolling around a dog park, walking a park trail, snowshoeing, and skiing. The interviews lasted between 30 and 90 min and were recorded using a mobile voice recorder. The voice recorder was given to the participants to carry to ensure their voices were audible. The author conducted unstructured interviews, inviting the participant to freely discuss and explore what it means to have an outdoor experience, how mobile technology fits into the outdoor experience, and the factors that impact a decision of whether to bring/use mobile technologies during an outdoor activity. The interview became a conversation, continuing until the participant offered nothing more, i.e., the saturation point. The author’s questions explored the choice not to use mobile technologies while outdoors but were hypothetical (would you…what does technology free mean to you…) rather than interrogative (did you bring something…why?) in tone and intention. The outdoor setting was not a convenient place to take notes with pen and paper. By leaving behind pen and paper, the author committed observations to memory.

A research journal was kept in order to reflect on the experience of conducting the interviews. The physical experience was noted—teaching a novice how to snowshoe, trying to keep up skiing with an expert, watching dogs frolic at a dog park, and adjusting the walking pace to match the participant. Environmental details such as weather and driving conditions were noted. The environmental noises of the interview aided the author in recalling observations made mentally during the interview. These observations were noted in the research journal.

First interview (Sara; all names are pseudonyms). The first interview was to snowshoe at the trailhead on the first day of April. It had snowed earlier in the week and the road was icy. The parking lot was windy, and it was below freezing. On the trails, however, the wind died down and the snow hung thickly on the trees. We snowshoed during the late afternoon, the sun slanting through the trees. The trail was packed but still sufficiently covered with snow that snowshoeing was easy and enjoyable. The snow had packed down to where using poles became a bit awkward due to the high snowbanks on either side of the trail. We walked out on a trail for more than an hour. The participant’s dog accompanied us off-leash and the dog seemed to enjoy herself, bounding around in the snow. While outside, the author felt invigorated and happy. The author had dressed warmly and felt comfortable.

Second interview (Pam). The second interview took place the following Sunday beginning at the same trailhead. We cross-country skied the campground, meadow, and ridge trails, which took about 45 min. The skiing took place early in the morning due to the warming forecast. The author classic-skied and the participant skate-skied. The ice had melted from the road and parking lot, there was low wind, and it was sunny and warming above freezing. The trails began ice-covered but turned to mushy snow while we skied. The author again felt invigorated and happy while engaging in the outdoor activity and interview.

Third interview (Anne). The third interview took place in mid-April. The author met the participant and her two dogs at a local dog park. We strolled around the dog park while the dogs ran about. The day was overcast and sprinkled rain intermittingly, but the wind was low, and it was not cold. Wearing tall waterproof boots helped to guard against mud and soft ground in the dog park. The park was full of the smells of early spring, the new green grass, and a chance to watch dogs play.

Fourth interview (Wendy). The fourth interview took place in late April at a city park. We walked a paved walking path that circled the park. It was a beautiful spring day, one of the first in which the temperatures climbed to 60 degrees, and sunny with little wind. We discussed how glad we were to experience one of the first nice days of spring. It almost became too warm for a light spring jacket.

3.3.2. Transcription

Each of the participants wore a voice recorder placed inside their jacket chest pocket or held in their hand. The recorder picked up voices well. An unexpected discovery is that the voice recorder also recorded environmental noises. The recorder picked up the noise skis make going uphill and downhill, the sound of wind in the trees, the crunch of snowshoes, dogs barking, birds calling, and close or distant sounds of traffic. The noises allowed for recall of the experience and to mentally map where we were based on the noises alone, which were noted in a research journal. The author could also envision the trail based on the uphill or downhill ski or snowshoe noises. The interview became a conversation about the weather, or the trail conditions interspersed with the research topic.

To transcribe the interviews, the author listened to the voice recorder with headphones and repeated speech as heard and perceived. The voices were then transcribed by a voice-to-text app called Dragon Dictation on an iPad. The recording needed to be paused periodically as the app processed, and a page of notes was emailed at a time. The author listened to the interview several more times to make additions and edits for accuracy and to initially analyze the data. Recording the interview and transcribing verbatim, including environmental sounds, was crucial both to aid memory and provide accurate data.

