Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Interactions Institutional Relational Figure 1.—Conceptual model of Forest Service–partner interactions. of this project will explore and refi ne the conceptual framework using multiple case studies, and the third phase will test the framework with a national survey. 4.0 RESULTS Analysis of the interview data identifi ed two main categories, or levels, of constructs related to Forest Service–partner interactions: institutional and relational (Fig. 1). Institutional interactions consist of four constructs (i.e., duty, necessity, commitment, and eff ort) that describe both the reasons to partner and the requirements to engage in partnerships. Relational interactions consist of six constructs (i.e., interdependence, synergy, power, trust, connection, and communication) that describe the needs of both the agency and its partners to maintain informal or formal contracts. Each construct is discussed below, “grounded” in the voices of the informants. Necessity Commitment Effort Interdependence Synergy Power Trust Connection Communication 4.1 Institutional Interactions Forest Service personnel described engaging in partnerships as an agency duty with some partners expecting to be able to partner and others demanding that the agency work with them. Th ese expectations and demands appear to be related to nearby communities’ and specifi c partner groups’ engagement in service. Additionally, the enthusiasm associated with public willingness to partner elicits feelings of guilt in agency employees because of the agency’s commitment to serving the public. Th ese guilty feelings make it hard for Forest Service employees to turn away willing partners, even when the employees do not have time to commit to the partnership. For example, one informant explained that “often our partners really want more time and have more enthusiasm and are more interested in things than we plan time to respond to their needs… It’s not that we aren’t interested, it’s just that they might have an idea to Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 Duty 107
do something and we might think it’s a great idea, but we don’t have time to devote to it” (Forest-level employee, partnership coordinator). Agency personnel also view partnerships as a necessity because partnering is essential to meeting the agency’s mission and goals. Employees explained that it is harder to provide recreational services and opportunities because decreased appropriations (i.e., personnel and budgets) constrain agency capacity. Th is necessity is also apparent to partner organizations. For example, a trail association informant explained that “it used be that the Forest Service perceived these partners to be PR [public relations]. It was all about PR and getting your picture taken in the newspaper or getting a small writeup in the newsletter. It didn’t really mean anything to anyone. Now some Forest Service managers recognize that volunteer partnerships are the only way to get work done.” However, partner organizations are concerned about the agency’s loss of capacity – particularly, loss of technical knowledge and skills – because it limits the Forest Service’s ability to truly partner and forces decisionmakers to focus more on outsourcing. Th e eff ort required to partner can also be overwhelming to agency personnel. It is challenging to solicit and build new partnerships because the time and energy required to coordinate and nurture existing partnerships are substantial. A regional partnership coordinator explained the challenge by stating, “[it’s] probably the fact that they are overwhelmed with what they are doing [agency tasks] and even if they had a party walk in the door today to help them do a task, they don’t have the time and energy to put into it. Forest Service people don’t have the time and energy to put into developing a partner to a point where the partner can be productive.” Additionally, agency policies also require substantial time and energy. Navigating the red tape associated with administrative paperwork and required trainings, as well as ensuring compliance with agency work standards, requires substantial eff ort on behalf of agency personnel. Although there is an “acknowledgment” of the need for partnerships by upper administration, participants perceived that there continues to be limited commitment to the resources (e.g., personnel) and recognition (e.g., reporting) needed for partnerships. Oftentimes, dedicated employees act outside of their job descriptions to develop partnerships because these local-level leaders are committed to public service and building community relations. At the same time, agency employees are concerned