United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Southeastern Forest 

Experiment Station 

General Technical 

Report SE-89 

ern Recre 

Research Con 

Volume 13 
These proceedings have been prepared using copy supplied by 

the authors. Authors are responsible for the content and accuracy 

of their papers. 

December 1 994 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station 

P.O. Box 2680 

Asheville, North Carolina 28802 
Randy Botkin 

Western Illinois University 

Southeastern Recreation 

Research Conference 

February 14-16, 1991 

Asheville, North Carolina 

Editor 

Tommy Swearingen 

University of South Alabama 

University 

- 

of South Alabama 

Department of Health, Physical Education 

and Leisure Services 

Mobile, Alabama 36688 

December 31994 

: sJaMayAar 1dp~snww 

sa qluas .rlatp loj ~olaq palsg spnpIAfpq ayr azp4fo3az 01 ayn plnolln ah X~~LJ .a3uarajuo~) ~~TJS 

pnum yluaazrlyl s~yl ~oj zroddns JIayr ~oj t?mqt!w WnoS jo rll~s~anpn ayt put? 'sJamld uogaa.13aa xloopinO 

a1.e)~ 30 pun03 lseayrnos ayr 'uog~lqs iuauruadxg isarod uralseaqno~ apuas isaxod ~asfi aqi "(c)w[~~s) 

a~guadoo3 juaurai3p:myy a3~nosam3~~asaa wyy~epdd~ waytnog ayr qcmyi 01 aTl plnoM ah 

'UO~E~TJ~~ qayl ~oj papuawwor, aq 01 an 

sloylnt! ayl p 1ualuo.s dlmloy3s angmlsqns yry~ s8qpaa~ard t! pa~npo~d my ssa~old sq 'uoF1~3rlqnd 01 ~oud 

uaQuaar rl~@gmlsqns ;uaM sradt?d awos inq '~@ls~no pal~ara~ st!^ ~aded ON 's8ufpaznold asay3 uy uofsn13ur 

pug 103 SuoTsraax qayl 8un~r?w uf may) pp 01 sloyrnt! aq 01 luas axah snLaaynaJ pu~q aq 30 safdo(~) .szoytnr! 

ayl 01 papaha 1ou sa~ hyluapy asoqllh. xrannaynar ow )seal it? Lq mua~ajuo3-)sod pa~arna1-laad uayr put? m8o~d 

ayr q uoysnpy $03 pauaa13s X~@gp? araM s~adt!d palnqyuo3 ayt jo *aa!nar ~aad snoro8u E 01 l~arqns 

aq pjnoM pm s8upaa301d 2q1 q UOIS~IDI~ 103 alqy4fga aq pfnontl suop~luasad I@ l~tg papf3ap aanpwos 8-23)s 

)rltZ:aS au -anoqt? pauoguaw uo~ssas sladt!d palnquiuo3 ayl woy s~adt!d syluo:, s8ur~1aaord sfrl~, 

*m~o~d a~ua~a~uo3 aug E 8ufzv3~o 103 

aa~rruwo3 8upaa)s arylua aq1 put! sxo~~u~p~oo:, uorssas lp pq oi aqrI pjno~ ah -1uaupvawa JQJ alq~suodsa~ 

S"M ~[@~ue)rl uonys pue 'doqsy;ro~ luapn)s-&ln3~$ e pazq%lo aupaa q8n~ pm y3nqua38o)rl aof 'surr?gfi& 

+uoIssas ralsod luwn~uo;7 ep %gas anals pa! q3aapub. Aqt?~ Aq pq3 uolssas szad~d palnqpiuos 

a 'sluol3 P~MOH pue nauzo3 spq-j dq pa.rpy3 uoFssas s~aqads palyAtq ut? %doys~o~ alaMsuana JO 

skp ow ayr U' papn~:,u~ -uopelS sawpadxa isa~od walst;?ayrnog ayl 30 suowural;l) ~a8oa 'qsg8ug uoa '1lap.103 

uax Ilq paluasa~d pue ~@puea uonys .sm put? ppuoa3~[ t!mqng 'spy rlq pqy3 doysq;ro~ s3!wouo3a a3mosa.1 

@nqm a ylpi wBaq aaara~uo~ au .samosa)rl pmqq pm wspno~, SM a3uarajuo3 ayr jo away, ayA 

.luawa8emw yDnasaJ uogeaz3ar ty spuaa put! suog3a.q Mau ssn3sya -6 

.j=aylnoS ayt u~ sanbq~ai luawa8~mw .~o/purs y3~asa.1 uo~~ea;i3ar 

zooplno lnoqt? quapnls pw srafil~mw 'slay;7nasa~ 8uom uopgwopr a"aq3xa 01 wtuoj t! aprnord 

Table of Contents 

ContTibuted Papers: 

Remation and Tourism Modtoring Systems: Conceptual and 

Methodological Issues by D~niel J. Stynes ........................... 1 

Economic Impacts of Recreation and Tourism: Segmentation 

as a Means of Reducing Variance in Visitor Spending 

Profiles at Corps of Engineers Lakes by Ju-Hee Lee 

and Dennis B. Propst ......................................... 1 I 

Predicting Zoo Visitor Satisfaction by Linda L. Caldwell, 

Kathleen L. Andereck, and Keith Debbage ......................... .22 

The National Coastal Recreation Inventory Project (NCRIP): A 

Topology and Distribution of Commercial Outdoor Remation 

Opportunity in the Southeastern States by Tom Burkiewicz .............. .30 

Directions in Modeling of Recreation and Tourism 

Behavior by Daniel J. Stynes ................................... .40 

Rails-Trails in South Carolina: Inventory and Prospect 

by Robert L Janiskee and James F. Schrnid, Jr. ....................... 48 

Monitoring and Evaluation of an Off-Road Vehicle Riding 

Area in Kentucky by Kenneth Chilman, James Vogel, 

andJervConley ............................................ 55 

Marketing Outdoor Recreation and Tourism in Georgia: 

The Development of a Statewide Directory by J. Mark Morgan ............ 64 

Marketing Tourism to the North Carolina Legislature 

by Nancy G. McGehee and Larry D, Gustke ........................ .67 

Considerations in Using Qualitative Approaches in Studying 

Leisure, Recreation, Tourism, and Natural Resowas 

by Karla A. Henderson ....................................... .78 

Recreation and Tourism 

Monitoring Systems: Conceptual and 

Me thodological Issues 

P 

Abstrst, anera1 guidelims for developnt of ~cmtion and 

tourism mo~torring systems are advanced. Monitohg pgtams 

should begin with clear puv8ee arrd intcna users. Purposes 

prc3vir& guidmce for wscfection 4 masurentent of syskm 

chwtla=leristics to be monitored arad cri&da for evaluating a given 

moniPioring progrant. Extensive msea~rch and analysis arc required 

to sumo& tnonitoring systems, particularly during the &sign 

stage- Monitoring programs should include systems for 

unicating with the inkrmled clients and should tre evatualed 

upon the benefits to these clients. Pmprovved recrea~on and 

tourism monitoning requires clearer purpows, a better balance 

between data gathering ad data analysis, and much greater up 

front -Invwtments in problem conceptualization and research. 

Over the past decade, many states have ~tiated 

statewide travel mo~toring pmgrms (e.g. Spom 

and Holecek 1990). We also see increased 

monitohg of rema~on use and enviromental and 

socid concfidons witlhin p (ahan and others 

le sometimes drawing loosely frm 

systems theory, control theory, measmment Iheory, 

cykmetics, infomation systems and forecasting, 

the field of monitoring lacks generat conceptual or 

theoretical foundations. Recreation and tourism 

monitoring has been particdarly ad hoc with the 

distinctions between monitoring, measurement, 

evaluation, and forecasting not always clearly 

drawn. 

In spite of frequent use of the word 'honitoring" in 

recreation and tourism today, systematic monitoring 

are hard to find. Recreation and tourism 

Org ons gather many kinds of data on a 

periodie basis in order to comply with various 

intemd and external requirements. The most 

nitoring efforts are for internal 

acoount@, e.g., system for 

monitoring budgets, sales, personnel, and 

' Professor, Department of Park and Recreation 

Resources, Michigan State University, 13 1 Natural 

Resources Bldg,, East Lansing, MI. 48824- 1222. 

inventory. Altfrough T won't bctly 

of mo&toring syslems &re, they pro 

mdels for qplicalion to other mas of 

monitotling, d @ve management personarel a 

gemral un&rstmBing 

be.nefii@ of monitohg 

broader monitohg efforts. 

Moaito+g is hc~isshgy &vocated as a way to 

addre= broadier nzmgemenk p 

problems plviW *eneation aad 

cime efforts, however, have bee 

om have been postpomd or 

, "We are modtoring the 

hasaringofbeingontolp 

of &gs, even when we are not. Formal 

monitohg programs ofkr pat promise for 

management, planning and xwearch. However, 

there also exist pitfalls and oppo-ty costs of 

making long of resources to 

data gatherin a clear 

aandg:rstm&ng of what m& to be rno~tod ad 

why. 

My purpose in W paper is to pmpride gemd 

and travel monitoring efforts. I .will focus on 

general principles atid founddofls for monitoring 

s rather than the nuts and bolts of patticdm 

systems. 

Definition and Purposes of Modtow 

Monitoring is the systematic and periodic 

measmment of the state of a system. The Mc 

elements of a monitoring p 

system tbat are of inte~st 

procedures for measuhg 

usually by means of systematic and coaSistRnt 

protocols, and (4) some indication of the 

intervals at which memments am to be ma&. 

A simple example of a monitoriqg system is (he 

household thermostat. The house is the system aad 

the characteristic of interest is temperature. The 
nleasurement prowduzs involve a temperature 

sensitive device that can turn an electrical switch on 

or off. This monltoring is continuous and 

automated. The themostat both monitors and 

controls ternpramre in the house by turning the 

furnrtce or air conditioner on or off when the 

tenlperature falls above or below some preset 

threshold. 

trachg systems we are unable to forecast, or for 

identifying historical patterns and establishing a data 

base from which forecasts may be derived, Wen 

used with "evaluation" and "research'" monitoring 

generatly implies an on-going pro 

periodic assessments or longitudinal investigations 

achowledg,ing change over time. 

Inventory and monitoring 

Purposes 

The themostat example illustrates that information 

from a monitoring procedure is an input to some 

decis g process, in this case an automated 

one. part of the formal dewtion of 

morritoing, the decision process and purpose 

provide the rationale for monitoring and are 

therefore essential to the design of a monitoring 

system, The purpose of the household thermostat 

defines the approp~ate system (the house), what 

characte~shc of the system should be monitored 

(ternprature), how it should be meaured (in one or 

severd tocadom), md how frequently. If the 

purpose is only to mintain household temperature 

wiehin a given rmge, we have one system. If we 

add energy efficiency as a purpose or divide the 

house into subsystems (rooms), a different 

mo&toring system may be called for. If we add an 

objective of economic efficiency we also need to 

know about the costs of a specific mo~toring 

system relative to its benefits. 

As we see, it is &%cult to design or evaluate a 

molrito~ng system even for the shple problem 

addressed by the household tkrnostat without clear 

pu"poses, Also essentid is some knowledge sf the 

behavior of the system being monitored; in thiis ease 

howledge of air circulation patterns, heating 

system chrtracteP-istics, and preferences and lifes~les 

of household members. 

