Experiential Benefits, Place Meanings, and ... - Springer Link

2 downloads 0 Views 269KB Size Report
Jan 13, 2015 - aged national scenic trail, which transects a variety of conserved ..... mental and physical health/wellness dimension as more important than did ...
Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123 DOI 10.1007/s00267-015-0445-9

Experiential Benefits, Place Meanings, and Environmental Setting Preferences Between Proximate and Distant Visitors to a National Scenic Trail Namyun Kil • Stephen M. Holland Taylor V. Stein



Received: 19 July 2014 / Accepted: 2 January 2015 / Published online: 13 January 2015 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Effective management of conserved natural areas often requires a good understanding of recreation visitors who possess various values for those areas. This study examined differences in experiential benefits sought, place meanings, and environmental setting preferences between proximate and distant visitors to a publicly managed national scenic trail, which transects a variety of conserved public lands. Data were collected using on-site post-hike interviews with visitors at low, moderate, and high use trailheads. Proximate visitors sought mental and physical health more strongly than distant visitors, while distant visitors sought environmental exploration more strongly than proximate visitors. No significant difference in family bonding and achievement benefits existed between the two groups. Meanings related to place dependence, family identity, community identity, and place identity were more strongly ascribed by proximate visitors, and both groups rated ecological integrity meanings highly.

Distant visitors showed stronger tendencies toward preferring a lesser level of trail development, lower level of encounters with other groups, and higher level of natural landscapes, which indicated an inclination toward natural settings. These findings indicate a managerially relevant role of the degree of proximity to environmental resources on individuals’ recreation behaviors, meanings ascribed to the resources and setting conditions. Understanding differences and similarities between groups dichotomized by proximity to natural resources should advance more effective management of recreation and benefit opportunities for diverse visitor groups. Keywords Environmental setting preferences  Outcomes-focused management  Recreation benefits  Recreation experience preference  Place meanings

Introduction

N. Kil (&) School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 304 Hardin Hall, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. M. Holland Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management, University of Florida, P.O. Box 118209, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA e-mail: [email protected] T. V. Stein School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110410, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Hiking opportunities are available in many natural areas (Lynn and Brown 2003) and hiking is one of the most popular outdoor recreation activities that Americans engage in Outdoor Foundation (2011). Natural resource managers regularly seek to gain support from the public for conserved lands and to improve recreation service levels through identifying goals and objectives that facilitate creating and managing hiking opportunities. Managers are less able to adequately plan and manage for quality hiking opportunities without identifying what outcomes recreationists desire. Better understanding hikers’ desired outcomes would assist managers in providing opportunities that best provide for visitors’ valued experiential benefits (Anderson et al. 2000; Brown 2008; Driver 2008; Driver and Bruns 2008).

123

1110

Outcomes-focused management (OFM), formerly called benefits-based management (BBM), is an evolving outdoor recreation management concept that assists managers in explicitly targeting the outcomes or goals of recreation opportunities (i.e., personal, social, economic, and environmental). Identifying what is needed to provide the opportunities for people to attain their desired benefits from public recreation resources, as well as understanding people’s relationship to a particular area (i.e., place meanings), is needed to manage the public resources to optimize benefits to most citizens within an OFM regime (Anderson et al. 2000, 2008a; Driver 2008). Research based on the OFM concept has linked components of recreation and benefit opportunities, such as activities, environmental settings, experiential benefits, and other benefits (e.g., Pierskalla et al. 2004; Stein and Lee 1995). Recent OFM research has revealed that recreationists value different types of benefits and ascribe different preferences for management based on their psychological attachments to specific places (e.g., Kil et al. 2010), introducing the relevance of ‘‘place’’ into the OFM framework. Although the concept of ‘‘place’’ is not discussed much within OFM, the framework has incorporated ‘‘costs’’ and other outcomes (like solitude), which are considered positive outcomes, but are not necessarily beneficial (Driver 2008). To further advance its applicability to the planning and management of conserved natural areas, OFM requires a better understanding of how visitors with various demographic characteristics aspire the various benefits potentially available in natural areas (Anderson et al. 2000; Stein and Lee 1995). Although an abundance of research has examined visitor benefits associated with recreation experiences (Pierskalla et al. 2004; Stein and Lee 1995) and community benefits (Stein et al. 1999), the linkage between natural resources and people’s meanings to such areas needs to be expanded when the number of conserved natural resources is limited and the demand for the varied benefits of resource management and use is increasing due to expanding levels of urban development. Much urban and suburban development breaches natural areas, affecting access to the lesser developed natural resources (Davenport et al. 2010). Of the various demographic characteristics that could play an important role in determining visitors relationship to recreation resources is the distance visitors might live from those resources (Anderson et al. 2000, 2008b). In particular, proximity to natural areas has important effects on the meanings people ascribe to those areas. For example, past research has explored differences in benefits sought (Anderson et al. 2008b), place meanings among water-based recreationists (Budruk et al. 2011), and multiple place meanings among state park visitors (Davenport

123

Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123

et al. 2010). These studies found that proximate and distant visitors visit natural areas for particular reasons and value the resources differently. Yet, insufficient place-based research has been conducted across a range of recreation settings, including trail areas. The purpose of this study is to examine the differences in experiential benefits sought, place meanings, and environmental setting preferences between proximate and distant visitors to a national scenic trail. In addition to better integrating place meanings into an OFM framework, it will examine these concepts from the perspective of proximate and distant visitors in an attempt to corroborate differences and similarities between the two groups and to provide management implications. Proximity to environmental resources might influence reasons for visiting a natural site, meanings ascribed to such settings or environmental setting preferences. For example, as Ewert (1998) described using expectancy theory and normative standards, environmental resources might have a particular set of characteristics expected and valued by recreationists residing in proximal or distant locations, which also might be due to situational constraints such as trip distance/cost to access natural settings.

Background and Related Literature Outcomes-Focused Management The OFM approach, which was formerly known as BBM, was developed to improve planning for recreation and outcome opportunities. OFM requires outdoor recreation resource planners to actively consider the negative and positive impacts (i.e., outcomes) associated with the management and practice of recreation (Driver 2008). OFM acknowledges that costs (e.g., environmental impacts, higher gas prices, and crowds) are results of the creation and use of recreation opportunities. However, this study focuses on the positive outcomes of recreation (i.e., benefits) (Driver 2008). These beneficial outcomes can be shortterm (e.g., immediate stress relief) or long-term (e.g., enhanced work productivity). They can also extend to the non-visitors of recreation areas (e.g., gateway communities, residents) and even to non-human species (e.g., ecosystem protection and sustainability). Although OFM research is in its third decade, research continues to examine systems that connect users to managed recreation opportunities, due to the diversity of positive outcomes potentially related to the provision of such opportunities. The OFM model consists of three levels of demand for opportunities: activity opportunities provided by resource managers (Level 1); recreation opportunities (i.e., activities and settings provided for visitors to realize desired on-site experiences and benefits) (Level 2); and values that extend

Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123

beyond individual on-site experiences and benefits (Level 3) (Anderson et al. 2000; Driver 2008). OFM Level 2 is based on the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) planning framework which utilizes physical, social, and managerial settings to systematize the infrastructure characteristics associated with various onsite visitor experiences (Cole and Hall 2009; Driver 2008; Oishi 2013). OFM Level 3 complements Levels 1 and 2 to extend the planning and management of opportunities to on-site, immediate outcomes and on-site/off-site short-term outcomes, and even some longer term outcomes (Driver 2008). OFM establishes management objectives and actions that enable benefit opportunities through identifying setting attributes supporting specific recreation experiences and benefits (Anderson et al. 2000; Driver 2008), which are based on social psychological expectancy theories (e.g., Iso-Ahola 1980). For example, recreation benefits sought (e.g., nature exploration and learning) by particular recreation groups could be secured by providing increased access to natural settings with interpretive sign/ services in trail areas. OFM adapts recreation experience preference (REP) scales (Manfredo et al. 1996) to not only identify the personal motivations of visitors but also assess recreation participation outcomes. Experience preferences are both inducers and aftereffects of recreation engagement (Anderson and Fulton 2008). OFM makes it clear that not only on-site personal experiences and benefits (short-term) occur during recreational experiences but that additional positive outcomes (e.g., tangible and intangible meanings ascribed to a place) are also occurring (Anderson et al. 2000; Driver 2008). OFM benefits can be individual, social, economic, and environmental (Anderson et al. 2000; Driver 2008). For example, nature enjoyment/learning, skill enhancement, physical fitness, and socialization are some of the personal benefits measured by the REP scales. Social benefits are often aggregated individual benefits (e.g., increased bonding with family members and community identity or a sense of community pride). Economic benefits include economic growth and development. Finally, environmental benefits such as conservation/preservation of natural resources for recreational use and ecological sustainability of natural processes could, in turn, contribute to local community identity and economic opportunities (Anderson et al. 2000; Stein and Lee 1995). Place Meanings Place meanings include tangible and intangible values such as beauty or scenery, belonging, attachment, and spirituality (Cheng et al. 2003). A range of place meanings such as inherent/esthetic, instrumental/goal-directed, cultural/ symbolic, and individual/expressive meanings are included

1111

as forms of human–environment relationships in the context of environmental social psychology (Williams and Patterson 1996, 1999). A variety of place meaning values were used by Davenport et al. (2010) and Smith et al. (2011). They examined ecological integrity as inherent and esthetic meanings, while economic dependency and place dependence were categorized as instrumental and goaldirected meanings. They also measured family identity and community identity as types of cultural and symbolic meanings and place identity (i.e., individual identity) as forms of individual meanings. These place meaning concepts were postulated and empirically verified (e.g., Davenport and Anderson 2005; Davenport et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2011). Some aggregately refer to these concepts as ‘‘landscape meanings’’ (Williams and Patterson 1999) which can be utilized as additional beneficial outcomes in an OFM framework (Driver 2008). Inherent and esthetic meanings are related to innate feelings about tangible properties of environments. The ability of environmental features to facilitate the attainment of behavioral goals tends to be more or less objective and stable. Individuals are pre-disposed to have biological, cultural, or inherent preferences for certain types of natural landscapes as they have evolved from natural environments (Williams and Patterson 1999). Correspondingly, natural environments have restorative characteristics that provide psychological benefits such as restoration from mental stress, as indicated by various psycho-evolutionary theories (e.g., attention restoration theory) (Diamond 1992; Farnum et al. 2005). In addition, an ecological integrity dimension has been used to represent what individuals believe about the ecological functions of a place in producing healthy ecosystems (Smith et al. 2011). This dimension reflects appreciation of pristine and ecological aspects of place and some believe that undisturbed landscapes being protected from development are important because they provide environmental services (e.g., wildlife habitat, clean water, and air quality) (Davenport et al. 2010). Instrumental/goal-directed meanings represent functional and cultural relationships between environmental features and particular behavioral goals (Williams and Patterson 1999). These meanings segment into at least two dimensions: economic dependency and place dependence. The economic dependency component focuses on how natural resources sustain economic benefits in communities and offer financial support for workers and families. This dimension reflects beliefs about how resources contribute to economic revenues and serve as a source of income by recruiting tourism dollars to communities (Davenport et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2011). Place dependence refers to a relationship between individuals and places meeting their needs and goals (Shumaker and Taylor 1983). The

123

1112

perceived quality of places is partially based on their abilities to satisfy users’ activities or goals (Warzecha and Lime 2001). Sociocultural meanings are ‘‘socially constructed within cultural, historical, and geographical contexts, etc., for example, the same forest can symbolize ancestral ways of life, valued commodities, or essential livelihood to different groups of people’’ (Williams and Patterson 1999, p. 147). Sociocultural identity is grounded in a heritage based on long-term interactions between landscapes and social entities (e.g., family, groups). Family and community identities are based on specific interactions between resources and social groups and the social memories that ensue. The former is based on social memories formed by family time spent together in natural places. The latter represents the extent to which natural places embody the local character, culture, and identity that induce community pride (Davenport et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2011). Individual/expressive meanings are socially constructed and more deeply rooted in how individuals ascribe intangible meanings to environments. These individual meanings can be transformed from sociocultural meanings, often from long-term interactions with a place such as home, community or nature-based areas (Williams and Patterson 1999). As described by previous researchers (Davenport and Anderson 2005; Proshansky 1978; Stedman 2002; Williams and Patterson 1999), the place identity dimension encapsulates individuals’ symbolic meanings associated with a landscape based on ongoing relationships with environmental characteristics. Experiential Benefits Sought and Proximity Situational factors such as preferences, distance, and travel costs could cause visitors from varying distances to expect different settings and experiential benefits. Taking an expectancy theory approach that an object has a particular set of characteristics which are valued by individuals at varying locations from the object, Ewert (1998) postulated that a different set of benefit and environmental setting preferences would be formed based on residential proximity to recreation resources. For example, urban-distant wilderness users place a higher importance on benefits such as being close to nature/scenery/clean water and quietness/ solitude than do urban-proximate users (Ewert and Hood 1995). But no differences in other benefits such as escape from routine, being with friends and family, relaxation/ peace and wildlife viewing were found (Ewert 1998; Ewert and Hood 1995). In a study of visitors to recreation areas along Kaskaskia River, Illinois, Anderson et al. (2008b) reported that benefits such as, nature enjoyment, mental and physical health, solitude, and learning benefits, were more important to proximate visitors than distant ones, yet

123

Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123

still of some importance to both groups. Beyond these studies, not much recent empirical research exists, nor have proximity effects been explored for a variety of recreational settings. Place Meanings and Proximity Perceptions of place are created through access to physical settings and social interactions in those settings (Moore and Graefe 1994). Individuals living within or near recreation resources have more access to and more interaction with those resources than others living distant from public natural areas, which can increase recreational and economic dependency on, social group bonding around, and emotional feelings about those resources (Bonaiuto et al. 2002; Harnik 2000; Hanink and White 1999). Previous qualitative studies have uncovered meanings ascribed by local residents to their surrounding natural environments. For example, stakeholders living close to public natural areas (e.g., Apalachicola River region in northwestern Florida and Fort Myers Region in southwestern Florida) most identified themselves with physical/ natural landscapes, friendships/social network, and community culture-related aspects (Clark and Stein 2003). Similarly, residents in rural communities adjacent to a river in Washington state held a higher emotional attachment and were more economically dependent than residents in more distant communities. Specifically, intrinsic values (e.g., primitive experiences or solitude), pristine condition of the river basin, restricted management of recreational use, and a community’s economic stability with multiple use of resources were shared by the interviewed stakeholders (Brandenburg and Carroll 1995). Interviewed residents (e.g., ranchers, landowners, forest users, community leaders, conservationists) of the Rocky Mountain front range described specific aspects of the landscape: natural environment (e.g., esthetic value, beauty, connection to nature, solitude, and peace), livelihood (e.g., grazing), family legacy, and community history/the way of life that were relevant to them. Non-residents (conservationists, agency personnel) viewed the landscape more holistically (e.g., wildness, ecological distinctiveness, and wildlife habitat) (Yung et al. 2003). In addition to place dependence and identity dimensions, Davenport and Anderson (2005) reported that ecological integrity, economic dependency, and family/community identity emerged from interviews with community members near the Niobrara River in Nebraska. Rail–trail users were found to have a stronger level of attachment if they lived closer to the trail (Moore and Scott 2003). Kaltenborn and Williams (2002), in a study of local residents living close to Femundsmarka National Park in Norway and Norwegian tourists to the park, reported that

Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123

1113

local residents held stronger place attachment levels than tourists. Similarly, Bonaiuto et al. (2002) reported that local residents living inside two Italian National Park areas expressed higher levels of regional identity and place attachment than non-local residents living outside those areas. Moore and Graefe (1994) initially found increasing levels of place dependence and place identity among rail– trail users living closer to the trail. However, more recent studies suggest only partial support of that relationship. For example, Budruk et al. (2011) reported that around lakes along Kaskaskia River, Illinois, proximate and distant visitors expressed no significant difference in place dependence but proximate visitors reported a significantly higher level of place identity. Davenport et al. (2010) found that local visitors to Giant City State Park, Illinois had higher mean scores on community identity and emotional identity dimensions than non-local visitors. Tapsuwan et al. (2011) reported some place dependence and affective attachment items were dependent upon proximity to recreation places but place identity items did not differ by proximity levels.

and environmental setting preferences by residential proximity to recreation resources. Better understanding how these vary across different users will assist planners/ managers in meeting the needs of proximate as well as other visitors. Historically recreational resources managed by federal and to a lesser extent by state agencies have often ignored the local community needs in favor of the distant visitor. This study attempts to build on recent knowledge that Anderson et al. (2008b) suggest would assist recreation professionals in planning and programming for appropriate recreation and benefit opportunities to natural trail visitors. Conceptually, this study works to extend the comparative analyses of the constructs between proximate and distant visitors to national scenic recreation trails and explore what outcome opportunities should be targeted to optimize opportunities for proximate and distant user groups.

Preferred ROS Setting Characteristics and Proximity

This research examines visitors to the Florida National Scenic Trail (FNST), designated as one of eleven national scenic trails by the United States Congress (Florida Trail Association 2011). The FNST stretches about 1,000 miles across Florida, and begins at Big Cypress National Preserve in the south and ends at Gulf Islands National Seashore in the north. The FNST and associated loop and side trails on state parks and forests, wildlife and water management areas, county parks, and other public lands are maintained by volunteers coordinated by the non-profit Florida Trail Association in partnership with the USDA Forest Service, state, and local agencies (Florida Trail Association 2011; USDA Forest Service 2011). Non-profit agencies work with public and private land managers to acquire lands, protect/conserve them from development, and facilitate high-quality recreation opportunities (Florida Trail Association 2011). Opportunities such as hiking/walking, camping, scenery and wildlife viewing, natural and cultural heritage study, fishing, and hunting are available along the FNST. This trail is popular for recreational use by residents and tourists, fostering local economies, and community pride (Florida Trail Association 2011; USDA Forest Service 2011).

ROS-type settings are important inputs that can facilitate certain recreation activity and benefit opportunities (Pierskalla et al. 2004). Built upon expectancy theories from social psychology (Iso-Ahola 1980), the ROS framework was tested to verify relationships between activity, settings, and experiences. For example, environmental settings are linked to activity preferences (Virden and Knopf 1989), benefits sought (Stein and Lee 1995; Yuan and McEwen 1989), and place attachment (Kil et al. 2010). These studies provided fundamental information about the types of inputs needed for targeted recreation and benefit opportunities and could also provide a basis to further distinguish environmental settings by user types such as nearby and more remote visitors. Ewert and Hood (1995) reported that wilderness users living close to urban centers would expect and tolerate more frequent encounters with other users and larger groups than wilderness users living further from those sites. This is explained by normative theory predicting that a certain group holds evaluative social and ecological norms or expectations toward an object (e.g., wilderness or setting conditions) (Ewert 1998). Additional insight into different types of users’ normative standards for environmental settings could benefit planning for recreation and outcome opportunities to such visitor groups. In summary, previous literature mentioned above indicates an ongoing need to examine differences in major OFM constructs such as recreation benefits sought (experiential outcomes), place meanings (additional outcomes),

Methods Study Area

Instrument REP items were chosen from previous studies (e.g., Anderson et al. 2008b; Manfredo et al. 1996) to measure key aspects of leisure and recreation needs and benefits

123

1114

sought (e.g., enjoyment/pleasure, competence, and social interaction), which encompass overall psychological wellbeing (Iso-Ahola 1999). Items were used to represent four leisure and recreation benefit dimensions, achievement (challenge/competence benefit), mental and physical health/wellness (psychological and physiological health benefit), family bonding (social cohesiveness benefit), and environmental exploration or nature/learning exploration (environmental learning benefit). These dimensions were constructed as an immediate post hoc measure of on-site benefits recreationists desire and attain through their engagement in outdoor recreation activity, which are grounded in the OFM model (e.g., Anderson et al. 2000; Driver and Bruns 1999). At least two items for each dimension were measured on five-point Likert-type scales (1 = not at all important, 5 = most important). The five place meaning dimensions, ecological integrity, place dependence, family identity, community identity, and place identity, were selected from previous research (Anderson et al. 2008a; Davenport and Anderson 2005; Moore and Graefe 1994; Williams et al. 1992) to illuminate more overarching tangible and intangible aspects of meanings (e.g., inherent/esthetic, instrumental/goal-directed, sociocultural, and individual) (Williams and Patterson 1996, 1999). These meanings were measured as additional forms of beneficial onsite and off-site short-term outcomes in the OFM framework that encompass personal, social, environmental aspects of benefits, which originate from the on-site benefits measured using REP scales. Each dimension was measured by at least two items, which were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Environmental setting preference items were assessed utilizing three setting categories: (1) level of development, (2) level of (out-group) social interaction, and (3) degree of naturalness, which represents managerial, social, and physical ROS setting indicators, respectively (Stein and Lee 1995). These tangible aspects of setting preference gaged the penchant for trail settings recreationists expressed after their recreational engagement (as preferences for maintaining specific environmental settings). They were included to apply clear OFM objectives exemplifying beneficial outcome opportunities (e.g., experiential benefits, place meanings) to diverse user groups. Participants were asked their general preferences for settings, regardless of the type of trail they used. Each setting category was measured using four items, each item assessing a different gradual level or degree of the category (e.g., social setting—varying levels of encounters with other visitor groups ranging from very little contact to constant contact). Items were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Questions about socio-demographic and visit characteristics were also included in the questionnaire.

