Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Th e percent of households that were interested in the environment and wildlife that engaged in hunting/ shooting activities increased at an average of 2.1 percent annually and the actual number of these households grew 3.0 percent per year. In 1993, 28.4 percent of households interested in the environment and wildlife engaged in hunting/shooting activities and by 2008, 36.9 percent engaged in these activities. Th e percent of households that were interested in the environment and wildlife that pursued snow skiing activities increased at an average annual rate of 1.3 percent and the actual number of these households grew at the rate of 2.1 percent per year. In 1995, 11.6 percent of households interested in the environment and wildlife went snow skiing and by 2008, 13.3 percent did so. Finally, the percent of households that were interested in the environment and wildlife that engaged in use of recreational vehicles increased at an average annual rate of 3.3 percent and the actual number of these households grew 4.6 percent annually. In 1993, 12.9 percent of households interested in the environment and wildlife used recreational vehicles and by 2008, 20.1 percent engaged in these activities. In sum, among households interested in the environment and wildlife, all fi ve outdoor recreation activity participation rates grew faster than the average per-year household growth rate. 4.4 Interest in Environment and Wildlife by Media and Video Use Activities, 1993 to 2008 We examined three activities: watching/subscribing to cable television, playing videogames (both activities had data available from 1993 through 2005), and subscribing to an online Internet service (data available from 2002 through 2008). All three of the media/video activities among households interested in the environment and wildlife grew at higher rates than the average per year household growth rate. Th e percent of households that were interested in the environment and wildlife that engaged in watching/ subscribing to cable television grew at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent per year and the actual number of these households grew 3.5 percent per year. In 1993, 44.5 percent of households interested in the environment and wildlife watched and/or subscribed to cable television and by 2005, 59 percent engaged in these activities. Th e peak was in 2001, when 67.3 percent of households reported watching/subscribing to cable television. Th e percent of households that were interested in the environment and wildlife and played video games grew at an average annual rate of 1.8 percent and the actual number of these households grew at the rate of 2.8 percent per year. In 1993, 14.2 percent of households interested in the environment and wildlife played video games and by 2005, 15.8 percent played them. Th e peak was in 2002, when 25.9 percent reported playing video games. Th e percent of households that were interested in the environment and wildlife and used an online Internet service grew at an average annual rate of 2.0 percent and the actual number of these households grew 1.8 percent per year. In 2002, 61.6 percent of households interested in the environment and wildlife used an online Internet Service and by 2008 this fi gure grew to 69 percent. Th e peak was in 2007, when 71.8 percent reported using an online Internet service. Finally, overall interest in video game playing was examined for all households between 1993 and 2005, not just those who expressed interest in the natural world. Th e participation rate for playing video games increased only slightly (an average of 0.9 percent per year) over this period and did not keep pace with the overall growth of households. Th e peak year for video game playing was 2002 (18.2 percent of households, a total of 19.5 million households). Video game playing has waned since then and stood at 10.9 percent of all households, or 17.6 million households, in 2005. In 1993, the percentage of households that played video games and were also interested in the environment and wildlife was 21.1 percent and by 2005 it was 21.2 percent, barely any change. Complete data were not available for online Internet subscriptions and television cable viewing for further analysis. Tables on trends in “cross-market” and “withinmarket” media use are available from the authors. Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 211
5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Participation rates for visitation to national parks between 2000 and 2008 have declined, but the decline during this period has not been dramatic. Th e numbers also suggest that some of the decline has been in the volume of visits per household and part of the decline may be refl ected in the fi ndings of Siikamäki (2009), who noted that active participants spent less time per visit while participation rates had not changed substantially. Decline in visitation has also not been evenly distributed across the demographic variables examined here. Notably, park visitation declined most dramatically among middle-aged adults (45 to 54 years old) and young adults (age 18 to 24). Th e growth that did occur was among people age 55 and over. Th e two occupational categories with the greatest declines in park visitation rates were professionals and clerical/sales/technical professions. Th e fastest-growing region of the country, the South, is also the region where park visitation rates declined the most. In fact, of all of the demographic variables, this group experienced the greatest decline. Surprisingly, while visits by those at the middle-income level of $50,000 to $59,999 declined the most among the income categories, households with incomes less than $50,000 actually had some of the highest increases in park visitation rates. Perhaps lower-income households are visiting the parks for the “good value” they provide for the expense of the trip. While there is some support for Pergams and Zaradic’s (2006) assertion that national park visitation is declining, some of the declines may also be attributed to the eff ects of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and the beginning of the downturn in the economy after Sept. 11, 2001. Among households that expressed an interest in the environment and wildlife, only vacation travel decreased between 1995 and 2005 and that overall decline was slight. All other activities, especially foreign travel and cruise ship travel, increased substantially among households that expressed an interest in wildlife and the environment. In addition, we found no evidence that those households interested in the environment and wildlife were also pulling away from outdoor recreation activities. In fact, participation rates for each of the fi ve outdoor activities examined here grew much faster than overall household growth rates. We conclude that the causes of declining national park visitation are more complicated than Pergams and Zaradic suggest and are not easily linked to outdoor recreation participation and use of electronic media and passive entertainment. More research is needed, and more direct linkage within measured households and among participants is necessary. 6.0 CITATIONS Balmford, A.; Beresford, J.; Green, J.; Naidoo, R.; Walpole, M.; Manica, A. 2009. A global perspective on trends in nature-based tourism. PLoS Biology. 7(6): e1000144. Cordell, H.K. 2004. Outdoor recreation for 21st century America. A report to the nation: Th e national survey on recreation and the environment. State College, PA: Venture. Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Green, G.T. 2008. Nature based outdoor recreation trends and wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness. 14(2): 7-13. Jacobs, M.H.; Manfredo, M.J. 2008. Decline in naturebased recreation is not evident. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 105(27): E 40. Mediamark. 2000-2008. Topline Research Reports (TRR) – Leisure and Travel. Subscription service, Boston University Library and the University of Massachusetts Interlibrary Loan Service. Pergams, O.R.W.; Zaradic, P.A. 2006. Is the love of nature in the US becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, Internet use and oil prices. Journal of Environmental Management. 80: 387-393. Siikamäki, J. 2009. Use of time for outdoor recreation in the United States, 1965-2007. RFF Discussion Paper No. 09-18. Available at http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1408690. Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 212
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 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: For this section of the trend analy
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?