Different purposes of monito~g are suggested by 

words that often accompany the tern, memostat 

type systems are ofien labeled "monittsdg and 

control" systems. Other terms that often accompany 

"mo&toringV md suggest its purpose are 

"'forecasting", ""evaluation", 'kesearch", and 

"inventory". Molritoring in tourism is hquently 

linked to fo~tecasting of demand or to evaluation of 

marketing strategies and performance. In the 

forecasting context, monitoring is a means of 

Within natural resources, the term "monitoring" 

frequently appears with the term "inventory", as 

part of inventory and monltoring programs. Here 

the inventory constitutes "baeline" measurements 

and monitoring implies these memwements will be 

repated periodicatly to update the inventory. The 

term "Fnventory" seems to be the least helpful of the 

terms that accompany "monitoring", U&e the 

other comp~on terms men~oned above, the word 

"inventory" provides li~le guidmce about what 

characterjrsfics should be ms~tored or by what 

c~teda mo~to~g progrm should be evaluated. 

'"nventory" suggesls no clear purgose beyond the 

act of counting. 

firther, an linventory usudy hpfies a 

comprehensive count: w&ch is impossible in all but 

the simplest of situations. Even if a complete 

baselint: inventov is possible, the monltorJIng of all 

variables that are inventoied, is &ost dways 

neither desirable nor practical. Inventories generally 

do not reveal much about dynamics of systems or 

relafionsfips mong v~ables, essential ingredients 

in the design of eEdent moaltoring systems. 

hrther, when mo~tohg is~ed to inventoq work, 

there is a tendency to &t complete the inventory 

before adhessing mo~tohg. Udortunately, 

comprehensive resource kinventohes are often never 

completed md hence the monitoring part of such 

s may never materi~ze. Even if it does, 

the inventory genedy provides very limited 

infomation for the desip of a moniConing system. 

It seems &at inventories are more Wefy to lead 

mo~tohng astray tlaan to provide useful guidance. 

Monitoring is essentially an applied activity, which 

must therefore be guided by a clear understm&ng 

of the purposes that monitoring is to serve. 

Progrants that monitor for the sake of monitoring or 

with some possible unanticipated or undesignated 

future use in mind are rasudy doomed to failure, 
pm luawarnsaw asn ~ua~srsuo:, sow 8uysgqelsa 

d18ursmq an; aapyosd a)t!~pd pm @3oj 

'ales 'pzapacj[ 'wspnol put? uogaar~a~ yloq uiylrlkt 

3upo1pow Sup-a JO dlyofew ay JOJ stuno~3e 

dlam slr?~ 30 'saps 'asn uogEamaJ: 30 8uuoip~ow 

au .pa]ewsa aq m3 slapow 8q)s3a~oj pa~o~dury 

qoq~ woq mogt!~asqo JO sapas awp 1ua1s!suo3 

t! 3uqr~ord os@ am& 'spuw S3u1Qrluap1 u! 

dray m3 asn jo B~olpow lualsysuo:, asom '(086~ 

sray)o put! smkil;) all?m.;ltor!u~ st! lsnf aq 01 punoj 

Apnsn ara alt!p puogoas ssom uo paseq slapow 

%qm~aroj pnlows pna spoylaw sapas aql 

faufsn papualxa aq lq8~w IE~) spuw .map Qpuapf 

01 1u=r)?sao3u~ 001 aq 01 punoj llwnsn st t!1t!p 

Pum @3fJOFI3 '(0861 a~%P?) PwaP laAea Put? 

uogear3a 8wsr?3aroj ur pa~a~uno3ua swa~qo~d 01 

uognjos r! sr? pa- uaaq dpanbag my 8upolyom 

'asn pm pmwap arnly ~soaro~ 01 pm asn uf spuw 

Qguapf 01 sf ursr~rnol pm uogt!aroar ur Zllupolyow 

30 sasn uourwoo lsow ay, jo aug--8u!~sles~od 

.ampmo~d 

lonuoo r! luawa~dw~ 01 saw9 paal pm uogeuuo~u! 

ay) %u~ssmozd uf sawg 3r!i 1unoo3e o1u~ 8ugw 

'4awp aq jsnw uogeuuojy 3u~~ro1p~ow '~1nofmd 

xq -anpa:,ozd lo~luoo pa)~wolnt! JO zaqeunro.yspap 

aql 30 vaau ogfoads aq ]paw 01 pau8fsap aq 

1snm foauo:, 30 uopr!.fnf3ar zo~ pasn a= 1t!yl swalsds 

B-olfno~[ *sampmozd loquo:, o1u1 a8paI~oq sg1 

a)t4~suffq 01 dlf~~911 aqo y)!~ 8uop '~o~neyaq s,wa1sXs 

aq JO %upulce~slapm zap t! ar~nbar swalslls 

loauo:, palamolnv 'sio~oq law0 pm slo~~opur 

qwouo3a pauodaJ X:j;[v:lrr;ja~ JO uopgnpa sq uodn 

pasreq dlddns dauow aq put! salm ~saralu~ slsn[pt! 

pnsog auasaa papad aq 'aldmxa rod Opaqnbar 

aq dam uog:,r! 30 asmoo 'dm jt '1t!q~ sappap 

O~M '.~a~w-uo?qoap a 01 papr~ard sr ~0~1~~03~~ 

3upoly1ow 'dluowwoo asom 'lalsouuaq 

ay, aq1 'pa)r!wolnE XI~~J q llvw swa-)sil's 

loquo3 +~)~LI.IK~ alqr!zaIol WTM xoyayaq ura1sds 

aq-3 daay 01 sdwad ro algjs partsap awos p~ho1 

uralsds ay) ~aals JO 1snfpt3 01 mog3~ alapdo~dde ay?) 

01 uoyr!uuo~gr syp asn put? salq~n alas arow JO 

mlpour dpnsn suraislls loauo;l, '$)lelsowaq aql 

49 paowsn~ *%wotyow jo asn p~aua8 apb .le 

sf [aaao:, pa uopegn8a~--lrp~~u~)=) pug mo!$el~3aa 

ruspnol pun! uorlsa~~ar SE as~ar~ar djay~l R!M 

swalsks y3nS 'wspno3 pm uorlear3ar ur luapna~d 

IEYJ )aA 1ou as? uo113alap dj~qd sf asodrnd 

asoyfi smxdoxd dwal~ow pmoj "suralsks 

ky3as ~pmls 30 uopdmxa aql q11~ ba~a~o~ 

*vos sy1 jo uralsifs 8polpour e slsa33ns hrrltade3 

8urh3 uopeaa3a;l oa (5861 saylo pa liapl~) 

y3eo~dde (3vq) ,,a8my:, alqlsldmrlte 01 s~ryt,, 

ayl %oy)r?ar3ar ugy~ -uay?i! aq m3 uosp~l? awos 

leyl os luas st putj~s E 'pai3alap S! uop~ua3 ayl 

uam .a)els u! asmy3 JO uoppuo;l, awos $3333~ 01 

pasn am swalsXs 8uv~ pm Spn3a~ Jaylo $0 $soy 

e pm swp aTowS--uo!qsJap pue aaurefIfahlrng 

*Ajqe~apysuo3 dr?pa~o sasodTnd asaqL ~yxmasax 

DyPuaros (9) put! 'uoganp~a (s) 'uogr?~ol@ 

a3znosaJ (p) '8ugse3a~oj pur! uogw yguapf 

puaJi (s) 'lorluo3 prne uor1lelriiIar (2) 'uopoalap, pm 

a3urepahl;ns (1) :a~mwalfl aql urog payguap! aq m3 

swa~sds 8upo1yow jo sasn pgualod xrs tmal 1~ 

jSlS03 ay) paaxa (suo~spap pa~osdun) ura1sAs 

8y01yow a JO slyauaq ay oa .wa)sAs 8uuol~ow 

e 8qenp~a ~oj t?palu3 ay) sapfnozd sfr~;~ 

'(~~61 ~VWI/V) suo~spap anozdu~y 01 st '8up~~a~o~ 

ayn '8uuolp~ow jo asodrnd au *suofsgap 

;l,g~~ads 01 paya-r~ Alneal:, aq plnoys srzraislls 

fi7~olpow dpap~ *sJasn pm 'sasn 6sasodmd 

paugap IlaM anq ppoys wajsds 8arf~oipour E 

"~13~ pagdde UE dlp1uampunj sf fi7uyo1fuour s.pr 

.swalsXs S3uyo1pow 

wspnol pure uogea.13a.1 so3 suoFpMasqo 8q~aq 

osp apqM 'smal praua8 q sluauodwo3 moj asaqi 

ssn3spp ah xasn papuaJur aqlo~ uopawopr se 

le1ep asaql alg3yunururoD 01 kpug pun! paraqlErz8 an: 

1y1 aiz?p ayl azkpm OJ sampmo~d sarfnba waasks 

3~olpour arpr 8galdruo3 .mx8o~d 8uuo1~our 

e go a03 aq) sf Juauraxnseaw sg~wa1sifs pm 

3fpouad 'uago ~oy put! "ammaur aq Lay, AO~ 

"aoipoux aq 02 s~pspa$3~rr?q~ go a3loq3 aqj saprn3 

q3gfi 'aasohnd n?al3 E qftl u@aq pfnoys surs~slls 

17upolpo~ -passfsDsfp am wa1sXs eolfuour r! 

30 siuawqa pguassa moj suoal3as 8uylktopfoj aq~ u~ 
reporting procedures. Uses of this infomation to 

date have been more for financial accounting or 

justikation of progms, d~ough appfications to 

trend identification, control, marketing, 

management, and other problems are growing. 

Resamrw tallwcitioa--Monitoring can be used to 

aocate resourws across spatial or orgart_izalional 

uni~. Resource dlocation is a form of control that 

also typically involves some sort of evaluation. 

h&viduds or units that perform well can be 

rewarded and resources can be reallocated to where 

they are most needed based on monitoring 

infomation. 

Evaluation--In both the planning and program 

andysis literature, monitoring is frequently 

recommended in conjunction with evaluation, 

Monitoring can be used to evaluate the 

implementation of a program or its impacts over 

time. Rossi and Freeman (1982) recommend that 

progm implementation monitoring should cover 

both program coverage (Does the progrm reach the 

intended targets?) and program service @o the 

delivered services match what was intended?). In 

assessing impacts of a prog , monitoring helps to 

establish baselines and to trace changes before, 

during, and after a program. Program objectives or 

standards provide guidance on what should be 

monitored. A model or theory of how a program is 

supposed to work is often helpful in designing a 

monitoring system for evaluation purposes. Meis 

(1990) discusses the role of monitoring in 

evaluating the performance of recreation resource 

management agencies. 

ScienCific research--Scientific research is an 

important and often demanding user of monitoring 

information. Recreation and tourism research has 

been cfiticized particularly for its lack of 

Iondtudinal studies and understanding of change 

(Stynes and Driver 199 1). Monitoring can surely 

contfibute to hproving the state of aff~rs, but we 

must reeo@ze that research has quite specific data 

needs, that must be clearly identified at the start. 

Clients and Users 

(clients) of recreation md tourism monito~g 

systems fall into four general categories : (1) 

consmers including the general pubEc, (2) 

recreation and travel provi 

coordinathg and policy-m 

researche~. Recreation monitoring systems have 

been directed principally at managers or have been 

part of research programs. State travel offices seem 

to be responsible for much of Ihe recent interest in 

to~sm monitoring, although broader reseach and 

marketing audiences are also involved. 