3.3.3. Data Analysis

Verbatim transcripts including environmental and contextual noises were prepared. Transcripts were analyzed by hand using whole–part–whole analysis [31]. Units of general meaning were typically a single sentence. The research question was applied to the units of meaning to form clusters and then themes [31]. Coding was both open and in vivo, leading to emergent themes. The transcripts were printed, and codes were indicated by using different colors to highlight or write in the margins. Sentence-by-sentence analysis was used to code and group codes into clusters using words that suggested action, a technique used in grounded theory data analysis [29]. The actions suggested themes that emerged due to the lived experience of the phenomenon, while the mobile technologies acted on those themes to produce perceptions of value in the participants’ minds. Themes suggesting action fit well with an overall perception that outdoor activity engages the senses. Arranging the main theme clusters into a mind map condensed the clusters into three essences.

3.3.4. Trustworthiness

To strengthen internal validity, a copy of the interpretation and the transcript was sent to participants. The author asked if it rang true to them [27]. Keeping a research journal increased the study’s reliability. Because qualitative research is not generalizable, the reader decides if the study is transferable to their situation. The author provided rich, thick descriptions to help readers determine if the study transferred.

4. Findings

The outdoor environment was a lived experience integral to the interview. It became a third participant, discussed, or at least acknowledged by everyone. “Every day it’s a different experience outside”, Pam explained. Two of the four interviews were rescheduled due to the weather. Half of the participants admitted to outdoor activities being ruled by the weather. That could be due to the setting of the study, a mountainous area that experiences all four seasons and frequent dramatic weather shifts. The weather threatened rain at the dog park, causing an early end to the interview. The interview at the city park offered clear skies and pleasant temperatures, welcoming on an early spring day. The weather may offer one reason why interviews ranged in length from 30 min to more than an hour.

The interviews paused when the participant concentrated on the environment. Walking and watching dogs play offered gentle exercise, producing no comments about the activity itself. When the activity became strenuous, the conversations switched to environmental talk. Skiing produced the most environmental talk, mostly centered on the snow conditions; “there might be a lot of crunching of the ice today. You feel how icy that is? That’s crazy, right? This is classic spring skiing!” Pam exclaimed. During the snowshoe hike, concerns prevailed about which trail to take and how long to hike. Strenuous activities such as skiing and snowshoeing produced conversation about the activities integrated into the interviews, such as skiing downhill, the pace and balance required of snowshoeing, and using poles to snowshoe.

The author did not observe any participant using mobile technologies during the interviews. The one exception was the beginner snowshoe interview. Sarah asked to be photographed snowshoeing so that she could share the experience with friends later. “Speaking of blazing a trail and technology, how about if I go stand right there and you take a picture of me so I can document my first real snowshoeing?” The author obliged and took several pictures, a few with the participant waving her snowshoe in the air to prove she was snowshoeing. “So, here’s my one instance where I use technology,” she said.

Reactions to the request from the author to carry the recorder varied from nonchalance to mild distress. When Anne was asked to hold the recorder and that previous participants slipped it into their jacket pocket while skiing or snowshoeing, she remarked, “That must have been interesting. Okay, I’ll just hold it”. Pam made a quick decision and said, “Recording! Okay, I’ll just put it in my pocket here” and never mentioned it again. Wendy also accepted the recorder without comment. Sarah accepted it with some trepidation saying, “This thing, I should’ve put a little strap or lanyard on it or something because it’s gonna fall down in my pocket, but we’ll see, I’ll try to keep an eye on it, okay, so now I just walk”.

The sections below describe the emergent essences found through analysis of the interview transcripts. Within the essences of valuing relationships, risk and safety, and the electronic leash of work, emergent themes included valuing relationships with nature, with others who came along and those who did not come along. Participants articulated reasons for whether they should bring mobile devices with them while engaging in an outdoor activity, thus describing how they experienced decision-making. In each section, whether the reasons tended toward bringing and using a mobile device or leaving it behind is indicated.

