Boundaries of the Common Adventure Model
As it is described, the common adventure model actually leaves considerable room in how it is applied. Different permutations of it are possible depending on filtering, a process which will be explained later. Yet despite its flexibility, there are boundaries beyond which a trip ceases to be a common adventure. Based on its philosophic foundation, three boundaries become evident:
1 Participatory Nature
The participatory nature of the common adventure trip is a key part of its philosophical foundation. The boundary is crossed and it's no longer considered a common adventure trip when one person organizes, plans and conducts the trip.
2 Autocratic Leadership
The common adventure model involves all members of the group in decision making. Democratic decision making doesn't eliminate the need for a split second autocratic decision in time of danger (because of concern and empathy members of the group show for one another), nor does it mean that the group is without leaders. However, the boundary of common adventure is crossed when leadership is autocratic and the group members do not participate in decisions.
Two underlying values of the common adventure model are low cost and non-commercialized outdoor experiences. The boundary is crossed and a trip would no longer be considered a common adventure when a sponsoring institution or club (if it exists) makes money off the trip. The boundary is also crossed when any one member of the group benefits monetarily from the trip. In both cases, the trip clearly loses its non-profit, non-commercial quality.
The original paper from which this was extracted can be found here.