123

Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123

Data Collection and Sample Participants This research was undertaken using on-site exit interviews with FNST visitors from May, 2008 to April, 2010. Stratified random sampling was selected by sites and weekdays (2–3 days)/weekends (both Saturday/Sunday) to represent FNST visitors (Babbie 2004) and based on general use estimates from mechanical trail counters or researchers’ previous observations of use levels on trails where counters were not utilized. FNST was divided into northern, central, and southern Florida sections. In these strata, nine randomly chosen geographic locales (essentially multi-mile trail segments) were selected from which 21 randomly selected trail access points were utilized as interview points with various conditions (e.g., degree of naturalness, various recreation use levels, and varying trail surfaces) across federal, state, and local management levels. Some sampling sites in each section changed yearly and the 2-year data collection with limited financial and human resources as well as varying trail use levels allowed for a good sample of visitors. A total of 587 visitors were approached for interviews, 45 refused, and 51 surveys were incomplete, resulting in 491 complete surveys (84 % response rate). After discussions with the federal funding agency (i.e., National Forests in Florida) and national visitor use monitoring (NVUM) personnel in Washington, DC, a 50-mile distance was utilized to divide visitors into proximate and distant visitors. Those living within that radius were defined as ‘local’ population or county/community residents in previous studies conducted by the agency. We have also chosen to use that radius applied in past research (Nyaupane and Graefe 2008) generally conceptualized to be ‘within an hour’s drive’ utilized for ‘local’ and ‘nonlocal’ visitor/resident group stratification in place meaning research by Davenport et al. (2010) and other tourist studies. This classifying process revealed 16 missing or illegible zip codes in the completed surveys and resulted in a total of 475 respondents consisting of 325 proximate (68 %) and 150 distant (32 %) visitors. Data Analysis Chi square statistics were conducted on socio-demographic and visit characteristics. For scale-based constructs (i.e., recreation benefits sought, place meanings), confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were first run to validate the factor structure of the constructs, respectively. Measurement model fits were acceptable with the following indices and values, normed Chi square (v2/df B 5.0, Bollen 1989; Schumacker and Lomax 2004), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (B0.08, Hu and Bentler 1999), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) (\1.0, Kline 2005), comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index

Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123

(NFI), and non-normed fit index (NNFI) (C0.90, Bentler 1992; Hair et al. 2006; Hu and Bentler 1999). For acceptable convergent validity, average variance extracted (AVE) (C0.50; Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Hair et al. 2006), factor loadings (C0.50), and t values (C1.96) (Hair et al. 2006) for items within respective factors were examined. Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha (C0.70, Nunnally and Bernstein 1994) and construct reliability (CR) (C0.70, Nunnally and Bernstein 1994) coefficient values were also checked to determine an acceptable reliable factor structure. As mentioned earlier, environmental setting preferences items measured a different gradual level or degree of each setting category to represent the setting (e.g., social setting—measuring different levels of encounters with other visitor groups), which is not necessary for the CFA procedure. Finally, independent samples t tests were performed on the constructs’ factors (i.e., recreation benefits, place meanings) and items (i.e., environmental setting preferences) to determine if differences existed between proximate and distant user groups in those constructs. Chi square tests were implemented with socio-demographic and visit characteristic variables.

Results Demographic and Visit Characteristics No significant differences between proximate and distant respondents were found across all demographic characteristics except for age (Table 1). Proximate respondents tended to be older than the distant respondents (v2 = 10.49, P \ 0.01). About half (48 %) of the distant respondents were between 18 and 39 years old, while 45 % of proximate respondents were 40 and 59 years old. More than half of proximate (59 %) and distant (67 %) respondents were male. Similarly, half of proximate (53 %) and distant (50 %) respondents had some college or college graduate degree. Proximate (69 %) and distant (66 %) respondents had household income levels of $40,000 or more. Visit characteristic differences between proximate and distant visitors were significant. A majority of proximate visitors (82 %) were repeat users, while only one-third of distant visitors (37 %) were repeat users (v2 = 93.13, P \ 0.001). Among repeat visitors, two-thirds of those who were proximate (62 %) visited the trails seven times or more over the last 12 months, while a majority of distant visitors (73 %) had six or less visits to the trails over the last 12 months (v2 = 23.01, P \ 0.001). Proximate visitors spent significantly less time on trails during the hike they were interviewed on than distant visitors (v2 = 24.37, P \ 0.001). More than half of proximate visitors (54 %) spent one hour or less on trails for the interviewed visit,

1115

while over half of distant visitors (58 %) spent more than 1 h on trails. Similarly, proximate visitors hiked fewer miles than distant visitors (v2 = 21.43, P \ 0.001). A majority of proximate visitors (78 %) hiked five miles or less but almost two-thirds of distant visitors (62 %) hiked three miles or more for the interviewed trip. Proximate respondents visited the trails with smaller groups, in general, compared to distant respondents (v2 = 13.86, P \ 0.001). A majority of the proximate group visited with two people or less, while a majority of the remote group visited with three or more. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Recreation BenefitsSought Items Model fit indices from CFA results demonstrate that the measurement model fits the data well, meeting the acceptable criteria values mentioned earlier (v2/df = 3.72; RMSEA = 0.076; SRMR = 0.055; CFI = 0.929; NFI = 0.906; NNFI = 0.902) (Table 2), which also suggests that each item is uniquely related to the respective factor. Furthermore, the values for validity and reliability coefficients are shown to be acceptable. For example, all items within each of the four factors were found to significantly load on their respective factors, meeting the threshold value of C0.5. (e.g., ‘escape noise/crowds and ‘promote physical fitness’ items representing the mental and physical health/wellness factor). All t values also demonstrated significant item loadings on their respective dimensions (P \ 0.001). AVE values ranged from 0.46 (generating a little concern due to less than the threshold values of C0.5) to 0.71. Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.71 to 0.82 and CR ranged from 0.72 to 0.83 (e.g., mental and physical health/wellness factor with three items to family bonding factor with two items, respectively). Recreation Benefits Sought Independent t tests indicated significant differences and similarities in benefit dimensions between proximate and distant visitors (Table 3). Proximate visitors rated the mental and physical health/wellness dimension as more important than did distant visitors (t = 4.338, P \ 0.001). Alternatively, distant visitors scored higher on the importance of the environmental exploration dimension than did proximate visitors (t = -2.054, P \ 0.05). No significant differences between proximate and distant groups occurred across the family bonding dimension (t = 0.041, P [ 0.05) or the achievement dimension (t = -1.132, P [ 0.05). Furthermore, in terms of ranked dimension mean scores, both groups rated mental and physical health/wellness (M = 4.45, SD = 0.59 for proximate; M = 4.18, SD = 0.68 for distant) and environmental exploration (M = 4.21,

123

1116 Table 1 Differences in demographic and visit characteristics between proximate and distant visitors

Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123 Variablesa

Proximate visitors

Distant visitors

n

n

%

v2 value

%

Gender Male

193

59

101

67

Female

132

41

49

33

Total

325

100

150

100

18–39

100

32

71

48

40–59

138

45

54

36

2.75

Age

60 or more Total

72

23

24

16

310

100

149

100

58 173

18 53

25 75

17 50

10.49**

Education High school diploma/GED or less Some college—college graduate Some graduate—graduate degree or beyond Total

94

29

50

33

325

100

150

100

0.62

Household income $39,999 or below

89

31

48

34

$40,000–$69,999

78

27

43

30

$70,000 or more

119

42

51

36

Total

286

100

142

100

0.52

Type of user First-time user

59

18

94

63

Repeat user

266

82

56

37

Total

325

100

150

100

93.13***

Times visited over the last 12 monthsb 1–6 times

101

38

41

73

7–30 times

65

25

7

13

98 264

37 100

8 56

14 100

More than 30 times Total

23.01***

Time spent on trails for this trip One hour or less

173

54

62

42

A few hours

100

31

33

22

Half a day or more Total

49

15

52

36

322

100

147

100

24.37***

Miles hiked 2 miles or less

135

42

57

38

3–5 miles

116

36

30

20

6 miles or more a

Percentages are by columns

b

Analysis with only repeat visitors is reported here. Analysis including first-time visitors also produced the similar result (v2 = 71.553, P \ 0.001). ** P \ 0.01, *** P \ 0.001

Total

22

62

42

100

149

100

Group size Alone

125

39

33

22

2 people

135

42

72

48

3 people or more Total

63 323

19 100

44 149

30 100

SD = 0.63 for proximate; M = 4.34, SD = 0.62 for distant) as their most important benefit dimensions, followed by family bonding (M = 3.76, SD = 1.20 for proximate; M = 3.76, SD = 1.18 for distant).