that partners may not follow through with their commitments, leading to lost opportunities with other partners or failure to accomplish certain tasks. Th is concern about commitment is also expressed by people from partner organizations like this trail association informant: I think the important thing to reiterate is the notion of leadership. It’s not in the public’s interest for our organization to be in a leadership position on trail maintenance. We could take that on, but it’s not in the interest of the public for us to decide what trails to maintain. We need leadership in the agency. What’s happening is that it’s like a vacuum in the Forest Service. It’s all hollowed out. We are at a stalemate. We are waiting to see where the agency will go. But I don’t think we want a bottom-up approach here, with organizations like ours leading from the bottom up. It would be total anarchy. We need to meet in the middle. We need some commitment, some match, a certain level of commitment. We need to know that the lights are on over there. As this informant implies, agency commitment, as well as commitment by partner groups, reduces feelings of uncertainty. 4.2 Relational Interactions Forest Service employees view partnerships as interdependent relationships. Both partners and agency personnel must contribute eff ort and provide inputs (e.g., physical and fi nancial resources, and personnel time) for the relationship to have mutual benefi ts. Mutual benefi t implies having a common interest to accomplish a specifi c task, as well as having shared goals. However, shared goals tend to be less apparent than common interest, as explained by a forest-level recreation manager: Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 It was one of those things where our goals and their goals are not exactly the same, but certainly there are 108
Page 1 and 2:
United States Department of Agricul
Page 3 and 4:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2009 NORTHEASTER
Page 5 and 6:
OUTDOOR RECREATION—TRAILS Experie
Page 7 and 8:
GIS APPLICATIONS AND RECREATION RES
Page 9 and 10:
diff erent points along the spectru
Page 11 and 12:
Proceedings of the 2009 Northeaster
Page 13 and 14:
amount of bare rock. Camel’s Hump
Page 15 and 16:
Larson, M. 2004. A Passive Approach
Page 17 and 18:
THE ROLE OF IMAGINATION IN EXPERIEN
Page 19 and 20:
Table 1.—Special places surveys L
Page 21 and 22:
For some people, being in their spe
Page 23 and 24:
CLIMATE CHANGE AND RESOURCE PLANNIN
Page 25 and 26:
large geographical area (Fig. 1). T
Page 27 and 28:
Divers seen = 4.4 Figure 2.—Norm
Page 29 and 30:
Table 4.—Most-specialized divers
Page 31 and 32:
Sarah Young Human Dimensions of Mar
Page 33 and 34:
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Th e FRR
Page 35 and 36:
Table 4.—Divers’ perception of
Page 37 and 38:
YOUTH AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
Page 39 and 40:
A qualitative research design was u
Page 41 and 42:
containers, instead of plastic bags
Page 43 and 44:
WALK, RIDE AND LEARN: STUDENTS’ D
Page 45 and 46:
school. Because of the large sample
Page 47 and 48:
Table 8.—Observation of built str
Page 49 and 50:
“I’M TOO OLD TO GO OUTSIDE!”
Page 51 and 52:
Mean Eco-Affinity Score 5.0 4.5 4.0
Page 53 and 54:
children. In: Klenosky, David B., F
Page 55 and 56:
Cherie LeBlanc Fisher U.S Forest Se
Page 57 and 58:
Table 1.—Comparative statistics f
Page 59 and 60:
did some fi shing himself at each s
Page 61 and 62:
On the other hand, some personal kn
Page 63 and 64: Illinois Department of Natural Reso
Page 65 and 66: Consumer behavior researchers have
Page 67 and 68: 50 percent of the households were d
Page 69 and 70: y respondents indicated that these
Page 71 and 72: a bivariate approach (instead of th
Page 73 and 74: HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN RUR
Page 75 and 76: Short cruise season. Th e river fre
Page 77 and 78: Lynda J. Sperazza, Ph.D. Recreation
Page 79 and 80: 2.3 Leisure Participation Values Re
Page 81 and 82: Dychtwald, K. 1999. Age power: How
Page 83 and 84: With all research, the research que
Page 85 and 86: comprehensive. Cross (2005) even ar
Page 87 and 88: Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State Univ
Page 89 and 90: EXPERIENCE USE HISTORY AND ITS RELA
Page 91 and 92: Table 1.—Comparison of experience
Page 93 and 94: 5.0 DISCUSSION As mentioned previou
Page 95 and 96: HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE
Page 97 and 98: 2.0 METHODS Data were collected at
Page 99 and 100: 0 buses 4 buses 8 buses 12 buses Fi
Page 101 and 102: 4.0 DISCUSSION Visitor surveys and
Page 103 and 104: LEISURE AND HEALTH
Page 105 and 106: Second, in a world where clean drin
Page 107 and 108: Table 1.—Importance of different