4.1. Valuing Relationships

4.1.1. Relationships with Nature, Not Technology (Leave It Behind)

Fully experiencing the outdoors means engaging all the senses. This may not mean leaving a mobile device behind. Rather, participants do not consult the device while outdoors. While interacting with the outdoors, participants tended to express a desire to immerse in nature and leave mobile devices behind. When a need arises to consult resources such as maps, participants preferred easily accessible, tactile resources rather than spending time attempting to access a mobile device. Sarah still depends on hard copies of resources and believes she does not have cell reception in outdoor areas. Her relationship with nature is more tactile, such as perusing topographic maps:

I still will carry like a map or a book or whatever that tells me what the trail is and what the elevations is, and whatever, and yeah, like a topo map, yeah, and to try to check how far I’ve come and what’s coming next. I’m sure there’s probably better apps for that on your phone, but I’ve never been motivated to look, I don’t know why, I guess partly because I still always just assume that there’s not going to be reception, cell phone reception, you know there probably is more places now that there used to be, but I still just use the map instead.

Sarah’s feelings are supported by studies reporting that non-users of technology perceived apps as relevant if they were useful [2]. Sarah did not feel that apps on a phone would improve her outdoor experience. Sarah also believed technology intrudes upon the outdoor experience:

Doing stuff outside is about being in touch with the outside, and if you’re texting, or like it bothers me when I do have my phone to take pictures or something and I start getting text messages I kind of get annoyed, like—don’t bother me right now!

Sarah said, “I didn’t want anything to do with the computer there, I just wanted to be there”. People focusing on the environment while immersed in it enhances feelings of mindfulness [32]. Mindfulness may heighten observation skills by utilizing all the senses and lead to a flow state.

The experience of flow may be interrupted by mobile technologies. A flow state needs the participant to control the experience, focus attention, maintain curiosity, and find the experience intrinsically interesting [7]. The flow paradox occurs when a participant stops to think about flow, which causes the feeling to evaporate [7]. Sarah’s annoyance at uncontrolled text messages may disrupt a flow experience. Participants viewed technology as peripheral at best to motivate them to go outdoors. Pam mused:

I think for some people their mobile technology is the thing that propels them to exercise or to get outside or whatever because they have those apps that tell them how many calories they’re burning and blah, blah, blah, and that’s the motivator for them, and so for me it’s not. I’m not interested in them [apps]. I don’t care, for me it’s the experience of being outside.

Intrinsic motivation to go outside does not necessarily align with motivation to use technology while there.

Participants did not often use passive apps, such as listening to music, while outdoors. Participants preferred “to hear the music of nature” as Pam described it, going on to point out that not being able to hear because of headphones may be dangerous. Indeed, researchers have found the use of mobile devices while outdoors may have negative unintended consequences [8,9]. Music sometimes creates a distraction that interferes with the perceived mental clarity benefit of the outdoors. If Wendy goes for a walk outside to work through a thorny issue such as a relationship problem, she tries “to leave everything behind and not even music, you know, not even that”. Pam explained her perception of mindfulness in the natural world:

You know, part of it too is just allowing yourself to enjoy what’s out here, you know, I think we’re often too, we’re just, I don’t know, we’re just so trapped in our modern world of having to be plugged into our stuff that we don’t, we don’t take a moment to just appreciate everything that’s actually in the natural world.

Anne says, “it takes two hands to get anything done in the garden”, thereby justifying leaving her phone in the house while gardening. Using mobile devices inhibits full immersion in the outdoor experience.

A common activity using mobile technologies outdoors is to document by taking photos or videos—thereby interacting with the outdoors in a type of relationship. In fact, if the user controls the device and uses it to enhance the experience, motivation and satisfaction may both increase [19]. The relationship between user, device, and nature may be entirely personal, in which case the photos are seldom if ever shared with others. This relationship fits the perspective of scholars who have suggested integrating technologies with the outdoors by engaging the five senses and the practice of mindfulness [13]. Taking photos of nature that are kept entirely private or shared only with those very dear are examples of practicing mindfulness through close observation and appreciation of nature. Wendy says there is “almost a spiritual thing about it” to go outside, and part of that spirituality is viewing nature photos in a personal relationship. Wendy says, “nature is for me very personal, that it’s just for me, I’m selfish about it maybe”, and that she does not share “as much of the pictures of the beautiful daffodils and things like that, I suppose those are just more for me”. The choice not to share may not stem from privacy concerns, but from the fact that spirituality is deeply personal and sharing meaningful photos with others is a vulnerable act. Others may not understand the spiritual representation.