123

73 324

21.43***

13.86**

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Place Meanings Items Using place meaning items, CFA results showed a good fitting measurement model which meets the stated

Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123 Table 2 Confirmatory factor analysis of recreation benefitssought items

1117

Variablesa

a

CR

AVE

Achievement

0.79

0.80

0.52

Fit statistics: v (48) = 174.45; v2/df = 3.72; RMSEA = 0.076; SRMR = 0.055; CFI = 0.929; NFI = 0.906; NNFI = 0.902 a

Item was measured on a fivepoint Likert-type scale where 1 = not at all important, 3 = neutral, and 5 = most important

t value

Challenge myself and achieve personal goals

0.80



Depend on my skills and abilities

0.83

16.80

Feel a sense of independence

0.64

13.45

Take risks

0.56

11.64

Reduce tensions and stress from everyday life

0.69



Escape noise/crowds

0.75

10.85

Promote physical fitness

0.58

9.86

Be with friends and family

0.94



Strengthen family kinship

0.73

7.94

Mental and physical health/wellness

2

k

0.71

Family bonding

0.82

Environmental exploration (nature learning/exploration)

0.71

0.72

0.83

0.72

0.46

0.71

0.46

Learn about the natural environment of the area

0.58



Explore the area and the natural environment Enjoy nature

0.77 0.67

10.73 10.22

Table 3 Differences in recreation benefits sought between proximate and distant visitors Variablesa

Proximate visitors (n = 325)

Distant visitors (n = 150)

M

M

SD

SD

t value -1.132

Achievement

3.55

0.89

3.65

0.90

Mental and physical health/wellness

4.45

0.59

4.18

0.68

Family bonding

3.76

1.20

3.76

1.18

0.041

Environmental exploration (nature learning/exploration)

4.21

0.63

4.34

0.62

-2.054*

4.338***

a Item was measured on a five-point Likert-type scale where 1 = not at all important, 3 = neutral, and 5 = most important. * P \ 0.05, *** P \ 0.001

threshold model-fitting values (v2/df = 3.84; RMSEA = 0.077; SRMR = 0.049; CFI = 0.945; NFI = 0.928; NNFI = 0.930) (Table 4). Furthermore, all items loading on their respective latent place meaning factors were over 0.50 with all t values significantly high on each dimension (P \ 0.001) and AVE values were also larger than 0.50. For example, all five items representing the ‘place identity’ dimension (e.g., ‘I identify strongly with this trail’ and ‘this trail means a lot to me’) were highly loaded on the assigned dimension. Finally, Cronbach’s alpha and construct reliability coefficients were over 0.70 on each place meaning dimension. These results effectively verify a valid and reliable place meaning construct.

(Table 5). Proximate visitors rated the place dependence (t = 5.014, P \ 0.001), family identity (t = 5.816, P \ 0.001), community identity (t = 7.516, P \ 0.001), and place identity (t = 4.899, P \ 0.001) dimensions significantly higher, than distant visitors. However, proximate visitors were not different from distant visitors on the ecological integrity dimension (t = -0.591, P [ 0.05). In addition, the ecological integrity (M = 4.27, SD = 0.67), community identity (M = 3.62, SD = 0.87) and place identity (M = 3.57, SD = 0.95) dimensions were the meanings with higher impact for proximate visitors, while ecological integrity (M = 4.31, SD = 0.71) and place identity (M = 3.11, SD = 0.94) dimensions held greater worth among distant visitors.

Place Meanings Significant differences between proximate and distant visitors were found for most place meaning dimensions: place dependence, family identity, community identity, and place identity, but not for the ecological integrity dimension

Environmental Setting Preferences Independent t tests revealed significant differences in setting preferences between proximate and distant visitors

123

1118

Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123

Table 4 Confirmatory factor analysis of place meanings items Variablesa

a

CR

AVE

Ecological integrity

0.78

0.80

0.57

t value

This trail is important in protecting the landscape from development

0.74



This trail is important in providing habitat for wildlife

0.86

14.41

0.66

13.01

No other trail can compare to this trail

0.73



I get more satisfaction out of visiting this trail than any other

0.78

16.24

What I do at this trail is more important to me than doing it in any other

0.84

17.41

I would not substitute any other trail for doing the types of things I do

0.83

17.24

0.89 0.80

16.47

0.84



0.67

10.31

I am very attached to this trail

0.83



This trail means a lot to me

0.84

23.18

I feel this trail is a part of me

0.83

22.62

This trail is very special to me

0.92

26.66

I identify strongly with this trail

0.91

26.28

This trail is important in protecting water quality Place dependence

0.87

Family identity

0.87

0.83

0.83

0.63

0.71

This trail is a special place for my family Many important family memories are tied to this trail Community identity

0.72

0.73

0.58

This trail contributes to the character of my community My community’s history is strongly tied to this trail Place identity

0.94

2

Fit statistics: v a

k

0.93

0.76

2

(94)

= 360.86; v /df = 3.84; RMSEA = 0.077; SRMR = 0.049; CFI = 0.945; NFI = 0.928; NNFI = 0.930

Item was measured on a five-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, and 5 = strongly agree

Table 5 Differences in place meanings between proximate and distant visitors Variablesa

Proximate visitors (n = 325)

Distant visitors (n = 150)

M

SD

M

SD

t value

Ecological integrity Place dependence

4.27 3.04

0.67 0.87

4.31 2.61

0.71 0.87

-0.591 5.014***

Family identity

3.08

1.08

2.46

1.08

5.816***

Community identity

3.62

0.87

2.87

1.06

7.516***

Place identity

3.57

0.95

3.11

0.94

4.899***

a

Item was measured on a five-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, and 5 = strongly agree

*** P \ 0.001

(Table 6). Relating to managerial settings, both groups preferred traveling on dirt or grass trails, but distant visitors rated this characteristic significantly more preferable than proximate visitors (t = -4.948, P \ 0.001). Proximate visitors more strongly preferred walking on trails that are paved (t = 4.883, P \ 0.001) and linear (t = 2.419, P \ 0.05) than distant visitors. For social settings, distant visitors more strongly preferred very little contact with other visitors outside their own group (\6 people) (t =

123

-3.131, P \ 0.01). They also reported less preference for constant contact with other hikers outside their own group (t = 3.867, P \ 0.001). For physical settings, distant visitors scored higher on the importance of traveling in areas untouched by people than did proximate visitors (t = -3.270, P \ 0.01). For physical settings, distant visitors scored higher on the importance of traveling in areas untouched by people than did proximate visitors (t = -3.270, P \ 0.01).

Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123

1119

Table 6 Differences in environmental setting preferences between proximate and distant visitors Variablesa

Proximate visitors (n = 325)

Distant visitors (n = 150)

M

M

SD

SD

t value

Managerial setting—development To travel on trails that are natural; dirt or grass

4.03

1.08

4.46

0.76

-4.948***

To travel on trails that are paved

3.02

1.39

2.37

1.21

4.883***

To travel on trails that are linear

3.03

1.09

2.77

1.18

2.419*

To travel on loop trails

3.71

0.99

3.64

1.07

0.743

Very little contact outside my own group (\6 people) Little contact outside my own group (7–15 people)

3.50 3.19

1.05 1.03

3.82 3.06

0.97 1.09

-3.131** 1.205

Moderate contact outside my own group (15–30 people)

2.68

1.08

2.44

1.13

2.202*

Constant contact with others outside my own group

2.28

1.13

1.86

1.02

3.867***

To travel in areas untouched by man

3.66

1.21

4.03

1.07

-3.270**

To travel in areas that have been modified but appear natural

3.67

1.02

3.43

1.06

2.285*

Social setting—social interaction

Physical setting—naturalness

a

To travel in areas that appear to be man-made and natural

3.25

1.09

2.79

1.13

4.235***

To travel in areas where roads and power lines dominate

1.80

1.06

1.64

0.98

1.546

Item was measured on a five-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, and 5 = strongly agree

* P \ 0.05, ** P \ 0.01, *** P \ 0.001

Additionally, both groups reported high mean scores for preference for walking on natural trails (M = 4.03, SD = 1.08 for proximate; M = 4.46, SD = 0.76 for distant) and moderate mean scores preferring few encounters with other groups (M = 3.50, SD = 1.05 for proximate; M = 3.82, SD = 0.97 for distant).

Discussion and Implications This study examined differences and similarities in demographic and visit characteristics, recreation benefits sought, place meanings, and environmental setting preferences between visitors living nearer and further from a national scenic trail. In general, both proximate and distant visitor groups had differences and similarities in such aspects. However, since this research revealed several clear distinctions between the two groups, the levels of reasons for visiting the environmental resources and the level of meanings ascribed to the resources are highlighted and can be better managed for within the OFM approach. Proximate visitors use the trail more often and while each visit might utilize less time spent on the trail than the time a distant visitor spends, over the course of some time period (e.g., 12 months), the total time spent on the trail by the proximate visitor might aggregate to be significantly more than the distant visitor. Both proximate and distant visitors reported high mean scores for mental and physical

health/wellness, nature learning/exploration, and in-group social bonding, which is in line with previous OFM-related research findings (e.g., Anderson et al. 2008b). Escaping stress and seeking personal/interpersonal interaction benefits tend to be sought by most visitors to nature-based recreation areas. As for the strength of benefits desired, proximate visitors sought mental and physical health/ wellness more strongly than distant visitors as is also reported by Anderson et al. (2008b). Nature learning/ exploration benefits were more important to distant visitors versus proximate visitors, which is contrary to at least one previous finding (Anderson et al. 2008b). Our findings indicate that visitors living closer to nature-based recreation areas tend to rate mental and physical health benefit opportunities (i.e., tensions/stress relief from everyday life, and physical fitness promotion) more strongly than distant visitors. This may be because the resources are more accessible to them as opportunities to escape their daily life stress events and implement their regular exercise routines (Anderson et al. 2008b), while more distant visitors likely have higher travel time/costs and other constraining factors that keep them from visiting more often (Ewert 1998; Scott and Mowen 2010), perhaps inducing them to stay longer, and escape to and learn more about less familiar natural environments. The concept of place meanings based on multiple dimensions such as ecological integrity, place dependence, family identity, community identity, and place identity was

123

1120

used here as in past studies (e.g., Davenport et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2011), which verified the multidimensional construct. Partial differences in the dimension-level meanings were found between proximate and distant visitors to state park settings by Davenport et al. (2010) and differences in the item/dimension-level attachments were also reported between the two groups to federal waterbased recreation areas by Budruk et al. (2011). Findings here revealed additional differences in the strength of proximate versus distant visitors’ place meanings. Levels of meanings related to place dependence, family identity, community identity, and place identity were consistently stronger for proximate visitors, compared to distant visitors. Similar to prior reports (e.g., Budruk et al. 2011; Davenport et al. 2010), our findings indicate proximate visitors held stronger place identity and community identity meanings than distant visitors. Contrary to a study showing stronger dependence ascribed by distant visitors (Davenport et al. 2010) and another showing a dependence level similarly shared by both groups (Budruk et al. 2011) based on studies on large, contiguous park lands; our results indicate that proximate visitors were more strongly dependent upon the more corridor-type recreation resource area studied here. Proximate visitors also indicated that friendships/social networks and community history were more strongly tied to natural resources as found by other researchers (e.g., Brandenburg and Carroll 1995; Clark and Stein 2003). Our findings support previous findings that as visitors living close to naturebased recreation areas have more frequent interaction with specific places, they find those places more suitable for their recreational pursuits, become more recreational resources-dependent, and ultimately identify themselves more strongly with those natural environments (typically public lands) (e.g., Bonaiuto et al. 2002; Clark and Stein 2003; Kaltenborn and Williams 2002; Kil et al. 2012; Moore and Graefe 1994; Moore and Scott 2003). Similarly, distant visitors who hiked more miles might have broader views of learning about the resources while proximate visitors who hiked less miles but more frequently have more intimate and detailed knowledge about particular places, which has been reported previously by place researchers (Farnum et al. 2005; Yung et al. 2003). Overall, our findings indicate that proximate visitors tend to bestow instrumental, cultural, and individual meanings (i.e., place dependence, family/community identities, and place identity) on natural areas and the environment more strongly than distant visitors, which verifies the distinctions of place meaning dimensions assigned by those with differing proximity echelons. As expected based on previous literature, findings showed no difference in the ecological integrity dimension between the two groups. This result supports a finding that

123

Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123

esthetic aspects of places are similarly ascribed or preferred by most people and appears to be fairly constant, regardless of place and time (Davenport et al. 2010; Williams and Patterson 1999). The natural characteristics of a place can facilitate psychologically positive benefits such as mental and physical health/wellness (i.e., stress relief and physical fitness) (Farnum et al. 2005; Williams and Patterson 1999). Likewise, the strong proclivity to achieve mental and physical health/wellness benefits as well as the desire to enjoy natural settings is clearly evident for both proximate and distant visitors in terms of the ranked mean scores of benefit dimensions examined in this study, which supports attention restoration theory (Farnum et al. 2005). Further study of the strength of place meaning dimensions and levels is called for in more culturally oriented recreation or community areas. In addition, results show that significantly stronger levels of meanings existed, particularly related to place dependence, place identity, and family identity for proximate visitors, with the primary benefits of escaping daily stress and obtaining physical exercise while experiencing a setting that had family and/or community history thereby facilitating higher levels of attachment. This pattern was also observed by Kil et al. (2012), which reported significant influences of such benefit attainments on attachment to environmental settings and future behavioral intentions toward the place. Similarly, such meanings more fervently assigned by proximate visitors are likely formed through fulfillment of social cohesion with family members as well as experiences in natural environments (Kyle and Chick 2007; Stedman 2003). However, future research could further examine the degree to which recreational benefits are sought and attained by different user groups varying by proximity to the recreational setting in order to better understand the strength of meanings of the differing stratums. Finally, this study found that fewer encounters with other visitors and hiking on natural trails/in ecologically intact areas are preferred more strongly by distant visitors. As similarly found by Ewert and Hood (1995), distant visitors are less likely to be tolerant of encounters with outgroups than proximate visitors. A probable reason for this evaluative result might be that distant visitors sought environmental resource explorations more strongly than proximate visitors and reported a relatively high mean score for social cohesion with their own group, not expecting to see higher numbers of other visitor groups in a natural hiking environment. On the other hand, proximate visitors might see other hiking groups as more acceptable because they have more connection with and more dependency on local resources for recreational pursuits (e.g., mental and physical health), which might increase their satisfaction and acceptance levels. Also, proximate visitors might see other hiking groups as more acceptable

Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123

because proximate visitors also score higher on social affiliation benefits. These findings indicate a different normative standard for acceptable action held by the two groups and suggest that primitive settings, as opposed to more developed locales, tend to be preferred by distant visitors more strongly than proximate visitors, which would affect high-quality recreation experiences as found by previous research (e.g., Cole and Hall 2009). Implications for Management and Future Research Proximate and distant visitors generally expressed different experiential benefits sought, place meanings, and environmental setting preferences for the FNST. Specifically, this study shows that proximate visitors seek a high level of escape and health-related benefits, while distant visitors prioritize a more natural experience and value the areas’ ecological characteristics. Recreation professionals can better understand the differences in benefits sought, place meanings, and setting preferences between various groups by interjecting such findings into an OFM framework. Such a perspective could merge the relationships between activity, settings, and experiences/attachment with the ROS concept to formulate customized approaches to providing recreation and outcome opportunities. Such an approach is more meaningful than simply using a single criteria of how far visitors drove to their recreational site. This multidimensional perspective that directly links visitor motivations and values to setting and activity opportunities can be integrated into the planning for benefit opportunities for natural settings with varying locations vis-a-vis their service area. For example, the different preferences proximate and distant visitors had related to a trail experience can be used to formulate how trail assets should be targeted to different populations. Specifically, more distant visitors expressed a greater preference for pristine, semi-wilderness settings (locales with higher ecological integrity levels), with fewer encounters with other users. Distant visitors also indicated that environmental exploration was a more important recreational benefit; therefore, the presence of wildlife, birds, wetlands, and less common vegetation and flowers could be more appealing to that sector. Thus, it could be a useful strategy for state and regional welcome center personnel and travel/outdoor writers in cities that are more than an hour drive away to publicize and promote these natural and wild assets. Regardless of potential visitor origin, a map showing trail segments and the kinds of experience opportunities each segment provides or is being managed to provide, could be presented to all visitors and they would be able to choose the segment(s) s/he prefers to hike based on the experiences s/he desires. Since proximate visitors have less time and distance barriers to visiting, future OFM management efforts could

1121

emphasize the natural area’s accessible peaceful and pastoral attributes by managing for ROS settings that offer seasonal variation and scenery for those who wish to exercise and keep fit, which could expedite attracting additional proximate visitors. In view of the fact that group bonding is important for both proximate and distant visitors, planners need to consider providing occasional trail facilities such as picnic tables, and perhaps benches arranged near each other, to facilitate group interactions and then, communicating the existence of such structures in nearby neighborhoods, cities, and trail head pavilions. For this study, the degree of experiential benefits sought was assessed through exit interviews with visitors to the FNST. Benefits sought might differ if such items were measured before they visited and (or) engaged in on-site recreation activities. The variety of benefit attainments could be examined across varying user groups (e.g., equestrian, off-road bicyclists) in future studies. In this study, the place meaning concept was applied to visitors (primarily hikers/walkers) to nature-based recreation trails. The construct could be further examined in other kinds of natural areas. Identifying differences in place meanings could be extended to more culture-oriented/economydependent recreation and tourism areas (e.g., African American or battlefield historic sites, scenic natural resource based cities that provide services for outdoor centric visitors (e.g., Sedona, AZ, Townsend, TN, Lake Placid, NY) or between residents within and around recreation resource areas or community-based conservation and protected areas. Other meaning dimensions related to economic dependency and self-expression (e.g., Smith et al. 2011, 2012) could be measured in those contexts.

Conclusion In conclusion, proximity to natural resources play an influential role in identifying differences in FNST visitors’ socio-demographic and travel characteristics, recreation benefits sought, place meanings, and setting preferences. Specifically, this study shows the distance a visitor lives from a destination trail can be associated with a variety of visit characteristics, recreational preferences, and place meanings. Managers could likely increase the beneficial outcomes by visitors from different areas by providing different information and setting facilities for different user segments to obtain preferred levels of recreation benefits and place meanings. Information on the health benefits of stress relief and exercise (calories burned by walking a certain segment of trail) and a parcourse fitness type trail will more likely appeal to proximate visitors/locals, while scenic observation overlooks and platforms and interpretive signage or cell phone interpretive technology pointing

123

1122

out distinctive or scenic natural features and wildlife on natural trail surfaces will be attractive to those who visit from further away. This study contributes to outdoor recreation and tourism management plans by illustrating how different user groups’ values and preferences varied based on proximity to natural resource recreational areas. Ongoing research is needed to examine the implications of distance traveled to various natural sites to make more informed decisions on planning for and providing effectual outdoor recreation and experiential outcome opportunities for proximate versus distant visitors. Acknowledgments This research was funded by the US Forest Service, National Forests in Florida (03-CS-11080500-003). The authors thank research assistants for their assistance in data collection.

References Anderson DH, Fulton DC (2008) Experience preferences as mediators of the wildlife related recreation participation: place attachment relationship. Hum Dimens Wildl 13:73–88 Anderson DH, Nickerson RG, Stein TV, Lee ME (2000) Planning to provide community and visitor benefits. In: Gartner WC, Lime DW (eds) Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure, and tourism. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 197–211 Anderson DH, Davenport MA, Leahy JE, Stein TV (2008a) OFM and local community benefits. In: Driver BL (ed) Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of recreation. Venture Publishing, State College, pp 312–334 Anderson DH, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Schneider IE, Leahy JE (2008b) Proximate and distant visitors: differences in importance ratings of beneficial experiences. J Park Recreat Adm 26(4):47–65 Babbie E (2004) The practice of social research, 10th edn. Wadsworth, Belmont Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 16:74–94 Bentler PM (1992) On the fit of models to covariance and methodology to the bulletin. Psychol Bull 112:400–404 Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New York Bonaiuto M, Carrus G, Martorella H, Bonnes M (2002) Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in land use changes: the case of natural protected areas. J Econ Psychol 23:631–653 Brandenburg AM, Carroll MS (1995) Your place or mine? The effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Soc Nat Resour 8:381–398 Brown PJ (2008) An evolving OFM and the future. In: Driver BL (ed) Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of recreation. Venture Publishing, State College, pp 397–400 Budruk M, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Schneider IE, Anderson DH (2011) Differentiating place attachment dimensions among proximate and distant visitors to two water-based recreation areas. Soc Nat Resour 24:917–932 Cheng AS, Kruger LE, Daniels SE (2003) ‘‘Place’’ as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: propositions for a social science research agenda. Soc Nat Resour 16:87–104 Clark JK, Stein TV (2003) Incorporating the natural landscape within an assessment of community attachment. For Sci 49:867–876 Cole DN, Hall TE (2009) Perceived effects of setting attributes on visitor experiences in wilderness: variation with situational context and visitor characteristics. Environ Manag 44:24–36