Page 109 and 110: Countries also need to be careful a
Page 111 and 112: Proceedings of the 2009 Northeaster
Page 113: Table 1.—Informant profi les Info
Page 117 and 118: Th ese relational interactions enab
Page 119 and 120: EXPLORING ELEMENTS THAT INFLUENCE S
Page 121 and 122: trails, and asking others to stay o
Page 123 and 124: time/fi nances” in dune protectio
Page 125 and 126: In summary, this study explored the
Page 127 and 128: Jinhee Jun Texas A&M University jju
Page 129 and 130: Table 1.—Sample demographics Indi
Page 131 and 132: Grayson 1995). Th e fi t of this mo
Page 133 and 134: Stets, J.E.; Burke, P.J. 2003. A so
Page 135 and 136: Jiaying Lu Texas A& M University Ji
Page 137 and 138: Table 1.—Demographic and particip
Page 139 and 140: Table 3.—Factor analysis of motiv
Page 141 and 142: species sought, satisfaction, and r
Page 143 and 144: social nature within sense of place
Page 145 and 146: Table 1.—Descriptions of key info
Page 147 and 148: sharing the place with others and a
Page 149 and 150: Manzo, L.C. 2005. For better or wor
Page 151 and 152: NORMATIVE TOLERANCES FOR SCUBA DIVE
Page 153 and 154: neutral point. Bubbles at the top o
Page 155 and 156: Table 1.—Snorkeler evaluations of
Page 157 and 158: Davis, D.; Tisdell, C. 1995. Recrea
Page 159 and 160: William Valliere University of Verm
Page 161 and 162: ��
Page 163 and 164: Manning, R. 2007. Parks and carryin
Page 165 and 166:
mission is “...to promote and reg
Page 167 and 168:
Figure 1.—Pedestrian walkway LOS
Page 169 and 170:
Acceptability 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4
Page 171 and 172:
TOURISM TRENDS AND CHALLENGES
Page 173 and 174:
the rankings of 12 attendance motiv
Page 175 and 176:
Table 3.—Comparison of socio-econ
Page 177 and 178:
Table 6.—Entertainment Seekers’
Page 179 and 180:
PLACE MEANINGS
Page 181 and 182:
Stedman (1999) posited that sense o
Page 183 and 184:
points in a focus group session, Ne
Page 185 and 186:
are not shared by current residents
Page 187 and 188:
Ishwar Dhami Division of Forestry a
Page 189 and 190:
Figure 2.—Model for the calculati
Page 191 and 192:
Table 1.—Viewshed results for all
Page 193 and 194:
land implies that planting vegetati
Page 195 and 196:
Shafer, E.L.; Hamilton, J.F.; Schmi
Page 197 and 198:
a setting’s ability to facilitate
Page 199 and 200:
EUH Place Satisfaction Figure 1.—
Page 201 and 202:
Table 4.—Regression coefficients
Page 203 and 204:
Jőreskog, K.G.; Sőrbom, D. 2004.
Page 205 and 206:
OUTDOOR RECREATION II
Page 207 and 208:
Th e primary objective of the propo
Page 209 and 210:
Question 10. Do you believe that SU
Page 211 and 212:
Rodney B. Warnick Tom Stevens Unive
Page 213 and 214:
Table 1.—Estimated visitation to
Page 215 and 216:
Table 2.—Estimated national park
Page 217 and 218:
For this section of the trend analy
Page 219 and 220:
5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IM
Page 221 and 222:
RECREATION TRAILS IN MAINE AND NEW
Page 223 and 224:
Table 2.—Average cross-sectional
Page 225 and 226:
Table 5.—The percentage of stream
Page 227 and 228:
Demrow, C.C. 2002. Maine trails man
Page 229 and 230:
Turner, J.M. 2002. From woodcraft t
Page 231 and 232:
Chad P. Dawson, Professor State Uni
Page 233 and 234:
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Very diss
Page 235 and 236:
Table 4.—The number of campers in
Page 237 and 238:
Fuller, C.; Dawson, C. 1999. A comp
Page 239 and 240:
Table 1.—Modal response rates Ini
Page 241 and 242:
Smee, A.; Brennan, M. 2000. Electro
Page 243 and 244:
Table 1.—Characteristics of parti
Page 245 and 246:
Table 3.—Results of discriminant
Page 247 and 248:
5.0 CITATIONS Babbie, E. 2001. Th e
Page 249 and 250:
Bernardita Silva Graduate Assistant
Page 251 and 252:
Table 1.—Expenditures by 2008 Ame
Page 253 and 254:
6.0 CITATIONS Della Bitta, A.; Lond
Page 255 and 256:
the economic impact of travel, and
Page 257 and 258:
the air show. Th e second most popu
Page 259 and 260:
not displace other local spending.
Page 261 and 262:
6.0 CITATIONS Adams, P.D.; Parmente
Page 263 and 264:
MANAGEMENT AND USE OF PARK, RECREAT
Page 265 and 266:
which suggests that diff erent type
Page 267 and 268:
Table 2.—Between-groups ANOVA to
Page 269 and 270:
forest settings (means = 4.4 and 4.
Page 271 and 272:
LEISURE RESEARCH
Page 273 and 274:
communities together, and a decline
Page 275 and 276:
Table 2.—Life satisfaction scale
Page 277 and 278:
onds within a social group is a mec
Page 279 and 280:
“I JUST WANTED TO GET AWAY”: AN
Page 281 and 282:
Th e importance of “getting away
Page 283 and 284:
Gerlach, J. 1989. Spring Break at P
Page 285:
www.nrs.fs.fed.us The U.S. Departme
show all

Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?