Fitness apps and constellation programs gathered mixed reviews. Once the novelty wore off, many abandoned the apps. Sarah described her reaction to a friend’s constellation app, “yeah, so that was kind of cool, but I got bored with it pretty quick because I was like, I’d rather just lie here and look at the stars than try to name them…it was interesting for about 15 min and then I was done”. Anne enjoyed the app, yet was frustrated with lack of access, “there’s a function on my cell phone called night sky, which I really like, you can hold it up and see the constellations but unfortunately I have no coverage [camping] so I can’t really use it, sadly”. As researchers have mentioned, innovative products must be usable to be implemented [16]. Some technologies were viewed with outright disbelief in the benefits, for example, an indoor treadmill with a picture of the outdoors in front of it. Wendy viewed it as “technology trying to put you outdoors when you’re not really outdoors”. Pam described a friend’s frustrations with a running app:

Sometimes when I run I have a running partner and she does the Track My Run thing, and it can be so distracting because you’re so focused on getting that Track My Run thing going, and set up, and if you stop running and it resets and all this kind of stuff, and so you’re fooling with it the whole time, you can hear her getting frustrated rather than enjoying the experience of running and the experience of being outside and running, right?

To non-users like Pam, the benefits of information gathering are not worth the costs of diminished immersion in the outdoors.

4.1.2. Relationships with Those Elsewhere (Bring It Along, Use, and Share)

People may bring mobile technologies along to the outdoors to share experiences with others. Pam explained that it is a reciprocal benefit for skiers contemplating what ski conditions might be like on the trail, “I always appreciate it when people post, like if they come before me and they post, and they let me know what it’s like, right?” When people share photos and information about the environment on social media, they intend to share their enthusiasm for the outdoor experience. They also contribute to the informal construction of knowledge by using photographs to document their observations [14] of, for example, ski conditions. Pam explains the lengths she will go to capture the wonder of the outdoor experience to share it:

Yesterday was beautiful here because the snow was still piled up on the trees and yeah, I did bring my camera, and the conditions yesterday were so good. And so, I was up early enough that I thought, oh I should let other people know that conditions are great, so yeah, you want to take a good shot to entice people, right? So I was coming down, I was coming to the loop, it is a great shot for a pictures because this one tree was like framing, the branches, were like framing, it was like snow, and you can see the trail between the frame of the branches and so I started to take a picture there but it was a serious slope, right, it was a serious slope, so I’m going like this [leans far over] and trying to get the picture. Laughs, and falling over, my camera’s in the snow! So, I thought, all for a picture, I don’t know if it was worth it, man! Laughs. Yeah, I posted it yesterday on Facebook.

Pam shared her experience to encourage others to appreciate natural beauty. Sharing photos enables those elsewhere to vicariously have a similar experience [3]. Scholars have suggested integrating mobile technologies and extending the outdoor experience by sharing it with others [13].

Traveling to an unfamiliar place may encourage the user to share photos with others. Sarah recently moved to the area:

So, I put [outdoor pictures] on Facebook and I’m like, hey all my friends, look! Back home, look at the cool stuff here! Where I didn’t do it quite as much at home because it was so familiar to me after so long, you know, and everybody there was like, oh yeah, okay, so what, so you’re hiking in the woods again, wasn’t any big deal, but now I’m like, oh I’m snowshoeing, look, I’m skiing!

In Sarah’s case, sharing photos of outdoor activities with others who had not traveled was a way to keep in touch and maintain relationships.

Functionality intrinsic to a mobile device includes photos and videos. If there was a clear benefit to using the functionality and it was convenient, the participant engaged with it. Clear benefits included communicating aspects of the outdoor activity and environment, documenting one’s activities, and enticing others to go outside as well. If participants viewed the apps as useful, then they derived enjoyment from using them [2]. Useful affordances included actual mobile devices, apps, or Internet access [4]. A meaningful outdoor experience is not necessarily technology free [13]. Participants mentioned applications they thought might be nice to have, such as a GoPro. Pam described how she uses video to share her outdoor experience with others:

You know, I haven’t used Go Pro, but I occasionally do this crazy thing [pulls camera out of her pocket, holds it, puts skis in the other hand]. This is kind of crazy and kind of dumb, but here, so you know, the video function on this camera, so I’ll turn on the video recorder and I’ll just like put my poles in one hand and I hold this and I ski down the hill and I hold this in my hand, which it’s kind of crazy, I wouldn’t do it in icy conditions, only on primo conditions days, but I’ve done it a couple times, especially for my friends who don’t ski, well you know, because like, you know, it’s kind of like you’re in the moment when somebody’s taking that video and you watch it, you’re in the moment, and they say, ‘oh that does look like fun’.