123

Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123 Davenport MA, Anderson DH (2005) Getting from sense of place to place-based management: an interpretive investigation of place meanings and perception of landscape change. Soc Nat Resour 18:625–641 Davenport MA, Baker ML, Leahy JE, Anderson DH (2010) Exploring multiple place meanings at an Illinois State Park. J Park Recreat Adm 28(1):52–69 Diamond J (1992) The third chimpanzee: the evolution and future of the human animal. Harper Collins, New York Driver BL (2008) What is outcomes-focused management? In: Driver B (ed) Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of recreation. Venture Publishing, State College, pp 19–37 Driver BL, Bruns DH (1999) Concepts and uses of the benefits approach to leisure. In: Jackson EL, Burton TL (eds) Leisure studies: prospect for the twenty-first century. Venture Publishing, State College, pp 349–369 Driver BL, Bruns D (2008) Implementing OFM on public naturebased recreation and related amenity resources. In: Driver BL (ed) Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of recreation. Venture Publishing, State College, pp 39–73 Ewert AW (1998) A comparison of urban-proximate and urbandistant wilderness users on selected variables. Environ Manag 22:927–935 Ewert AW, Hood D (1995) Urban-proximate and urban-distant wilderness: an exploratory comparison between two ‘‘types’’ of wilderness. J Park Recreat Adm 13(2):73–85 Farnum J, Hall T, Kruger L (2005) Sense of place in natural resource recreation and tourism: an evaluation and assessment of research findings. USDA Forest Service. PNW-GTR-660. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland Florida Trail Association (2011) Hike Florida on Florida’s own national scenic trail. www.floridatrail.org. Accessed 10 Jan 2011 Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2006) Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River Hanink DM, White K (1999) Distance effects in the demand for wildland recreational services: the case of national parks in the United States. Environ Plan 31:477–492 Harnik P (2000) Inside city parks. Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55 Iso-Ahola SE (1980) The social psychology of leisure and recreation. W. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque Iso-Ahola SE (1999) Motivational foundations of leisure. In: Jackson EL, Burton TL (eds) Leisure studies: prospect for the twenty-first century. Venture Publishing, State College, pp 35–51 Kaltenborn BP, Williams DR (2002) The meaning of place: attachments to Femundsmarka National Park, Norway, among tourists and locals. Nor J Geogr 56:189–198 Kil N, Holland SM, Stein TV (2010) Improving the management of natural resource recreation areas through understanding place attached visitor segments. J Park Recreat Adm 28(3):16–41 Kil N, Holland SM, Stein TV, Ko YJ (2012) Place attachment as a mediator of the relationship between nature-based recreation benefits and future visit intentions. J Sustain Tour 20:603–626 Kline RB (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 2nd edn. Guildford Press, New York Kyle G, Chick G (2007) The social construction of sense of place. Leis Sci 29:209–225 Lynn NA, Brown RD (2003) Effects of recreational use impacts on hiking experiences in natural areas. Landsc Urban Plan 64:77–87 Manfredo MJ, Driver BL, Tarrant MA (1996) Measuring leisure motivation: a meta-analysis of the recreation experience preference scales. J Leis Res 28:188–213

Environmental Management (2015) 55:1109–1123 Moore RL, Graefe A (1994) Attachments to recreation settings: the case of rail-trail users. Leis Sci 16:17–31 Moore RL, Scott D (2003) Place attachment and context: comparing a park and a trail within. For Sci 49:877–884 Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York Nyaupane GP, Graefe AR (2008) Travel distance: a tool for naturebased tourism market segmentation. J Travel Tour Mark 25(3–4):355–366 Oishi Y (2013) Toward the improvement of trail classification in national parks using the recreation opportunity spectrum approach. Environ Manag 51:1126–1136 Outdoor Foundation (2011) Outdoor recreation participation report 2011. www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/ResearchParticipation2011. pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2012 Pierskalla CD, Lee ME, Stein TV, Anderson DH, Nickerson RG (2004) Understanding relationships among recreation opportunities: a meta-analysis of nine studies. Leis Sci 26:163–180 Proshansky HM (1978) The city and self-identity. Environ Behav 10:147–169 Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2004) A beginner’ guide to structural equation modelling, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah Scott D, Mowen AJ (2010) Alleviating park visitation constraints through agency facilitation strategies. J Leis Res 42:535–550 Shumaker SA, Taylor RB (1983) Toward a clarification of peopleplace relationships: a model of attachment to place. In: Feimer NR, Geller ES (eds) Environmental psychology: directions and perspectives. Praeger, New York, pp 219–251 Smith JW, Davenport MA, Anderson DH, Leahy JE (2011) Place meanings and desired management outcomes. Landsc Urban Plan 101:359–370 Smith JW, Siderelis C, Moore RL, Anderson DH (2012) The effects of place meanings and social capital on desired forest management outcomes: a stated preference experiment. Landsc Urban Plan 106:207–218 Stedman RC (2002) Toward a social psychology of place: predicting behavior from place based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environ Behav 34:561–581

1123 Stedman RC (2003) Is it really just a social construction?: the contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Soc Nat Resour 16:671–685 Stein TV, Lee ME (1995) Managing recreation resources for positive outcomes: an application of benefits-based management. J Park Recreat Adm 13(3):52–70 Stein TV, Anderson DH, Thompson D (1999) Identifying and managing for community benefits in Minnesota State Parks. J Park Recreat Adm 17(4):1–19 Tapsuwan S, Leviston Z, Tucker D (2011) Community values and attitudes towards land use in the Gnangara Groundwater System: a sense of place study in Perth, Western Australia. Landsc Urban Plan 100:24–34 USDA Forest Service (2011) The Florida Trail. www.fs.fed.us/r8/ florida/fnst. Accessed 10 Jan 2011 Virden RJ, Knopf RC (1989) Activities, experiences, and environmental settings: a case study of recreation opportunity spectrum relationships. Leis Sci 11:159–176 Warzecha C, Lime D (2001) Place attachment in Canyonlands National Park: visitors’ assessments of setting attributes on the Colorado and Green Rivers. J Park Recreat Adm 19(1):59–78 Williams DR, Patterson ME (1996) Environmental meaning and ecosystem management: perspectives from environmental psychology and human geography. Soc Nat Resour 9:507–521 Williams DR, Patterson ME (1999) Environmental psychology: mapping landscape meanings for ecosystem management. In: Cordell HK, Bergstron JC (eds) Integrating social sciences with ecosystem management: human dimensions in assessment, policy, and management. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, pp 141–160 Williams DR, Patterson ME, Roggenbuck JW, Watson AE (1992) Beyond the commodity metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leis Sci 14:29–46 Yuan MS, McEwen D (1989) Test for campers’ experience preference differences among three ROS setting classes. Leis Sci 11:177–185 Yung L, Freimund WA, Belsky JM (2003) The politics of place: understanding meaning, common ground, and political difference on the Rocky Mountain Front. For Sci 49:855–866

123