In recreation and tourism, consumers and the 

general public art: not often directly considered as 

clients for monitoring programs, although there are 

numerous instances where this is the case, Regular 

reporting of snow, traffic and weather conditions 

along with campsite availability and the like are 

monitoring programs aimed at consumers. Quality 

rating services that include regular inspections and 

updating are also monitoring systems. These are 

good exmples of systems that are useful for both 

mmagement and consumers. Tourism providers 

have tended to pay more attention to the consumer's 

information needs than recreation providers. Often 

uad reports of budgets, visitors served, economic 

impacts and the l&e are also aimed at various 

publics. 

There is a tendency toward multi-pvose, multiuser monito~g systems within recreation and 

le such systems offer potential 

efficiencies, I think many of these systems are 

premature. Such systems must carehliy consider 

the bstinct needs of different usersluses in the 

design of the system if they are to serve any 

particularly well. Intended uses should be planned 

into a monitoring system &om the start. In trying to 

serve a very general, undesignated au&ence many 

state travel monitors do not serve any particular 

users or uses very well, Most cannot be validly 

used for evaluation of travel promotion (although 

thrs is a f~quent use) arrd are not sufficiently 

desegregated for resource allocation decisions. 

Wh-Lile undesignated but anticipated reseach uses of 

these data are often advanced in support of 

monitors, the data assembled in such progr'ms 

often do not meet the specific needs of forecasting 

models or other scientific research. 

Hand-in-hand with identifying purposes of a 

monitoring program is the identification of clients 

or users of monitoring information. Potential users 
Memuremeat is rbe second key compomnt of a 

modtokg system. One of be most hdoaae3.t 

dedsions tbe &sign of a monitohg system is 

selecriron of qprop~ate v~ables aad measures 

of &sle v&ables. As &e= ate an inSi&te numkr 

of v~ables that could be mewured for host my 

probbm, some subset of Ihe most relevarat and 

usfiul variables must be chosen bwd on the 

he&d application or puvose. 

=reation and toumrism there is not wide 

algreement on what v~albfes should be monitored or 

of monitoring systems 

, there is a tendency to 

adw aq convenient varidble or all available 

variables, particularly when the purpose and scope 

of a monitoring effort are not adequately defined. 

Efficie13t mo;nitoring systems are based on a good 

understanwg of the system being monito~d. In 

many recreation and travel monitoring situations, 

we simply do not yet uflderstmd the system 

suffiGiently to decide what to monitor or how. 'This 

argues for a strong up-front research component of 

recreation and travel monitoring efforts. 

Indicators and Indices 

Om way of dealing with the "too many variables" 

problem is the development and use of indicators 

and indices. These attempt to summariz the states 

of complex systems via a few hey variables or 

in&xeb . Meator develwment has hn akey part 

of many environmental (Waber 1976), social 

6) and economic (Moore 

s. Lhited work on 

recrea~on or mve1 indicators has been carried out, 

Mc&ors cao be sh& v~ables that are: eslpecislly 

re*e&g or ~rtenrsitive, as for exmple tbe use of 

Ufe usc: of social Scators to monitor ecololZjcal 

chmga, InBieators a~: selected based on their 

abGty to asmurate, intelyate, or mag* 

For remation and 

frighway segrments, or 

cators of overall activity 

in an area, However, researefi is needed to identi@ 

and validate such claims, 

indicaton, they o@en devellop their own. 

Enviromentd, swid and economic indices are 

developed from many va3-iables. Such indices 

attempt to =durn a 

simple form, wMe 

essential to the proposed use of the index. Air and 

water quality h&ces, the Dow Jones Industrial 

average, and a host of quaiity of life measures are 

examples of lindices that can be used to monitor the 

state of complex systems. As with mornitoring more 

generally, Ott (1978) notes that indices must be 

developed with a clear purpose, and this purpose 

must be ~spected in applying the index. 

The identification of indicators and indices needs to 

be a much stronger part of recreation and tourism 

monitoring progrms. This is one of several mas 

where research to support the development of 

monitoring progrms is needed. 

Measurement Alternatives 

In addition to identifying the variables of interest, 

monitoring requires a systematic means of 

measuring them. Any of the usual measurement 

methods may be used in a monitoring program, i.e. 

surveys, physical instruments, observation, and 

secondary sources. The choice of measurement 

technique rests upon the tradeoff between accuracy 

(reliability and validity) and costs. Such tradeoffs 

cannot be evaluated without a clear idea of who 

will make what deGisions as a result of monitohg 

infomation. The repeated nature of monitoning 

also requires consistency in measuremen& over 

time, generally increasing costs* Careful evduation 

of costs ~lative to benefits ate even more .important 

in monitorLng, than for one time measurements. 

again jus~fies more extensive up-kont research 

to achieve effi~encks in a monitohg system. A 

good example of resear~b to support the 

development of a recreation monitoring program is 

van Cleave and others (1990). In this study, 

instrumentation, measurement protocols and costs of 

alternative systems are all evaluated in the field to 

guide the design of a trail monitoring program. 
Pddar pwmes of a monitokg pmgrm may 

impose additional ~quirements, for example, 

the timeliwss of information. Early 

stems ati; of little use if w 

issued in time for clients to take the appropfiate 

action, In tdsm, although marketing decisions 

often dictate the hing of monitoring infomation, 

few exishng systems put hfomation in the hands 

of mdehg personnel in time to adjust the 

marketing mix before the end of the season. 

As many recreation and tourism monitoring efforts 

to date have been of the "quick and dirty" variety, 

data sources are frequently used, in spite 

wn hitafions of these data for 

measuring tourism activity (Tyrrell 1985). 

Monitoring systems that combine secondary and 

primary data are recommended. Secondary sources 

can provide regular measurements relatively 

inexpmively, with primary data gathered to fill 

gdps, adapt the data to a particular use, and correct 

for known problems. leads to the third part of 

a monitoring system, 

Analysis 

and perhaps most mglected compolnent in 

and tourism monitoring systems is 

andysis. Recreation and tourism monitokg tends 

to have a poor balance between data gatbenhg and 

compilation relative to data analysis. There are a 

host of both simple and more complex types of data 

analyses that should be considered within remation 

and travel moIlitoring systems. barnples include 

the use of price indices, population change 

ustments, 2-scores and other data 

fomaltiom, seasonal adjustments, weighting 

from non-representative samples, and adjusting 

for outliers, missing data and other problems. Such 

anallyses an: an hportant pm of the subsurface 

mcessary to support a sound monitodg program. 

U& of analysis are &=cult to find in many 

remation and travel monitops. 

A number of more wmplex mdyses are also 

dictilted by some of the unique problems of tourism 

data, such as the cmtamination of most secondw 

indic&om of towrim activity by local activity. A 

vatiety of seconw economic series (sales, sales 

tax atbd employment) are routinely advaneed as 

tourism indicators. These are generally not 

adequately supported by studies to determine the 

v&dity of such series as measures of tourism, The 

percentage of these economic measas attributable 

to tou~sm is generally uhown and there is limited 

understanding of bow this percentage may vary 

across particulas sectors, time or space. 

More complete analysis of data that m used in 

recreation and travel monitors is called for. More 

thorough and complex analyses can improve the 

qudiq and detail of the infomation provided, but it 

also tends to build in assumptions of the analyst. 

All but lfre simplest of monitoring systems involve 

a nmber of built-in and often hidden assumptions. 

For example, many travel monitors are sensitive to 

shifts in travel mode, length of stay, choice of 

accommodations, or spending pattern. If the 

volume of tourist activity is monitored by means of 

local sales taxes, lodging occupancy rates, nearby 

state pa& visits, or a local traffic counter, 

assumptions are being made about how these 

available indicators relate to tourist volume. If these 

smctural assumptiom are not periodically 

evaluated, the travel monitor can be both inaccurate 

and misleading. For example, an increase in the 

moktorb estimate of tourist volume could be due 

to changes in sales tax rate, prices, lodging's share 

of the maket, change in lodgng capacity, state park 

fees, weather, tmsportation mode, traffic patterns, 

or size of the resident population. Because of these 

problems, some tourism monitors (e.g. Spotts and 

Holecek 1990) have opted to provide much of the 

related data in relatively unprocessed fom and let 

the user interpret and evduate it. 

Gomprehemive monitoring systems are somewhat 

like icebergs, with most of the structure beneath the 

surface. It is the part that lies beneath the surface 

that keeps the iceberg and the monitor afloat and 

imparts stability, Reereaeon and b-avel indices lack 

the unifom system of accoun& that support good 

economic indicates and help avoid problems of 

double couafng and bias. We also lack a good 

understanding of the relations~ps among variables 

that is essential for proper sampling and weighting 

in index consmction. Tourism indices often reflect 

a "'kitchen sink" approach, with atl available 

measures thown together and =ported individually 

or as a gross '"average". Such indices depend 

excessively on the law of averages holding more 

strongly than the "one bad apple" principle, 
In ald&don to more complete md appropkate 

anatysis of the data presented in a morslitosng 

system. a strong suppsaiag resemch progm is 

rrewssasy to: (I) answer vesdons &at an=ise in ehe 

design of the system, (2) test the reEability and 

vafidity of the system, (3) evduate and refine &e 

system over he, and (4) fully utilize the data that 

are gathered. Resemch is pdculazly crucial du~ng 

the design stage, yet few recreation and tourism 

monitors are supported by much research. The less 

we how about a system, the more dificult and 

expensive it is to monitor its state. 

The final component of a monitoring program is a 

system for communicating the infomation to 

intended users. For the infomation provided by an 

indicator or monitoring system to be used and 

useful, it must be communicated to the intended 

clients in the right way at the right time. There are 

a host of irmpoamt questions here, many requiring 

research and evaluation studies to decide on 

appropriate systems for communicating with the 

intended clients and delivering the intended 

prodactlservice. The level of complexity, degree of 

detail, format, and media for conveying information 

must be tailored to the client or clients needs. The 

infomation needs of scientists are quite different 

kotn those of recreation and travel providers, which 

in turn are diffe~nt kom those of consumers. Even 

when there are common infomation needs, the 

form in which infomation is communicated to 

different audiences may be quite different. 

A common problem in communicating monitoring 

infomation to decisiomakers is reacbg a suitable 

compromise &tween simplification and 

oversimplification. This is parZjcularly the case in 

developing indicators and indexes, Is it sufficient 

for the user to how that tourism is "up" or "down", 

however that may be intevreted, or should the 

monitor clari& what is happning with person trips, 

pmy trips, visitor days, spending, or room nights? 

Is tounism up rela~ve to last month, this month last 

year, or on a seasonally adjusted basis? How much 

is it up? In relative or absolute terms? mere is it 

up? Does it matter if it is down in 3 of 7 regions, 

or within 5 of 11 market segments? How much of 

this detail does a given user need? Wow much must 

he or she understand to appropriately use the 

linfoanationNs the infomaeon most cBew1y 

presented in a able, a mph, a pie chm, a 1- 10 

scale, as a percentage hcrr;me over Ehe last p~od, 

or relative to some base year? 

ne eommu~cation element of monitoring has not 

reaived much attenboa in remation ad tourism. 

