Do rock climbers seek out high-risk climbs?
The results of this study were known a long time ago by anyone who climbs. Access, easier and shorter climbs, and beautiful places are OF COURSE going to get more traffic. The fact has been noted by MANY climbers over the years and I find it extremely funny that they managed to get funding for the "research" study. You can look at the various cliffs in Yosemite where if there are mainly sub 5.9 routes it will have far more people than the cliff that has mostly hard routes. It is so simple and obvious a point that the backers of the study should be slapped.
The results revealed that a greater quantity of single-pitch routes, higher quality landscape and a lower level of median difficulty all increase the likelihood of climbers visiting the site. A statistical analysis of the responses indicated that the climbers preferred lower risk routes.
I will say that I am not one of those climbers. I like to go to the areas that are NOT developed, that have little to no routes, that are all mine for the climbing. The less people the better, but that is an extremely easy task to accomplish here in the Inland NW since nearly no one is doing active climbing development and the rock is mainly in the forest.
I will be able to give a much better insight after this weekend since I will be going climbing on unclimbed rock and putting up new boulder problems.
Source of shared Link
I guess it is but human nature to seek more challenging "climbs" may it be literally or otherwise.
To the question in your title, my Magic 8-Ball says:
Hi! I'm a bot, and this answer was posted automatically. Check this post out for more information.