4.1.3. Relationships with Those Present (Use It to Learn but Prioritize Relationships)

People value relationships and the social experience integrated into the outdoor experience. Nature functions to extend relationships with other people. Anne values the expertise of her companions while outdoors, engaging with their knowledge to bring deeper meaning and create an informal learning experience:

I like to be outside, it’s a lot of fun, but I like to talk about it with other people, or I go with my dad and he’s from the Ozarks and we talk about that, or a friend of mine, he studied wildlife biology, birds in particular, so it’s always kind of fun to go with him and he’ll say, oh there’s this or that, or whatever, so what is this? But it’s nice to have technology because I can say, let me Google that, and that’s nice.

By taking mobile technology along and using it to augment conversation and informal learning, Anne is incorporating cycles of activity and reflection integral to learning [18]. She also values the information search affordance mobile devices provide [1]. Sarah seeks friends with similar outdoor interests to share outdoor activities such as hiking. When Wendy’s child was young, she would “pop him in the stroller and we would go walking all over the place”, happily remembering that “I was spending time with him, and I got to go outdoors”. Information searching on mobile devices was considered beneficial if it added value to the relationship.

On the other hand, relationships with others are prioritized over mobile devices while out in nature. There can exist a disinclination to use mobile technologies while with others. Anne described pleasant hikes with her family, “usually when I hike, I hike with my family and a dog, and so we talk to each other and it’s a social experience”. The participants valued relationships with companions more so than using mobile technologies, because “when you’re paying attention to that you’re not paying attention to other people as much that are with you and the experience of the moment, it’s like you’re somewhere else”. Anne said, “We put the phone down and socialize”. There is a distinction between informal learning from others and companionship.

4.2. Reducing Risk and Signaling Strength

4.2.1. Security (Necessary to Bring It Along)

The one aspect of a mobile device that was deemed an absolute necessity was the phone function itself, to be used in case of emergency. Anne said, “if I have reception, I usually take my phone with me, just for security reasons like if I needed it, I could call”. All participants agreed that it is necessary to bring a mobile device along to use in case of injuries, such as “break a leg”, or “a rattlesnake bites me”, or even to identify remains “if someone found me”. Wendy said, “oh yeah, anything, slip on the ice, anything, gosh yeah, you really need that phone”. Tourists often bring a mobile device along while traveling and believe the device offers security [11]. Even if they do not intend to use it, the cell phone provides security.

Wendy described an attack outdoors that a loved one suffered. “Her attacker looked for a phone on her and realized she didn’t have one, because she was just at a park, she thought she was safe…” Wendy went on to say, “it made me realize that by the technology we have, kind of gives a message that we’re ready, and we’re ready, to defend myself or make a phone call if I have to” thereby broadcasting an appearance of self-reliance. Sarah once cut a hiking trip short after both she and her companion fell because:

We were just not into it, neither of us wanted to admit it but finally I just called it. I’m like okay, this is crazy because we are supposed to go for another night and we were just not into it, and so we got to a spot where there was reception, and I called my friend, and we told her where the next road crossing was and asked her to come get us.

Calling a friend rather than relying on official channels such as park rangers or emergency responders may have brought them home timelier and more efficiently [12]. The mobile device lent Sarah decisiveness and authority.

4.2.2. Reduce Risk (Bring It Along)

The participants thought the need to bring along a mobile device for security did not permit one to engage in risky activities. Although Sarah mused, “I sort of wonder sometimes if people take more risks than they used to because they have cell phones”, she did not provide an example of a lived experience of her own. Sarah thinks that, regarding leaving mobile technologies behind, “sometimes that feels more adventurous, I guess without technology, like really getting back to nature than, well, I’m back in nature but I always have backups just in case, so I’m really not, authentically, risking much”. During play, moving from safety to risk and back to safety was tempered by the pragmatic choice to bring along a cell phone [5]. The participants did not change their activities with a phone. Rather, they viewed the mobile device as a security measure, freeing them from having to hesitate about engaging in activities alone and allowing for a fuller experience of the outdoors.