Effective monitoring systems will hclude 

oppoaunities for system users to provide feedback 

about !he monitoring system. For a monitoring 

system to smive it must provide useful infomation 

to the intended users on a continuing basis. This 

objective is easiest to evaluate when users are 

clearly identified. Given the dearth of regularly 

reported infomation on recreation and tourism, the 

users and uses of recreation and travel monitors 

often go far beyond the original intent. We this 

fact is often advanced as a benefit of such monitors, 

one needs to evaluate whether the planned and 

unplmd users are interprebg and applying the 

information correctly. 

Recommendations and Conclusions 

Monitoring offers great promise for recreation and 

tourism. Monitoring directs needed attention to 

systematic and consistent gathering of infomation 

over time. Such infomation is crucial to 

documenting trends, and provides a basis for 

underst anding change. Ideally, monitoring should 

also direct attention to important measurement 

questions and help to link data gathering more 

directly to management and research questions. 

Understanding of the important questions 

(decisions) and what data are needed to answer 

(make) them is a prerequisite to usefiul monitoring. 

Premature institutionalization of monitoring systems 

that are not directed efficiently at the important 

questions could waste data gathering and research 

resomces. 

There are three ways that we can improve 

monitoring of recreation and tourism: (1) start with 

clearer purposes for mo~toring, (2) lem from 

monitoring in other fields, and f 3) pay close 

attention to specid characteristics of recreation and 

tourism. 

Many improvements in recreation and travel 

monitoring can come from simply clarifying the 

purposes of monitoring. Relative to tourism 
monitoring, for eexmple, Mal Bevins has made the 

digtlinction bemeen a barometer and a themometer. 

A bameter sewes as an indieator of likely titture 

conditions whlfe a &mameter is a measure of 

cumnt conditions, Mmy travel mo~toring systems 

that ody measure present or past levels of travel 

acrivity are called "travel barometers". True travel 

barometers would report ideators of future 

recreation and tourism aetivjty, i.e. leadjng 

indjlcators. T'k pmblem here is a lack of clarity 

ses of such systems. Are they to be 

used as measures of past levels of activity or as 

&tun= indicators? If the latter, we should learn from 

the extensive work of economists in developing 

leading indicators (Moore 1990). 

We can improve recreation and travel monitoring by 

applying what has been learned not only in 

economic monitoring, but also in social, physical, 

biological, and enviromental. monitoring. Some of 

our travel monitoring systems bear a surface 

aesemblance to counterparts from economics and 

enviromentd qudity, but often lack similar 

foundations. Key lessons from monitoring in other 

fields bclurde being selective in what is monitored, 

using indicators and indices to simplify and focus 

monitoring e ffoas, and investing adequate resources 

up-front in research and development of monitoring 

systems. 

While we can learn a great deal from monitoring in 

other fields, there are also a number of somewhat 

unique attributes of recreation and travel that need 

to be carefully considered in developing our own 

monitoring programs. Recreation and tourism are 

umbrella terms for a rather diverse array of 

activities, markets, and market segments. mat we 

are mo~toring must be carefully defined and 

operationalized. This requires some delimitation of 

what the terms "recreation" and "tourism" 

encompass. Monitoring systems will be more 

clearly defined if the words "recreation" and 

"tourism" are used as mdfiers of nouns like 

activity, trips, supply, investment, spending, quality, 

and the like. Perdue and others (1990), for example, 

propose a system for monitoring travel 

expenditu~s. 

Travel is an essential part of recreation and tourism, 

and introduces an important spatial component. 

Consideration must be given to monitoring of origin 

conditions versus destination conditions versus en 

route conditions. Most =creation and travel 

monitoring has focused on mo~toring activity at 

travel destinations, dong with selected en route 

indrcatos (mosay baffie counls). These measures 

reveal little about what is happening at the sources, 

where most travel promotion is directed. 

lmprovenlents in monitoring of charzging con&tions 

at origins and en route need to be consictered as part 

of more comprehensive monitoring systems. 

It is increayingly important to capture dimensions of 

quality, not just quantity, in recreation and tourism 

monitoring programs. Both consuer and 

management decisions are increasingly concerned 

with quality. Monitoring of customer satisfaction is 

one "bottom-line" approach (Williamson and others 

1990). Advan~es in the measurement of service 

quality should be considered in monitoring 

recreation and tourism quality (Mahoney and 

Warnell 1990). 

Progress demands that monitoring programs involve 

more science and less politics, and devote as much 

anention to research and data analysis as to data 

gathering and compilation. In conclusion, I would 

advance six recommendations for improving 

recreation and travel monitoring: 

I. Start with a clear purpose for monitoring and 

clearly defined users and uses of the information 

to be provided. Involve the intended users early 

in the process of developing a monitohg 

systenl or it is uniikely to meet their needs. 

Trmslate users and uses into concrete decisions 

that the information will be used to make. 

Invest considerable resources up-front in 

monitoring system development. Allow for 

several years of research and development for 

comprehensive social, economic and 

environmental monitoring systems. These 

investments will pay off later in a better system 

and reduced costs. Development costs are onetime, while operational costs will continue for 

the life of the program. 

3. Once a system is operational, time and effort 

that goes into substantive analysis, evaluarion, 

and on-going research in support of a 

monitoring progr~m should at least equal the 

time and effort devoted to routine data gathering 

,and compilation. 
4, Redbticdy evduate the eoscs: relative to tbe 

&=fits of dtemafive mo~toring systems. 

g urnatistic assumprions about 

possible ieture users and uses or the interests of 

these hypothetical users in supportkg the costs 

of the prsgrm. 

5. To survive, monitohg progrms must be 

efficient and responsive to the needs of users or 

clients. Monitoring implies an open ended future 

commitment of resources by someone. It is best 

if this commibnent is institutionalized, to 

include clear systems for communicating with 

intended users and feedback systems to ensure 

the system is meeting the intended purposes. 

6. Finally, I recommend greater attention to more 

narrowly dehed monitoring systems with 

specific purposes. There is a tendency in 

recreation and tourism to propose 

comprehensive, multi-user and multi-purpose 

systems without first tackling more modest 

goals. Systems for monitoring use of an 

individual park, tourist traffic in an ma, 

recreation site quality, and the like should be 

worked out before moving toward more 

comprehensive systems. 

References 

Andrews, F.M.; Withey, S.B. 1976. Social 

indicators of well-being. New York: Plenum 

Press. 

Chilman, K.; Foster, D.; Everson, A.; Lane, D. 

1990. Monitoring systems for measuring trends 

in wildland social conditions. Paper presented at 

1990 National Outdoor Recreation Trends 

Symposium, Indianapotis, IN. 

Dunholter, P.H., V.E. Mestre, R.A. Harris, L.F. 

Cohn. 1989. Methodology for the measurement 

and analysis of aircraft sound levels within 

Nationd Parks, Nevort Beach, CA: Mestre 

Greve kssociates. Find Report to NPS. 

Inhaber, H. 1976, Environmental indices. New 

Y ork : John Wiley . 

LaPage, W.F. 1980, Research problem in 

monitohg reereation trends- Proceedings 1980 

Outdoor Rec~ation T~nds Symposium. 

Apperndix A. Clemson University 

ExtensionlResearch Paper RPA 1980-5. gp. f O57. 

Mac&, G.E.; Wright, R.G. 1984. Potential 

indicators for monito~g biosphere reserves. fn 

The Biosphere: Problems and Solutions, e& 

T.N. Veziroglu. Amsterdam: fiJsevier. 

Mahoney, E.M.; Wamell, G. 1990. Quatity 

assurance: A management strategy for recreation 

and tourism. Management Series #I. Ehst 

Lansing, MI: Travel Tourism and Recreation 

Resource Center. 

Martino, J.P. 1972. Technological forecasting for 

decision-making. New York: American 

Meis, Scott M. 1990. Visitor management issues: 

Monitoring atnd evaluation. In Towards Serving 

Visitors and Managing Our Resources. 

Waterloo, Canada: Tourism Researclh and 

Education Centre. 

Moore, G.H. 1990. Leading indicators for the 

1990's. Homewood, L: Dow Jones-Irwin. 

Ott, W. 1978. Environmental indices; Theory and 

practice. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publ. 

Perdue, R.A.; Betz, C.J.; Krantz, J.K. 1990. 

Establishing a travel expenditure monitoring 

system for North Caroliq Paper presented at 

1990 National Outdoor Recreation Trends 

Symposium, Indianapolis, IN. 

Rossi, P.H.; Freeman, H.B. 1982. Evaluation- a 

systema~c approach (2nd edition). Beverly Hills, 

CA: Sage. 

Spote, D.M.; Holecek, D.F. 1990. A des~ription 

and critical assesment of the Mchigan travel 

monitoring system. Paper presented at 1990 

National Outdoor Re~lreation Trends 

Symposium, Indianapolis, IN. 

Stankey, G.H.; Cole, D.N.; Lucas, R.C. [and 

others]. 1985. The Limits to acceptable change 

(LAC) system for wildems planning. USDA, 
, M.1.; Brow% TL. 1980. 

T=n& or Mechrsdofogiczl Bgfe~nces. fn 

Prt;.ce&ngs 1980 Butdm Recrea~on a"rencIs 

Sympsium Vol I., en. Teeb. Rep, m-57, 

Brooms, PA: USDA F;ores;d. Senrice, 

Nsrlkwtem Fo~st kpdent Sta~on. 

Sry~es, D.J.; D~ver, B.L. 199 1, "FED& in he 

mocteEng of leisure: khavior. In Mode~ng 

leisu~ Ireh~or and bemefi'bs; Selected pvrs 

from the I990 National Outdoor Recreation 

Tren& Symposium LII. e&. D.J. Stynes, B.L. 

Drives and G.L. Peterson. Fort Go 

USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. 

vm Cleave, R,L,; Bed, W,G.; Shmadllm, B. [atwl 

o&rs], 1994). TM rnhto- h & Great 

Na~onal Be Rd@ 1From 

1988, 1989, aiad 1990, Ga~bwg, m: Up 

Fidd Weemh Lab. 

WaEmsan, B.N,; V&e, if-9,; DomUy, M.P. 1M. 

Modaobg for q&%y csn&ol h New 

1990 I.Ta&srstem Re$: 

Sympsbm. &, T.A. 

'"rech. Rep., W145, 

Se~ce, Nofiewtem 

pp. l 1 1-1 18. 

Worf, D. 1980. BbIo@s.d mo~tobg lFor 

en*ontnentacl efitects. Lexjiggon, M: D.C. 

Heath. 

Tpll, T. 1985. Modtoring recreation trends using 

secondq data. Proceeding 1985 National 

Outdoor Recreation Trends: Syn?posiurn 11. 

Volume I. ed. J.D. Wood Jr. Atlanta, GA: 

USDI, NPS Southeast Re@;ional Office. 
Economic Impacts of Recreation 

and Tourism: Segmentation as a Means 

of Reducing Variance in Visitor 

Spending Profiles at Corps of 

Engineers Lakes 

Ju-Mee Lee and Dennis B. I?ropst1 

- Abstract. The purpose of this study is to segment recmationists 

into groups which are homogeneous with respect to their 

spending patterns and trip characteristics. Data were derived from 

a larger study aimed at developing nationally representative 

expelnditure profiles for recreation visitors to Corps of Engineers 

projects. Segmentation of these data reduces variance and helps 

identify distinctive final demand vectors for input output 

applications. A-priori and cluster analysis approaches for 

identifying segments are compared. The a-priori segmentation 

approach identified 12 segments and the cluster analysis 

approach identified 3 segments. The three nonresident clusters - labeled "day use", "overnight boating", and "overnight camping" 

- show lower mean squares within groups than the a-priori 

segments on almost all nonresident spending categories with an 

exception of boating expenses. For the Corps of Engineers, 

implications of these findings for the estimation of economic 

impacts are discussed. 

conducting apropI?iate anaEyses to provide vakijld 

impact esrimiltes. i4.n initial attempt to meet &ex 

challenges was the 1985 Public ha Remarjon 

Visitor Survey (PmVS). The IPARVS was a 

coordinated multi-regional data collection effort 

among federal and state agencies. A phary 

objective of the PARVS was to obt& nationwide 

information about the use of public recreation areas. 

