Managing visitors' perceptions: find out why park managers need to understand how a visitor perceives recreation resource impacts

Parks & Recreation, May, 2004 by Catherine E. Dorwart, Yu-Fai Leung, Roger Moore

Park and natural resource managers are often charged with a dual mission. Their first obligation is protecting natural resources for future generations. Their second responsibility is providing appropriate public enjoyment of these resources. As Manning (1999) emphasizes, managers are often focused on reducing impacts on the resource while at the same time, providing high-quality outdoor recreation opportunities for visitors to enjoy. Yet, this paradoxical mission has the potential for conflict, as managers struggle to evaluate and define standards of quality that both safeguard the natural resources and provide a positive visitor experience.

Consequently, objective information on what factors influence visitors' experiences such as visitor attitudes, preferences and perceptions is an important prerequisite to informed management and provision of quality recreation opportunities (Manning, 1999). Researchers (Alessa et al., 2003; Farrell et al., 2001; Floyd et al., 1997; Hillery et al., 2001; Noe et al., 1997; Priskin, 2003; White et al., 2001) have found that one factor affecting visitors' experiences is their perception of environmental impacts. What visitors notice during their visits to parks, tourist destinations, or wilderness areas affect their overall experience. Therefore, information on visitor perceptions may play an important role in selecting resource and social impact indicators, and establishing standards of quality for those indicators (Newsome et al., 2002). Information on visitor perceptions may also be valuable when setting maintenance and management priorities for allocating scarce hinds and resources.

What is Visitor Perception?

Perception is "the reception and processing of information from the environment" (Proshansky et al., 1976: 148). Further, Michaels (2000) states that perception implies awareness but not necessarily conscious awareness. Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) explain that, without realizing it, people interpret the environment that they are in, in terms of their needs, and prefer settings in which they can function more effectively. In addition, people form perceptual categories that identify characteristics which are most important to them in their recreation experience. For example, researchers have found that these categories provide insight into patterns that are liked or disliked (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Perceptions, in turn, lead to preference judgments. Therefore what a person prefers in their outdoor recreation experience, the environment that they choose to be in, and the impacts that they notice within this experience, are all based on visitor perception.

Environmental Impacts of Visitor Perceptions

Along with research on outdoor recreation activity patterns and satisfaction with outdoor recreation experiences, early studies focused on the attitudes, preferences and perceptions of visitors. This was due to a "recognition of recreation as social behavior, [which] led naturally to the notion that information on visitor attitudes and preferences for facilities and services would be desirable in guiding recreation management" (Manning, 1999).

Lucas (1979) concluded that early research regarding visitors' perceptions of recreation impacts on the environment tended to be limited. Also, despite the importance of a relationship between environmental impacts and visitor perception, research rarely linked the two, making it hard to assess the extent of environmental impact that visitors are or are not aware (Hillery et al., 2001).

Though there is a small but growing body of research on visitors' perceptions of environmental impacts, researchers are still struggling two decades later with a lack of strong research on this subject (Alessa et al., 2003; Farrell et al., 2001; Floyd et al., 1997; Hillery et al., 2001; Noe et al., 1997; Priskin, 2003; White et al., 2001). In fact, a review of current research demonstrates that studies still revolve primarily around visitors' perceptions of campsite, wilderness area, and trail impacts, and have just recently broadened to include studies on tourists' perceptions of recreational impacts on the environment.

Recreational Resources

In a study on visitors' perceptions of resource impacts at three national parks, Noe et al. (1997) found that park user perceptions and tolerance for impacts varied widely. They also noted that visitors demonstrated different degrees of acceptability based on changing situations. "Location and situational conditions defining the impact made a difference on respondent acceptability of an impact" (Noe et al., 1997).

For example, finding litter near a public restroom was more acceptable then finding it near a natural stream. In addition, similar to more recent studies, litter was perceived as one of the most undesirable impacts at a natural resource area.

Another study focusing on wilderness impacts in Mr. Jefferson Wilderness, Ore. compared wilderness campers' perceptions of vegetation and soil impacts at campsites that had standards set by managers and researchers. Findings suggested that visitors perceive major impacts such as a reduction in vegetation cover, compacted soils and chopped or fallen trees. Yet, visitors' evaluations of conditions showed no relationship to measurements. Though the sites included in this study were significantly impacted by human use, respondents indicated that the functionality of the campsite and whether damage was intentional (i.e., littering and intentional tree damage), were more important to them than the acceptable conditions managers set for that area.