Some reasons tourists find value in mobile technologies while traveling which include the added security, communication abilities, and the acquisition of information [11]. Wendy described a recent trip:

I look for places I can walk, you know, trails, and I bring my camera, and I take 20 or 30 pictures of leaves and flowers. And so we were in Boston a week ago, and the daffodils are blooming, the bulbs, so I have pictures of the outdoors, but I don’t do that here …if I’m traveling, I’m more nervous about where I am, so I need that phone just in case anything were to happen whereas when I’m here and I feel safe, I don’t need anything, so no technology.

Wendy summarized the reasons many bring mobile technologies along while traveling: documentation of memories; security; and heightened sensations in an unfamiliar place.

4.3. Working—The Electronic Leash

4.3.1. Integrating Work with Nature (Bring It Along and Bring Nature Back to Work)

All the participants spoke of the outdoors as a place to escape from work concerns. Pam archives her photos to select those relevant to her to integrate into her work environment, thus incorporating new into existing knowledge [14]. Pam said:

I do end up taking a lot of pictures of outside. I use it as my screensaver at work, it kind of helps me to look at the outdoors pictures, you know, five minutes of inactivity and the screensaver kicks in, it helps me to look at the outdoors pictures and all of the pictures of outdoor adventures and it’s a good reminder of, you know, of where I would rather be in good times, when I’m feeling chained to my desk.

Others envy people who go outside while “I’m always at work”. Wendy muses about a possible work arrangement with standing desks placed outside, “Absolutely, why not, yeah, you can still be plugged in, and you get enough sunlight, yeah that would be great, I bet you that’s coming. I hope so”. Meanwhile, many try to bring the outdoors in through photos.

People with more flexible job schedules work around pleasant weather to go outside as often as they can. “Yeah, yeah, so like I’ll go out intentionally with my laptop, like I’ve got to get this work done but I’d rather do it outside than inside”, Sarah said. But Wendy does not, explaining, “if I have a bunch of stuff I have to do for work, rather than bringing it with me and going outside, I just don’t go outside that day, which is really sad”. People seem willing to imagine working, accompanied by technology, outside but balk at bringing work outside when they are off duty.

Because work email is often tied to a smartphone, leaving work behind presents a decision to leave the smartphone, and by extension work, behind. The devices are frequently part of work—take a call, answer an email, return a text. Adults at work may feel tension, wanting to abandon their mobile devices to achieve separation from work.

4.3.2. Disconnecting from Mobile Technologies (Leave It Behind)

Going outside offers a brief separation from work concerns. “I feel like I want to disconnect so it’s back to nature outside time”, Wendy said. Pam explained, “I want that break. You know, we’ve merged our, you know, leisure and our working life so much these days”. Sarah mused, “It would feel weird to be looking at a laptop in my tent…I guess because it feels like if you’re out there to get away from the world and that’s like bringing the world with you maybe”. There exists a clear need to leave work concerns behind while outdoors.

Removing oneself from work completely may resemble a break in the social façade [10]. Separation from mobile technologies must occur. Sarah said that laptops, while permissible out on the porch to work at home, are not welcome camping. “That would just annoy me, you know, if I brought it or if someone else did, I would say, what is the point? Looking at a computer instead of the beautiful outdoors?” Wendy explained why it is not enjoyable to bring work outside, “if you get a bunch [of work] done, then you forget you’re in a beautiful setting and you stop noticing”. Anne spoke of loved ones who were on call or required to stay in contact as part of their job:

He has the kind of job where he has to check his email, it drives him crazy, because I’ll be talking to him and he has to check his email all the time for his job, and I’m like, I’m going to take that phone and bury it!

Many who do not work in that capacity rejoiced in their privilege, animatedly describing not being “tied into that phone”, being out of cell phone reach, or not checking work email with the phone while away from work. The facilitation of communicating with work while traveling on vacation does not bring everyone joy [1]. Anne described a family vacation:

We went on a cruise this summer and it was great, because there was no cell service at all, it was great, he was so happy, because freedom! He fixes stuff, he’s maintenance, so he’s always has to be in contact, they call him constantly, so it’s a constant irritant for him and he is super stressed out because people are trying to get a hold of him…I mean, it was a wonderful time [without cell service], so it was fantastic, and he was very happy, and you could see, when we came into port and we could get back in touch, and you could see the stress come over his face.