Another hportant objective was to generate the 

spending data needed to estimate the economic 

impacts of visitors to public recreation areas 

(Alward and Lofting 1985; Propst 1988). ThKtugh 

revisions of the PARVS design, the Corps of 

Engineers Recreation Spending Study (CERSS) was 

developed, The primary purposes of the CERSS are 

1) to estimate total resident and nonresident 

recreation expenditures associated with Corps of 

engineers projects, 2) to develop a representative set 

of spending profiles for visitor segments that are 

homogeneous with respect to spending pattern, and 

3) to derive regional IJO models to estimate 

economic impacts (Propst and Stynes 1988). 

Problems 

Economic impacts of outdoor recreation have 

continued to grow with increasing participation in 

outdoor recreation activities (Alward 1986). There 

are two types of such impacts. The primary 

economic impacts on a region's economy are from 

initial outdoor recreation users' expenditures. 

Secondary economic impacts on a region include 

changes in business output or sales, employment, 

net income, tax revenue, and government spending 

resulting from the primary spending. Through these 

two types of economic impacts, it is possible to 

estimate the contribution of outdoor recreation to a 

region (Propst and Cavrilis 1987; Mak 1989). 

There are two challenges in estimating the 

economic impacts of recreation: 1) collecting 

reliable spending and visitation data, and 2) 

Ju-Hee Lee, Graduate Assistant and Dennis B. 

Propst, Assistant Professor, Department of Park and 

Recreation Resources, Rlfichigan State University, 

East Lansing, MI. 

There have been a substantial number of recreation 

spending studies, but most are not focused on 

applying economic impact analysis. They typically 

describe aggregate or total visitor spending rather 

than estimate employment and income effects 

(Henderson and Cooper 1983; Rose 198 1; Jordan 

and Talhelm 1985; Stynes and Mahoney 1986). 

Input-output (I/O) models are used to derive the 

regional economic impacts of recreation industries 

or activities. However, the credibility of these 

impacts has been questioned (Petersen 1990). 

Possible reasons for inaccurate estimates of impacts 

include a lack of: 1) detailed estimates of recreation 

use and 2) accurate estimates of user espnditures. 

These two variables are the basic components for 

deriving recreation expenditure profiles used in IIO 

analysis. For example, Micro-IWLIQN, an YO 

analysis system in common usage, requires input in 

the form of "vectors of final demand". In the case 

of recreation, a final demand vector consists of 

spending means for various goods and services 
multiplied by the total visitation to a given resource 

(Twirl 1985): 

Final Demand Vector 

for Recreation = Total Visitation * Average 

Recreation Spending 

Average nzmation spending often displays high 

variance because: 1) =creation products and 

services are diverse and 2) spending for goods or 

services often includes many zeros and extremely 

large outlawries. Segmentation of creationists is 

one way to reduce variance and to identify more 

realistic and distinctive spending profiles (Stynes 

and Cbung 1986). This is because segmentation can 

produce groups which are homogeneous with 

respect to their spending patterns. Thus, final 

demand vectors can be derived for various segments 

and generalization across populations can then be 

made on the basis of a given mix of segments. To 

illustrate, local day users and nonresident overnight 

users on extended trips are two distinct segments 

that clearly have unique spending patterns and vary 

greatly in terms of total amounts spent. Combining 

these two segments merges significant reports of 

zero spending (day user) with a number of large 

outlawries (long trip overnight nonresidents), 

thereby increasing variation about the mean, 

Splitting the sample into two segments that are 

more homogeneous with respect to their spending 

patterns reduces the variance in each group. 

It is assumed that economic impact results may be 

sensitive to the formulation of "final demand" 

spedfications, which, in turn, will depend upon the 

segmentation of recreationists. Therefoa, the 

research question is: How should recreationists be 

segmented so that the vectors of final demand can 

be produced with the least amount of variance? 

Since these vectors are key requirements of I/O 

software, such as Mcro-IMPLAN, this question is 

central to assuring accurate economic impact 

estimates. 

Study Objectives 

The primary aim of this paper is to test methods for 

segmenting remationists based on activities, 

origins, duration, spending, and other trip 

chafacteristics. In this way, the study seeks to 

provide a segmentation analysis method for I/O 

applications. 'This paper deals only with variable 

trip costs for nonresidents, not durable goods 

expenditures or expenses irlcurred by local 

residents. 

Methods 

During the summers of 1989 and 1990, visitors to 

12 Corps lakes nationwide were sampled (Propst 

and others 1991). A two-step procedure involving 

both on-site interviews and mail back questionnaires 

was employed. Spending for durable goods (e.g., 

boats and recreation vehicles) and trip 

characteristics (e.g., length of stay) were measured 

in conjunction with the on-site interview, Spending 

for non-durable, trip related goods and services 

(e.g., food, gas, and lodging) was measured through 

a mail back questionnaire distributed to the on-site 

interview respondents at the completion of the 

interview. 

Two segmentation approaches were used to define 

visitor segments: 1) an a-priori approach and 2) a 

statistical approach. The a-priori approach involved 

consultation with Corps staff and a review of 

literature, which identified 4 key variables needed 

to describe water-based recreation segments that are 

homogeneous with respect to their spending 

patterns. These 4 variables are: camping 

participation, boating participation, duration of stay, 

and visitor origin. 

As a statistical approach, cluster analysis was used 

to form visitor segments based on one or more 

similar criteria, such as the respondents' spending 

patterns. The intent was to identify clusters that 

show high internal (within cluster) homogeneity and 

high external (between clusters) heterogeneity. 

Cluster analysis groups all possible pairs of 

in&viduals/objects based on their distance from 

each other in terms of various statistical properties. 

Methods commonly used for measuring distance for 

cluster analysis are: 1) Euclidean distance, 2) 

Squared Euclidean distance, 3) Manhattan or 

city-block distance, 4) Wowski distance, and 5) 

Mahafanobis D2 (Nomsis 1986). Euclidian distance 

is the mast common approach. 

It is important to standardtze criteria variables 

before ntming the cluster analysis because 

attempting to group ~~ariables that are scaled 
dliewnGy or vary Iln u~& of measm will. 

mn~~id me&d (&st;urw kmeen mew) (Norusis 

1986). 

Although cluster aolalysis seeks to pup relatively 

Mmogemous sets of *viduds/objects without *. 

any prior classification of the sample, 

a number of theoretied concern. First, 

cluster dy& is not supported by an extemive 

(Meoderfer and Blasffield 1989). 

The pmnt mdysis umzd a Quick Chster 

re in SPSS PC+. ms promdm capl be 

cluster large numkr of emes efficiently 

~thout requhg substa~al. mmputer resources, 

lis based on nearest centroid sorling 

973) where a ease is assipd to the 

cluster for wfiich the &stme bemeen the case and 

(he enter of rhe duskr (centroid) is smallest. 

The cluster variables included: the 4 variables 

whi& we= used in the a-priori sepentatjon 

variables were nine 

' Camera h, video type purchase aod developing, 

souve& aad gift, footwear, and clohg. 

and the like, physicians, 

tfier expms not listed in 

kcause IfO malysis usuaifly requires vectors of 

find &mmd wKeh =present bjeerions of mw 

money hto a study regon, mean squares 

wiaa the 9" v&ables were compared using tbe two 

segmenta~on approaches deschtied edier. Sin= tfie 

raw data had mmy zeros in exh spendiflg categsq 

and some 1mge outlaw~es, log trwfomaliions we= 

pedomed. Everitt (1980) recommends a log 

fomaGon when the nomatity of variable is in 

question. 

Over 3,100 on-site interviews and 2,100 mail back: 

s we= collected. The overall respome 

rate across all 12 lakes was appro~mately 70 

percent with several lakes generang response rates 

in excess of 80 percent (Table 1). 

When parties who spent zero on their trips an: 

included, average variable trip spending ranged 

f om $105 per pmy/tfip at Lake McNw 

(W~hingtonfOregon) to $498 per pantyftsip at Me 

Cumber14 (Kenme) (Propst and othem 1991)* 

The a priori segmentation approach using 4 

difkrent segment variables identified 12 segmen@. 

The four vdables used to de~e visitor semen& 

were measures of participation in cmping and 

boatjng activities, duration of stay, and visitor 

oridn. These variables were selected to describe 

water-based recreation segments thought to be 

homogeneous with resped to their spending 

patterns. 

An average of 61 percent of all visitors to the 12 

lalces in the smple were boaters. For in&vidu;rl 

lakes, the percentage of boaters aged from 25 

percent at Lake Mendoeino to 91 percent at Lake 

Dworshak. iNeml3 t.talf 147 96) of aU visitors were 

nonresidents. Lake Gumkrland, Imated in a nr.ral 

tourism ~gion, had the highest proportion of 

nomesident visitors (78%). Priest Lake, located 

partially witfiin the City of Nashcrille, received 13 

percent nomsidlent visitation. The pattem of day 

vs. oversight visitors =Beets the differenm in 

visitor origins, with Lake Cumberland having the 

higfiest proportion of ove~ght users, and Lake 

Priest the lowest. Other lakes in the sample show 

similar pattern, with a high propaion of 
nomsident visitors rassociated with a high 

proportion of overnight visitors, and vice versa. 

All four variables went recoded to dichotomous 

values: 'VO" (no) or "1" (yes). For example, a "0"for 

camping participation identifies the party as 

, whereas a "1" iden~fies the party as 

having camped. Likewise, a visitor origin of "0" 

identifies a party whose permanent residence was 

more than 30 miles from the lake. 

a-priori segmentation approach using 4 

different variables results in 16 different 

combinations from the following formula; 

where, S = given visitor segment 

C = camper or not a camper 

D = day user vs overnight visitor 

R = Resident vs non-resident 

B = boater or not a boater 

The visitor segment variable (S) has a range from 0 

to 15. Four of the sixteen segments are illogical, 

and have been excluded. These excluded segments 

an: the combination of campers (1) and day users 

(0). Because a camper is supposed to be an 

overnight user, it is illogical if the case was coded 

"1" (yes) for camping and "0" (no) for ovemight. 

Spending estimates for aggregated categories of 

trip-related expenses are shown in Table 4. 

Thirty-six specific trip expenses were combined to 

produce these 10 larger categories. Table 4 also 

displays the expenditure means and standard errors 

for the 12 segments. Fbr example, overnight 

nonresident boaters (OMCB) spent an average 

of $182 per party per trip for lodging (n=253). 

