Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGES IN RECREATION ACTIVITY MOTIVATION ACROSS PHYSICAL SETTINGS David A. Graefe State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry Dagraefe@syr.edu Rudy M. Schuster State University of New York at time of research Currently with the United States Geological Survey Gary T. Green University of Georgia H. Ken Cordell USDA Forest Service Abstract.—Outdoor recreation management frameworks suggest that a diverse set of recreation opportunities is necessary to meet the needs and desires of a diverse population of recreationists. Managers of recreation resources must understand recreational demand if they wish to provide high-quality recreation opportunities to their users. Th e purpose of this study was to examine possible relationships between recreational activity choice, setting choice, and motivations among adult U.S. citizens who participated in one of four activities: hiking, walking, sightseeing, and camping in developed campgrounds. Data used in this study came from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. Between-groups analysis of variance was used to test for diff erences in mean importance scores for 13 motivations across seven environmental settings. Signifi cant diff erences were found between motivation importance scores across the seven environmental settings for three of the four study activities. Results and implications are discussed. 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Understanding people’s motivations for participating in outdoor recreation activities has been a primary interest of many contemporary outdoor recreation researchers and managers. Manning (1999) explained that, historically, methods for measuring recreation use and demand often focused on descriptive variables, such as participation rates for specifi c activities within specifi c settings. In the late 1960s and 1970s, however, many recreation professionals became aware that while descriptive information on participation in outdoor recreation activities is useful, it has limited potential for truly understanding public demand for and quality of outdoor recreation opportunities because it ignores many aspects of the recreation experience. Driver and Toucher (1970) proposed a behavioral approach to recreation management, which has been widely adopted among recreation professionals and organizations. Th e behavioral approach to recreation management defi nes recreation as an experience that results from participation in recreational engagements. Participation in an activity is merely one of several aspects of the overall recreational experience. Th is approach is based on expectancy theory, which suggests that people pursue specifi c recreational activities within specifi c settings in order to realize some set of psychological outcomes/benefi ts (Manning 1999). As explained by Manning (1999), early researchers adopting the behavioral approach to recreation management aimed their examinations towards a better understanding of the reasons that people choose to participate in recreational engagements, the satisfactions that people receive from those engagements, and the long-term benefi ts that are realized by individual recreationists, groups, and society in general. Four levels or hierarchies of demand for outdoor recreation have been identifi ed (Driver and Brown 1978, Haas et al. 1980, Manning 1999). Th e fi rst level simply describes a demand for opportunities to participate in specifi c recreational activities, such as camping, hiking, or fi shing. Th e second level involves a demand for the settings in which outdoor recreational activities take place. Recreational settings are often discussed in terms of three dimensions: managerial, social, and environmental/ physical. Diff erent combinations of each of these three setting dimensions represent distinct recreational opportunities, each potentially providing recreationists with a diff erent type of recreational experience. Th is approach is an underlying theme of the widely adopted Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) concept, Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 257
which suggests that diff erent types of settings should be provided to meet the needs and preferences of a diverse population of recreationists and ensure the provision of high-quality public recreation opportunities (Driver and Brown 1978, Clark and Stankey 1979). Th e third level of demand for outdoor recreation involves understanding individuals’ motivations for participating in recreational activities within various settings. Much research has been conducted to identify people’s recreational motivations. In the 1970s, Driver and associates began compiling a list of several scale items that were meant to encompass the range of motivations that people have for recreation participation (Manning 1999). Th ese scales, also known as the Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scales consisted of 21 domains (e.g., achievement, autonomy, risk taking, learning, enjoying nature, creativity), with each domain consisting of additional subdomain scale items. Th e REP scales have been widely adopted for measuring motivations for outdoor recreation, and the motivations examined in this study were chosen based on previous REP research. Th e fourth and fi nal level of demand for outdoor recreation involves understanding the higher-order benefi ts that individuals and society derive from recreation participation. Th ese benefi ts could be personal, social, economic, or environmental in nature. Much research has attempted to understand the relationships among the four levels of demand described above, although further inquiry is needed (Manning 1999). Th e purpose of this study was to examine possible relationships among the fi rst three levels (recreational activity choice, setting choice, and motivations). Several researchers have examined the relationships among these levels of demand but most have operationalized the recreational setting based on ROS descriptors or other similar classifi cations (e.g., level of development, number of people/social atmosphere). Unlike previous research, this study attempted to examine diff erences in motivations across very broad and general categories of environmental settings (e.g., forest, grassland, coastal waters) without consideration of site-specifi c attributes regarding the social or managerial settings dimensions. Such an operationalization provided an opportunity to better understand the possible relationships among environmental setting, recreation activity choice, and motivations. 2.0 METHODS Data used in this study came from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). Th e NSRE is a nationwide, household, random-digit-dialed telephone survey of Americans 16 years of age and older. It gathers information about people’s recreational habits, recreational trends, and environmental attitudes and behaviors. Th e NSRE is co-sponsored by the U.S. Forest Service, the University of Georgia, and other agencies, and is part of a long-term series of surveys that have been periodically conducted since the creation of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission in the mid- 20th century. Data used in this study came from the most recent surveys, which took place in 2005 and 2008. Th ree NSRE variables were included in this study: primary outdoor recreation activity, recreational setting choice, and motivations for recreational engagements. Respondents received a list of more than 80 outdoor recreation activities and were asked to indicate which they had participated in within the past year. Respondents were then asked: Of all the outdoor recreation activities you participated in during the last 12 months, which do you consider to be your main activity? Respondents then received a list of seven broad setting categories and asked to indicate which of the settings they had visited for their main activity. Th e question read as follows: In which of the following settings did you mainly do this activity? 1) Coastal waters, including bays, beaches, or the ocean 2) Inland freshwater lakes, rivers, streams, or ponds 3) A forest 4) Open grasslands or meadows with few or no trees 5) An urban or suburban park 6) Desert Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 258
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 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: MANAGEMENT AND USE OF PARK, RECREAT
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?