The outdoors, once a place where a person was unquestionably out of touch for a while, now has ceased to function as a true separation by the introduction of mobile technologies. Pam said:

I don’t want to have technology with me, because I feel like it’s a leash to bring mobile technology, it’s just, you know, my day-to-day existence, and work, and commitments, and when I come outside to get away from it all, that includes getting away from my leash, you know, the electronic leash.

All the participants seemed determined to control communication to preserve separation from work, constructing their reality of remoteness and separation, to cut the “electronic leash”.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Holistically, participants viewed the outdoors as a type of relationship. Granted, it is a one-sided relationship, but people who value the outdoors seem to derive benefits from experiencing the outdoors. Benefits may be physical (getting in shape) and mental (mindfulness). This relationship is considered when choosing to bring along and use a mobile device or leave it behind. The decision also weighs on other people, both those who come along and those elsewhere, the risks involved, and whether the purpose of going outside is to instruct oneself or others.

Overall, people valued mobile devices in outdoor spaces for the sense of added security, a reduction in risk, and the affordance of sharing the experience with others not present. All participants perceived the necessity of bringing mobile technologies to ensure security and to reduce the risk of harm or injury. Many people document their outdoor experiences with photos. These artifacts may remain private, used at work to manage emotions, or may be shared with others to share one’s experience or pass along information to those who did not come along. People value relationships with those not present and seek to include them by sharing their outdoor experiences. Sharing an outdoor experience with those who did not come along may be conceptualized as instruction. People sharing and looking up information about trail conditions and so forth are educating themselves informally through mobile devices.

Some situations were perceived as best experienced without mobile devices. People wished to escape from work-related stress by going outdoors, and not using mobile technologies while outdoors helped them escape. People prioritized immersion in nature and wished to eliminate the distractions of mobile devices. Using mobile devices may inhibit immersion in nature and prevent achieving a flow state. Eliminating distractions to more fully be present in the moment is viewed by instructors of outdoor recreation experiences as best accomplished by leaving mobile technologies behind, although many also recognize the need to ensure security while in the wilderness [17]. Finding a balance between a perceived need to disconnect and an acceptable level of risk is shared by those who venture outdoors voluntarily.

People expressed ambivalence towards bringing and using mobile devices in situations where others were present during the outdoor activity. People value relationships, and mobile technologies are perceived as sometimes strengthening those relationships. When people are with others, they may value a mobile device for access to information to enrich the conversation and even venture into informal learning, or they may prefer to concentrate on the relationship and be fully present. This tension between needing to retreat from one’s façade and maintaining relationships with others has been recognized by outdoor recreation leaders [20] and incorporated into the design of outdoor experiences. However, people who venture outdoors of their own free will also recognize this tension and use various strategies to navigate it.

There are limitations to this study and directions for future work. This phenomenological study could be expanded using a larger number of participants to further explore any of the essences. Gender differences may be an area ripe for further exploration. For example, men may not feel a need to bring mobile technologies outdoors for security. Participants were selected to participate in an outdoor activity for the interview and indicated that they did not always bring mobile technologies along with them outside. In that sense, their experience cannot be separated from valuing the outdoors which indicates a limitation of the study. Thus, future research with participants who choose not to go outdoors or not to venture into areas without cell service may be an interesting topic to explore.

This study has implications for those who design apps for informal and formal outdoor learning experiences. Instructional designers may find insights for incorporating technology while developing meaningful outdoor learning experiences [33]. For example, taking photos may improve observation skills [34], and using mobile devices to augment learning from others while in the moment, outdoors, may allow for meaningful learning. Designers of mobile technologies for parks and recreation centers may consider creating a wiki page where users could post pictures of trail conditions that would serve as a clearinghouse for interested parties to check and learn from. Those working in the parks and recreation industry may gain an understanding of the reasons people do not use technologies while outdoors and consider alternative approaches for encouraging mindfulness and achieving a flow state while outdoors. By seeking to understand how people value mobile technologies outdoors, designers may develop applications for mobile devices that people value, use, and learn from while outdoors. The purpose behind why Chiara embarked on an outdoor activity on a crisp winter day may relate to her decision of whether to bring mobile technologies with her.