Also, Table 4 shows the proportion of spending that 

within the study area (within 30 miles of 

the project). To illustrate, 78 percent of overnight, 

nomident boater spending occurred within 30 

mites of study mas. In terns of variance, standard 

of mean is expressed as a percentage. For 

, the staudard error is 8 percent of the mean 

for food and beverage (M=$140). Thus, with 95 

percent confidence, the of food and 

beverage mges betwee .08 to M+M*2*.08 

per party per trip, which is $1 18 to $162. 

Using bskal-Waflis one-way ANOVA, the 12 

segments were tested for significant differences in 

terms of average spedng within 30 miles of the 

study areas. mere was a significant effect overall 

(p=.0.0000). Furthemore, based on the 

tney test, 10 pairs of segments were not 

significant fp=O.2f to 0.84). 

Cluster andysis identikd 3 clusters which are 

distinct in terms of frequency of cases in each 

group and ability to assign a distinct label. Cluster 

group 1 shows relatively high lodging, food and 

beverage, autoB.V., and Mscellaneous expenses, 

Cluster 1's expenditures on lodging and food and 

beverage were somewhat lower than cluster group 3 

which is described as overnight boaters. Cluster 

group 3 indicates high expenditures on lodging, 

food and beverage, boating, and other expenses. 

Cluster group 2 had the lowest average spending 

pattern in every category except boat and fishing 

expenses. This cluster can be interpreted as a day 

user group including day use boaters, the largest 

number of parties in the sample. 

As a comparison of the a-priori approach and the 

cluster analysis approach, Table 6 presents the mean 

squares of the log transfomed spending category 

averages within groups. Mean squares are indicators 

degree of within group variance for the 6 

nonresident segments identified by the a-priori 

approach and 3 segments developed by cluster 

analysis. 

With the exception of boating expenses, the three 

clusters show lower mean square differences than 

the 6 segments on all spending categories. 

Discussion 

The high response rates associated with this study 

are gratifying given the relatively low response rates 

in other recreation spending studies employing mail 

back questiomaires. Fu&emore, variances on 

spending means, typically high in most recreation 

spending studes, were reduced by the segmentation 

procedures. 

The spending data were consistent with variations in 

regional characteristics. That is, visitors to Corps 

lakes in primarily urban areas displayed the lowest 

average trip spending, reflecting prixnarily day use 
aetivides by loed residen~, On he o&er bmd, 

visitoss to mom remote, mrd l&es spnt kgkr 

average mounts on a per r~p basis, i&cating more 

ove~ghr t~ps oflonger duration, 

I;or input-ouljgul: purposes, cluster malysis is 

supe~or to analysis sf v~ance because the ea~re 

spradjlng profile c;an be considered in da~l rather 

thm just the over& mean across all spen&ng items. 

Compared to the a-priori approach, the cluster 

anafysis approach results in fewer and more 

simplified segments: ovennight campen, ovennight 

boaters, and day users. F~hemore, the mean 

squares within the spending variables for the 3 

clusters are generally less than those of the a-priori 

segmentation approach, indicating some slight 

improvement in homogeneity of spending. On the 

other hand, the a-priori approach can provide more 

specific final demand vectors for economic impact 

analysis than the cluster approach. 

To produce vectors of final demand for 110 

analysis, average spending is multiplied by total 

visitation to derive total spending. This means that 

visitation data must be provided for the same set of 

segments for which average spending was 

measured. For the Corps of Engneers, a redesign 

of the use estimation procedures may be necessary. 

Cluster analysis of over 1,000 cases for which trip 

spending was measured indicates 3 broad segments 

of visiton sh~ng similar spending patterns: 1) 

ovetnight boaters, 2) overnight campers, and 3) day 

users. Furthermore for 1/0 purpose, it is essential to 

distinguish between residents and nomesidents. 

Presently, visitation data for 2 segments are 

routinely collected by the Corps of Engimers: 1) 

day users and 2) campers. "Day use" visitation 

figures include overnight non-campers ( i.e., hose 

who stay in hotels, with friends and ~latives, at 

second home or on a boat). Therefore, mdtiplying 

these routimly collected, Corps "day use'hisitation 

frgwes by average day user spending per trip 

exaggerates real day use total spending. Expanding 

use estimation procedures to identify boaters, 

overnight non campers, and nonresidents will 

provide more accurate estimates of total economic 

impacts. 

The resda presented in ~s pager bve s&ong 

impllicalions for policy evdualion wit& the Cop 

of Engimers. ne use of segmenta~ora and ttae 

e*tenee of a reEable data base *LI pernit 

gelneralizaaion to oQber l&es wkh were not 

surveyed kt w~eh possess chmaeris~cshilm to 

a class of lakes ectnt~ed in the study. In a<bdition, 

tfie Gofps will be able to estimate the eNFects of 

proposed new recrea~on developments or 

management scenarios in terms of employment and 

household income. y, the Corps will be able 

to compare rec~ation impacts to equivalent impacts 

of other water uses, such as comercial navigation 

and hydroelectric power production. 

References 

Aldenderfer, M.S.; Blashfield, R.K. 1989. Cluster 

analysis for applications. New York: Academic 

Press. 

Alward, G.S. 1986. Local and regional economic 

impacts of outdoor recreation development. In 

the President's Commission on Anrericans 

Outdoors. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Value 47-57. 

Alwasd, G.S.; Despotakios, IS. (no date). WLAN 

Version 2.0: Data reduction methods for 

constructing regional economic accounts. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest Experiment Station. 

1 oocpp. 

Alward, G.S.; Lofting, E.M. 1985. Opportunities for 

analyzing the economic impacts of recreation 

and tourism expenditures using IMPL9N. Paper 

prepared for the Regional Science Associabion 

Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, November, 25 p. 

Anderberg, M. 1973. Cluster analysk for 

applications. New Yo&: Academic Press. 

Everitt, B. 1980. Cluster analysis. New Yo&: 

Halsted. 

Henderson, K.; Cooper, R. 1983. Characteristics of 

campers in private and state-owned 

campgrounds in Wisconsin. Journal of Travel 

Research, pp. 10-14. 
Hogan, T.D.; Rex, T.R. 1984. Monitoring current 

activity in Arizona with a quarterly tourism 

model, Joud of Travel Resemh, pp. 22-26. 

Jordan, S.W.; Taihefm, D.R. 1985. Economics of 

sport fishing in Delta county: A study of the 

Lake Mcifigan Fishery from January 1983 to 

Deeemkr 1983. Mchigan State University, 

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, East 

Lansing. 

Mak, J. 1989. The economic contribution of travel 

to state economies. Journal of Travel Research, 

28 (2), 3-5. 

Norusis, M.J. 1986. SPSS/PC+ advanced statistics, 

Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc. 

Petersen, L.D. 1990. Use of IMPLAN to estimate 

economic impacts stemming from outdoor 

remation expenditures in the Upper Lake 

States. Department of Resource Development, 

Michigan State University, E. Lansing. 

Propst, D.B. (compiler). 1985. Assessing the 

economic impacts of recreation and tourism. 

Conference and Workshop, May 14- 16, 1984, 

held at Michigan State University. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 64 pp. 

Propst, D.B. 1988. Use of IMPLAN with public 

area recreation visitor survey (PARVS) pretest 

data: Finding and recommendations. 

Miscellaneous paper R-88- 1, Vicksburg, MS: 

U.S. Amy Ehgineer Waterways Experiment 

Station. 

Propst, D.B.; Gavnlis, D.G. 1987. Role of economic 

impact asessment procedures in recreation& 

fisheries martagement. Trmaction of the 

herican Fisheries Society, 1 16: 450-460. 

Propst, D.B.; Stynes, D.J. 1988. Collecting and 

andyzing corps of engneers recreation spending 

data. Final Report: U.S. Army Engineer 

Watenvays Experiment Station, Enviromental 

Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS.. 

Propst, D.B.; Stynes, D.J.; be, Ju-Hee. 1991. 

Nationally representative spending profiles for 

recreation visitors to Corps of Engineers 

projects: Draft Final Report, U.S. Army 

Engineer Watenvays Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, MS. 

Rose, W. 1981. The measurement and economic 

impact of tourism on Galvaston, Texas: A Case 

study. Journal of Travel Research, pp. 3- 1 1. 

Stynes, D.J.; Chung, W. 1986. Resistant measures 

of recreation and travel spending. Paper 

presented at NRPA Leisure Research 

Symposium, Anaheim, CA. October, 1984. 

Stynes, D.J.: Mahoney, E.M. 1986. 1984 Michigan 

commercial campground marketing study. 

Department of Park and Recreation Resources, 

Michigan State University, 42pp. 

Twirl, T.J. 1985. Data considerations in assessing 

economic impacts of recreation and tourism: 

Assessing the Economic Impacts of Recreation 

and Tourism. Dennis B. Propst, Compiler, pp. 

40-46. 
Table 1. Smey loca~om, dates anb mdback questionne respome rates: Coqs of En 

spending study, 1989-90 

Number Number Smple Siz 

Survey Rec. areas Survey 

Project Name (State) Dates Surveyed Locations3 On-Site 

A B BIA* 100 

J. Percy Priest (TN) 

McNaryIrce 

Harbor (OR, WA) 

Mendocino (CA)' 

Oahe (ND and SD) 

Raystown (PA) 

Shelbyville (IL) 

1989 Total 

Cdrnbedand (KY) 

Dworshak (ID) 

Lanier (GA) 

Milford fKS) 

Ouachita (AK) 

Willarnette (0~)~ 

1990 Total 

GRAND TOTAL 181 219 3185 3144 2190 70 

' Relatively low number of intenriews due to large portion of interview period in non-peak season d loss of 

appoximately 40 interview forms in the mail. 

"Willmette" includes Fern Ridge, Cottage Grove, and Fall Creek Reservoirs. These reservoirs were grouped 

for subsequent analyses due to dose p ity and ssarities in size and visitor use paaenns. 

A given recreation area that is relatively large and/or complex (e.g., a state park) was dvided ioto several 

survey locations (e,g., cmpgrouild boat launch area, beach). Thus, the number of loeagons whe~ w8 

occumd exceeds the nmber of =creation areas. 

These are the number of on-site parlies intelviewed who also 

Source: Propst and others (1991). 
Table 2. Percenage of four key sepntation vari;lbles for Corps of &gfaeers Nadond Visitor 

1989-90 

Non- Non- Day 

Lake Boaters Boaters Residenb Residents Users Ovedght Campers Overtlight Size 

McNary 45 55 77 23 69 31 22 9 194 

Mendwino 25 75 29 71 3 5 65 56 9 103 

Oahe 62 38 45 55 44 56 30 26 236 

Priest 28 72 87 13 80 20 11 9 323 

Raystown 75 25 31 69 31 69 53 16 416 

Shelbme 52 48 59 41 58 42 22 20 266 

Cumberland 77 23 22 78 15 85 39 46 250 

Dworshak 91 9 27 73 32 68 64 4 190 

Lanier 6 1 39 76 24 35 65 37 28 289 

IlvLilford 67 33 44 56 25 75 69 6 329 

Ouachita 80 20 29 71 22 78 35 43 221 

Willamette 59 41 82 18 77 23 22 1 368 

1989 Average 52 48 55 45 53 47 32 15 1538 

1990 Average 67 27 46 48 32 61 42 19 1647 

12 Lake Avg. 61 39 53 47 45 55 38 17 3185 

-- -- 

Source: Propst and others (1991). 

