Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Jee In Yoon Texas A and M University jeeinyoon@tamu.edu Gerard Kyle Texas A and M University Abstract.—Th is study explored predictors of recreationists’ intention to return to Santee Cooper Country (SCC), a popular destination for angling-based tourism in South Carolina. Our hypothesized model indicated that recreationists’ experience use history and place satisfaction would positively aff ect four dimensions of place attachment to SCC. Place attachment was also modeled as a predictor of intention to return to SCC. In addition to testing the hypothesized relationships, this study examined the eff ect of two moderators, place familiarity and angling skill, on these relationships. Invariance tests across the four groups illustrated that highly skilled recreationists’ intention to return was driven mostly by their emotional attachment to the recreation area, while the lower-skill group’s intention to return was driven mainly by social ties to SCC. Place familiarity had no signifi cant moderating eff ect. 1.0 INTRODUCTION PREDICTORS OF VISITORS’ INTENTION TO RETURN TO A NATURE-BASED RECREATION AREA Enticing visitors to return to amenity-based recreation areas is an important factor underlying the fi nancial success of local tourism-related industries. As a result considerable eff ort has been devoted to understanding what encourages return visits to recreation areas. Among various kinds of outdoor recreation activities, naturebased recreation areas provide an opportunity to satisfy recreational needs while maintaining the diversity and richness of the place’s natural, cultural, and historical resources (Shrestha et al. 2007). As many people seek forests, parks, and preserves to enjoy nature-based recreation (Shrestha et al. 2007), it is important to consider factors that infl uence visitors’ intention to return to these areas. In this investigation, we explored several factors that drive recreationists’ intention to return to nature-based recreation areas. Th is study tested a path model for understanding the relationships between place satisfaction, experience use history, place identity, place dependence, aff ective attachment, social bonding, and intention to return using a survey of anglers in Santee Cooper Country (SCC), a popular destination for angling-based tourism in South Carolina. Th e research also examined the moderating eff ect of recreationists’ self-reported angling skill and level of familiarity with SCC. For angling skill, previous studies have shown that skilled anglers have stronger place preferences (Bricker and Kerstetter 2000, Kyle et al. 2003), which determine resource substitution behaviors and individuals’ attachment to place. As Havitz and Dimanche (1997) stated, more experienced recreationists’ awareness set (the group of potential setting substitutes people simply know) for resource substitutes is more extensive, and their evoked set (the group of potential setting substitutes they actually consider) is substantially narrower than those of less experienced recreationists. Since skill level plays an important role in recreationists’ attachment to place as well as in recreational behavior, this study also examined its impact on these hypothesized relationships. 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Place Attachment In the place literature, place attachment research has examined human-place bonding primarily in terms of emotional and functional attachments to specifi c locales (Low and Altman 1992).While aff ect appears to be central to bonding processes (Low and Altman 1992), the literature has also acknowledged several other aspects of attachment. Th ese facets include place identity, which refers to the cognitive connection between the self and the physical environment (Proshansky 1978). In this context, the physical environment off ers individuals an opportunity to express and affi rm their identity (Kyle et al. 2004). Place attachments that refl ect people’s appreciation of a setting’s functional utility have also been acknowledged (i.e., place dependence) (Stokols and Shumaker 1981). Place dependence is connected to Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 189
a setting’s ability to facilitate desired outcomes (Stokols and Shumaker 1981). Finally, research has also shown that place attachments can be an artifact of individuals’ social ties to a place (Mesch and Manor 1998, Kyle and Chick 2007). In these contexts, place attachments are driven by the bonds that people share with others. Th e study of place attachment in the context of outdoor recreation has built upon the work of geographers and environmental psychologists (Buttimer 1980, Tuan 1980, Low and Altman 1992). 2.2 Experience Use History Experience use history (EUH) refers to recreationists’ past experience with an activity or setting (Hammitt et al. 2004). It most commonly measures recreationists’ total visits to an area, their years of use, and frequency and duration of participation (Hammitt and McDonald 1983, Schreyer et al. 1984). In general, the EUH literature has illustrated that more experienced recreationists display greater knowledge and familiarity with activities and places (Schreyer et al. 1984), which provides them with a richer cognitive and aff ective base for appreciating the resource and activities (Manning 1999). Because use history is cumulative, Schreyer et al. (1984) defi ned EUH in terms of a continuum, where recreationists begin as novices and become experienced or specialized users of the resource and/or activity. Past work has shown that recreationists’ repeated and lasting place interactions promote emotional ties to a place (Buttimer 1980, Hay 1998 Hammitt et al. 2009). Since individuals can be very habitual in returning to a site and become loyal to certain places (Havitz and Dimanche 1997), EUH is regarded as an antecedent of recreationists’ attachment to place and their behavior regarding returning. Previous research has shown that EUH is a strong predictor of human-place bonding and provides insight into recreationists’ familiarity and satisfaction with specifi c environments. 2.3 Place Satisfaction In the place literature, place satisfaction is conceived of as an individual’s assessment of how well a particular setting serves individual needs (Ladewig and McCann 1980, Mesch and Manor 1998). Although place satisfaction is recognized as an important factor facilitating recreationists’ returning behavior, research related to place satisfaction is oddly absent from the place literature (Stedman 2002). Most researchers in community sociology argue that place satisfaction and place attachment should be distinguished from one another (Mesch and Manor 1998, Th eodori 2000). Since some researchers (Mesch and Manor 1998) point out that satisfaction does not automatically ensure the formation of place attachment, there is a need to examine the relationship these constructs share (Th eodori 2001). In this investigation, place satisfaction was modeled as an antecedent of place attachment. Th e consumer behavior literature supports this directionality. In studies of consumers’ brand loyalty, models have typically shown that satisfaction is a primary antecedent of attitudinal loyalty (Bitner 1990, Yu 2001). Research published in the leisure literature has demonstrated that place attachment shares conceptual similarity with attitudinal loyalty (Kyle et al. 2004, Kyle et al. 2006). Th us, consistent with this prior work, place satisfaction was also modeled as an antecedent of place attachment in this study. 2.4 Intention to Return In marketing research, behavioral intentions have been viewed as indicators that provide insight into whether customers will remain with or defect from a service provider (Ziethaml et al. 1996). Studies of consumer loyalty have demonstrated its importance for agency success. Loyal customers are more likely to say positive things about the company to others (Boulding et al. 1993), express preference for the company over others (Parasuraman et al.1988), or demonstrate a willingness to pay more for products or services (Newman and Werbel 1973, LaBarbera and Mazursky 1983, Rust and Zahorik 1993). Marketing research has also shown that behavioral intentions are strong predictors of actual behavior and that behavioral intentions are closely related to customer satisfaction and service quality (Ziethaml et al. 1996). Th us, it is necessary to investigate place-relevant variables that represent recreationists’ attitude toward place, such as place satisfaction and place attachment, to reveal the relationship between attitude and intention. Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 190
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 and 114:
Table 1.—Informant profi les Info
Page 115 and 116:
do something and we might think it
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: Shafer, E.L.; Hamilton, J.F.; Schmi
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?