The 12 remaining visitor segments are: 

D/R/.E3: day user, resident who participated in boating 

D/R/NB: day user, resident who did not participate in boating 

D/NR/B: day user, nonresident who participated in boating 

Dm: day user, nonresident who did not participate in boating 

O/R/C/J3: overnight user, nesident who participated in both camping and boating 

O/R/Nm: overnight user, resident who participated in boating 

O/R/C/HB: overnight user, resident who participated in camping 

OlRJNC/NB: overnight user, resident who participated neither camping nor boating 

vemight user, nonresident who participated in both boatiag and camping 

: overnight user, nonresident who participated in boating 

overnight user, nomsident who participated in camping 

O/NRNC/HB: overnight user, nonresident who participated in neither wnping nor boating 

Table 3 shows the disb.ibution of these sepents across the 12 lakes. 
Table 3. Disbibution of Visitor Segments across 12 Corps Lakes (Summers 1989-90 Expenditure Study): Mailback Surveys 

Lake McNary Mendwino Oak Priest Raystown Shelbyville Cumberland Dworshak Lanier Milford Ouachita Willamette Total 

NPCTNPCT NPCTNPCT NPCT NPCT NPCT NPCT NPCTNPCTNPCTNPCT NPCT 

Day Users 

Overnight Users (Residents) 

Overnight Users (Nonresidents) 

valid cases 88 100 66 100 134 100 158 100 279 100 162 100 195 100 166 100 202 100 267 100 174 100 290 100 2181 100 

missing 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 

TOTAL 88 66 135 159 279 165 195 166 202 267 174 290 2186 

- - -- 

Notes: 

D Day users 

0: Overnight users 

R: Resident (permanent horne locatad within 30 miles of project) 

NR: Nonresident (permanent home located mom than 30 miles from project) 

C: hprs 

NC: Overnight uscrs who stay overnight in hotels/motels, with family/friemfs, or on a boat 

B: Boa- (users who participate in boating activities on the project) 

NB: Nonboatem (users who participate in recnation activities other than boating on the project) 

Souroe: Propst and otbm ( 1991). 
Tabk 4. Mean trip spending by 12 segments for ail 12 lakes 

Segment D/R/B D/NR/B 

Jf of casts 442 322 99 

Sperxlling category % of %of zero % in %SE % of %ofzero %in %SE % of %of zero % in %SE 

Mean Category Spending Region Mean Mean Category Spending Region Mean Mean Category Spending Region Mean 

Lodging 

Fd & Beverage 

Auto Cfr RV 

Boat 

FI sh 

Hunt 

EntertaWnt 

Misc. 

Other 

Total 

Segment DINRINB O/RJC/s O/R/C/NB 

# of cares 63 153 115 

Spending category % of %of zero % in %SE % of %ofzero %in %SE % of %of zero % in %SE 

Mean Category Spending Region Mean Mean Category Spending Region Mean Mean Category Spending Region Mean 

Lodging 

Food & Beverage 

Auto cPr RV 

Boat 

Fish 

Hunt 

Enterlainment 

Misc. 

Other 

Total 

Segment ObWC/B OmWC/NB 

SC of cases 424 178 

Spending category %of %ofzero %in %SE % of %ofzero %in %SE 

Mean Category Spending Region Mean Mean Category Spending Region Mean 

Lodging 

Food & Beverage 

Auto & RV 

Boat 

Fish 

Hunt 

Entertainment 

Misc. 

Other 

Total 
~ae 5. Final cluster centem for log fomed spending categories 

Final cluster centers 

caegory 1 2 3 

Number of cases 127 754 193 

Fishing 

be-ent 

Mise. 

Other 

Total within 30 mi. 

Note: This duster analysis is based on the nonresident spending (N=1074). 

Table 6. The comparison of mean of squms of two segmentation approaches 

6 segment 

Mean Square 

3 segment 

Mean Square 

Losing 

Food & beverage 

Auto & R.V. 

Boating 

HiPhinn 

Entertainment 

MisG. 

other 

Total within 30 m. 

Average 2.23 1.97 

Note: AU spending categories are log transformed based on the nonresident spending (N=1074). 
Predicting Zoo Visitor 

Sat isfact ion 

Lin& L. Caldwell, KaMen L. Ande~ck, and 

Keith ebba age" 

- Abstract, The purpose of this research was to predict zoo visitor 

sadsfaclim bd on edwation arxl rec~ation reIa?ed vwiables. 

and thirty (630) visitore provided responses at three 

tirnt pints =garding their zoo visit, Multiplc linear regression 

wm ulifizcd to predict satisfaction frm thc following 

idpcmltnt varriables: mreatimal aspects of the visit; 

educational arrpects of the visit; and level of optimal arousal, and 

crowding. Fdings indicated that all thne variables contributed 

to pdicting satisfaction at two time phts: imediately after 

visi-tation and one month post visitation. Thcse thee variables 

=counted for 2796 of the variance in satisfaction immediately 

gost visit and 38% of the variance one month post visit. 

Predicting satisfaction of outdoor recreationists has 

been a topic of interest to outdoor recreation 

managem for quite some time. A zoo is a special 

case of an outdoor recreation area. 'While a zoo has 

elernen6 of the "classic" outdoor recreation 

experience, such as natural habitat and 

it is at the same time a contrived and "&fibale' 

experience. A zoo experience also includes both 

outdoor and indoor envbments, which 

additionally dimrentiates it from typical outdoor 

recreation areas. 

Like some other outdoor resource agencies, such as 

the United States Forest Service, the zoo has 

multiple purposes. One of the primary functions of 

zoos is education, With regard to visiton, zoo 

managers typically do not see themselves as 

providing a recreational opportunity, but rather an 

educational one (Light 1989). Learning about 

specific animals, about wildlife in general, and 

developing an appreciation of endangered species 

are but 3 education related goals of zoos. 

LMa L, Cddwell and Kaubleen L. Andereck, 

nt of Leisun: Studies, 

Keib Bebbage, &p ent of Geogrsylhy, 

U~vemity of North Carolina at Greensboro, 

G=embors, North Cmha, 27412-5001. 919/334- 

3260 (Caldwell) 

Given the emphasis zoos place on education, as 

well as the unique outdoor =errtation attributes of 

zoos, this study, conducted at the North Gwolina 

Zoological Park (NGZP) in Asheboro, N.G., sought 

to explo~ rec~ilrional and educahonal variables 

that con~buted to satisfaction with the zoo visit, 

The study reporled here was pat of a larger 

resemcb project designed to g& an undem 

of visitors to the NCm. The marin objectives of 

this research praiject we= to garher infomation on: 

(11) visitor travel pamrns associated with their visit 

to the zoo; (2) visitor demogqhics; (3) money 

spent at the zoo; (3) visitor expectations about and 

mo~ves for the visit; and (4) levels of satisfaction 

asociated with the visit. 

For the study of interest in this paper, the following 

research question guided the hvestigation: What 

variables contributed to visitom' levels of 

satisfaction with their visit to the NCZP? 

Specifically, the influence of weather, educational 

experience, recreational experience, level of optimal 

arousal, and perceptions of crowding on overdl 

satisfaction with the visit were examined, 

A final purpose of tbis investigation was to examine 

the stability of these relationships over time. 

Therefore, satisfaction with the zoo visit, and its 

relationship with the previously mentioned 

variables, was measured at two time points: 

directly after the visit and again approximately one 

month after the visit. 

Methods 

Study Area 

The North Carolina Zbological Park is located near 

the geographic and demographic center of the state 

of North Carolina. Although the zoo is in a 

predominantly rural location, it is only 30 miles 

from an interstate (1-85) md two miles from a 

major US highway (220). It is also less than 70 

miles &om the three metroQolitan statistical areas 

(WAS) in North Carctlina* The NCZP is the third 

most visited zoo in the soulfheastem region and it 

ranlrs fifth ia the region in terns of its species 

cofiec~on, The zoo covers 1,448 acres m 

one of the world's largest namral habitat zoologicat 

pAs in physical size, and a major part of the 
stare's growing toudst irrcfustbgr, With the 

developmeat of addtiond ff%eGifities, the NGZP is 

projected to atbract appro 

pessras in 1994. Cumrat sta~~cs h&cate that l;bs. 

NCZP senes over 600,004b visitom mudy, 

Procedures md Smple 

To meet the objec~ves sf Lhe larger ~seach 

project, a mulg-gm s&dy was desipd. Visitom 

selected for rlme study were asked to provide 

infomation at kee &fferent dme pohts: (1) 

before entering the zoo; (2) afier be visit was 

completed; asld (3) one month &er the vkit, The 

ques~om&es we= designed for each data 

collection, pint. me~e ques~om&es were 

developed in conjmcdon with the Director of 

Muketing at the NCZP md were pre-tested. The 

some sirnilas: questions were ~ked in each 

questionn&e, each quesg0nnAl-e wked a number of 

Qliffef-eat questions as well. 

Data were collected from visitors to the zoo on 36 

days from ApIlil 13, 1990 through Aupst 7, 19902. 

Dates for data colleceon were determined by 

reviewing 1987-89 mean zoo visitation figures Erom 

Aphf through September for hvals by weekday, 

weekend, and monthZy totals. Based on tkse 

figures, and a need for proportionate representation 

by day of week and month, days were rmdomly 

selected to reflect the proportional distribudon of 

visitors. 

On the days of data collection, research xsistmts 

statiorwed themselves outside the entrmce to the zoo, 

near the ticket booth. Assistants approached every 

nth visitor and asked for their cooperation in the 

study, Due to tfie natwre of the study, large andfor 

orgadlized groups were not selected for 

' These dates represent when the actual intercept 

study was cotxiucted. Mail back surveys were 

returned through October, 1990. 

inclusion. Children under 16 were also excf~lded 

from the smpbg &me. 

If the visitor aped to p~cipate in %he smatdy, rhe 

research assistar~t asked lthe vkitor a set of 

quesfiom on the pre-visit bmment. The vrisitor 

then completed a gt of self-ah~stered ques~om. 

me "intewiewt~ec~que wasuazed to estabkb 

rappoa with the visitor and thereforr: inc~are 

response rate in cornpleeon of the en& study. 

Also, as arll irsealr;ve to pddpate in &e scucly, a 

free zoo t-sW was offened. ALiter tfie zoo vjisit was 

finished, he respondent sled out a second, selfabi~stered ques~omaire, A md ques 

was mdled to ehe visitor approximately 

akr ks or her visit to cla- zoo- Visitors wbo 

completed all three questiom s we^ mded fheir 

free zoo t-sm upon receipt of the mkl-back 

Because data collecdon occ 

pohts, cdcdalr;on of mspnse rate cannot be 

reflected in a single numkr. Table 1 summkzes 

eke response rates for Phase I aPld Phase II, and also 

for each data collection point wiw these phases. 

Sample Descrip~on 

Of the final sample of 630 in.&viduds, 44.1% (349) 

were male and 55.9% (442) were female. The 

majority (89.7%) were w~te. Of the total prr=-vkit 

N (795), 601 visitors indi~ated they were on a day 

trip while 170 were on vacation. The avemge panty 

size was 4.22 (std. dev. = 4.38). mrty-nine (39) 

percent of the groups visiting the zoo were 

comprised of couples with eM&a; 18.0% were 

couples without children, and 18.0% comisted of 

mdti-generational families. Most of the 

respondents were 21 to SO years of age (21-30 

years old, 26.0%; 3 1-40 years old, 38.196, 41-50 

years old; 18.1%). The median income was 

between $40,001 and $50,000. The educatiotld 

level of the respondents was fairly evenly 

distributed: 22.2% were high school graduates; 

22.3% had some college; 22.3% gaduated &onn a 

four year college; and, 17.2% held advanced 

graduate degrees. 
Measures 

In order to exmine the relations~ps of interest to 

this smdy, multi-hensiond seales were created. 

RespondeMs to ttte questionnaires completed a 

number of L&erl-type items that lent themselves to 

scale construction. A process of a-priori theorizing, 

factor ramalysk, and regability analysis (Croabackz's 

@ha) was utgized to develop the scales, 

me scales from the maif-back questiom&e were 

el to those from the post-visit 

questiorae*. These scales measured: overall 

satisfaction, educational experience at the zoo, 

recreational experience at the zoo, optimal arousal, 

and crowding. Tables 2 amt 3 contain the specific 

items used in the scale construction, as well as their 

means, standard deviations, and internal consistency 

scores. The alpha reliability scores are, for the 

most part, within the acceptable range. It should be 

noted that coefiEiGient alpha is sensitive to the 

number of items which comprise a scale (the easiest 

way to increase alpha is to increase the total 

number of items in a scale). Therefore, the lower 

alphas may be a product of this phenomenon, as 

well as error variance. 

To further confirm viability of these satisfaction 

measures, confirmatory principle components 

analysis with orthogonal rotation was utilized. This 

procedure produced four factors for the immediate 

post-visit data, although there was some mbiguity 

between the educational factor and the recreational 

factor. These factors accounted for 71.3% of the 

variance. The factor analytic procedure on the 

mail-back data (one month later) produced clear cut 

factom; these factors accounted for 70.9% of the 

varim. 

In order to gather additional insight into visitor 

satisfaction levels, motives for visiting the zoo were 

examined. Motivation was measured by two 

methods and at two time points (prior to the zoo 

visit and again in the mail back questionnaire). 

These two methods were: (1) througfl an openetrded qestion (measured at both time points) and 

(2) usiflg a number of statements that visitors 

responded to using a 5 point scale where 1 = not an 

important reason to 5 = extremely importmt reason 

(memured prior to the visit). Seeing the zoo and 

the dmals, behg with friends and fmily, and 

having a ~creational experience were the main 

reasons listed via the open-ended responses, 

although the rank order of resons changed from 

pre-visit to the recollection period. 

Factor mdysis on ihe motivation variables 

produced 4 clear cut factors (which accounted for 

61.8% of the vz~mce) from the Lktrerl-type 

statements measu~ng motiva~on. These factors 

were dso a product of a priori theorizing and 

reliabiliv analysis. The fbllowing factors were 

produced: recrea~on and novelty (mean = 3.98); 

education of others in party (mean = 4.01); 

education of self (mean = 3.38): and to photograph * als and plants (mean = 3.06). 

Temperature, cloud cover, and precipitation were 

measured at three time points on the day of the 

visit. Temperature was operationalized as the 

average of three temperatwe readings for the day. 

Cloud coverage was measured by the percent of 

cloud coverage based on three data points. 

Precipitation was dummy coded, rain or no rain. 

These measures were included to examine objective 

elements that may have had impact on visitor 

satisfaction. 

Results 

To predict visitor satisfaction, satisfaction was 

regressed on education, recreation, optimal arousal, 

crowding, temperature, cloud coverage, and 

precipitation via stepwise multiple regression. To 

assess stability of these measures and relationships 

over time, this procedure was conducted for the 

post-visit data and the mail-back data. 

Results of the multiple regression analysis are 

presented in Tables 4 and 5. As can be seen, at 

both time points recreation experience was the 

strongest predictor of satisfaction, with a feeling of 

optimal arousal as the second strongest predictor. 

Crowding is only a predictor of satisfaction one 

month after the visit. In both analyses, education is 

the final significmt predictor. None of the weather 

related variables are predictors of satisFdction. 

Discussion 

Ir was interestjag that nom of the objective, 

weather related vdables were predictors of 
satisfaction. is pdculdy indereshg she 

weather dukg Llre data collecgon time ~rid 

was either extremely pleasmt or ex~mely hot. 

Msa, many ~spondents men~oned weather as a 

negadve or positive iduen 

cornmen& on the questlorn 

fasrs associated with vac 

bury and Hoops (1985) found a similar 

phenomenon: none of &e objective variables they 

measured were %sodaled with vacation saljisfadon. 

Part sf the inconsistency in results krctveen visitor 

saai%faction and weaaer related v&ables may be 

due to the fact that, wkile everyone t& about be 

weaefPer, there is nothing that myone cm do about 

it. 

tion and sabisfacbon with the leisurely 

aspects of the vacatiorn, however, were predictors of 

overall vacation satisfaction. Given rthese ~o 

fin&ngs, tenta~ve conclusions could be advanced 

that &e exwdendd elements of a vaca~on or trip 

lue most irnpopeant to ~sitors. This enta~ve 

conclusion suggests follow-up mdysis to detemline 

if the^ are djlffe~nces mong those who are on a 

full scde vacabon. versus rhose who m on day 

t~psLounsbury and Hoops suggested that p~or needs 

or expectatism be measured md coqmd to 

subsequent levelts of saafaction. Our pregminary 

wdysis of visitor motivations pior to thek visit 

suggest that both educa~on and recreabion variables 

were strong motivators for the zoo sit. e 

fufier analysis is meded to fully undemsmd the 

rela~onsh.ip bemeen ito or mobiva~on and 

satisfaction, there is a suggestion &at vlisitor 

motives were consistent with variables which 

explained their satisfacbion. The low R-squares, 

however, suggesds; that there are okr v&ables 

iduenchg satisfaction. 

Among the variables under consideration in this 

swdy, the ~crealcion exprience clearly had the 

most influence on saaisfac~on wi& tbe hp, bo& 

ediately after the visit as well as atpo~l 

refieelion one montttl after tlhe it. e efie 

ehcational element of & vkit was important, rhe 

beta wei&ts b&c@e &at at botb hme peictds one's 

assessment of the zereabcmd tlam of lche ~p 

cont~buted elre most to sakfadorr. A person's 

level of psycbolo@catl aousd, a conshfuct 

theo~~eally Wed wi& recreation experience, was 

also a stronger pzdictor of s&1Enetia at botfrl 

pohts than was the edurcaaisnd 

In a review of the Lite 

F&, Bdgng md mwiates w)llji& Seated ht 

when cM&n visit outdoor sertings such as 

museums and zoos, novelty is an innportant 

considerabion in arousd aMd subsequendiy, iun 

benefits. They suggested that at low levek 

velty (arousd), childnen become 

does not take place r;as easily. 

lher this phenomenon holds for adults is a topic 

for hrtber irrvestigation. 

would su%,pofi &at coaclusiorr, and suggest alhad ebe 

rela~ons~p of arousd, edrpea~od expe!rie!ow, ao;d 

leisu~ slhould be 

The fin&ngs from this study cm Ibe poten~alfy 

helpful to zoo bctors maor pub~c heladom 

prsomel in terns of marirebg theh produet, Bls 

well, this infomaaion m;sy be useful in kms of 

structuhg the zoo expeIlienee. For example, zoss 

may provide mas md opp 

the recreationat component 

(such as picnic areas, rest areas, ete.), 

since optimal arousal is on of a bdmw 

between novelty and 

level), zoos may also 

vegetation, and o&er 

wofiwhile. 

The authofs ~teklly whw1ec;lge h OSe of 

for her enllhusiasm & asslistme at the zso, d 
LOP 

(SP) 

ZSP 
Table 2. Attitudes About the Zoo Ex~rience: hmediately Post Visit 

Item Mean Std-dev. Alpha 

A1 my expectations wen: met today. 

P cannot imagine a better visit to 

this zoo than the one I had today, 

Scale statistics: 

People in my group learned about 

wildlife. 

The signs at the animal exhibits 

increased my knowledge of the 

animals. 

I felt my visit was educational. 

I felt my visit was \rvorthwhile. 

Scale statistics: 

I had fun. 

I was relaxed. 

Everyone in my group had a good time. 

Scale statistics: 

OPTIMAL AROUSAL 1 

I felt there were many things wrong 

today that put a damper on my 

visit. * 

I was often bored.' 

The visit dragged on and on.' 

Scale statistics: 

CROWDING 

The number of people here today 

did not affect my ability to view 

the animals. 

I felt the zoo was too crowded.* 

Scale statistics: 3.78 .870 A865 

Coded: l=strongly disagree; 2dsagree; 3=neutral; 4=agree; 5=strongly agree. 

'Recoded variables. 
Table 3. Attifudes About the Zoo Visit: Upon Reflection One Month Post Visit 

Item Mean Std.dev. Alpha 

I cmot imagine mymng that would 

have made my visit better. 

I was completely happy witb my visit. 

I got to see and do everythmg I 

wanted to do. 

Scale statistics: 

I learned about wildlife in general. 

I learned about specific animals. 

Scale statistics: 

RECREATION 2 

I had fun. 

Members of my group had a good time. 

Scale statistics: 

OPTIMAL AROUSAL 2 

I had trouble finding my way around 

the zoo.* 

My visit dragged on and on.' 

I felt my visit was too tiring.* 

I was often bored during my visit.' 

Scale statistics: 

The number of other visitors did 

not affect my ability to view 

the animals. 

Scale statistics: 3.60 1.09 

Coded: l=strongly disagree; 24isagree; 3=neutral; 4=agree; 5=strongly agree. 

'Recoded items. 
TMe 4. Results of stepwise regression analysis to predict visitor satisfaction: Post-visit 

-- 

Variable B Beta R2 Change Sig. - 

Remation .584 ,345 .239 .WOO 

Optimal Arousal ,160 .I52 '023 .0001 

Education ,218 .I42 -012 .0026 

Adj. It2=.27 1, N=740. 

Table 5. Results of stepwise regression analysis to predict visitor satisfaction: One month post visit 

Variable B Beta R2-Change Sig. 

Recreation .455 .290 .229 .WOO 

Optimal Arousal .292 .229 .072 .WOO 

Crowding .I58 .218 .052 .WOO 

]education .289 .054 .032 .WOO 

I 

Adj. R2=.380, N=630. 
The Natigjrnal Coastal Recreation 

Inventory Project (NCRIP): A Topology 

and Distribution of Connmereia! Outdsor 

Recreation Opportunity in the 

Southeastern States 

Tom ~urkiewicz' 

- Abstract Commercial outdoor recreation suppliem for the 

nation's coastal areas were identified using secondary sources. 

The spatial disbibution of these sites across the Southemt and in 

relation to the coash! nation as a whofc are investigated. The 

number of suppliers per county is correlated with a variety of 

socio-economic and land use variables at the national, regional, 

and state of Rorida levels. 

The long-term trend in many coastal areas toward 

diminishing recreation resources and access to tidal 

waters has been documented as early rn the 1960s 

(ORRRC f 962). As a result the National Oceanic 

and Amospheric Administration (NBAA) lam ken 

interested in the economic and envhomental 

impacts of outdoor remation aad its swounbg 

of aesources cannot 

Americans elutdoors 1987). In order to assess 

coastal recreation opportunity NOAA is compmg 

data on pubfic and private outdoor recreation 

opportunities in the coastal zones. Irr 1988 NOkA 

completed its inventory of public (s~te, federal and 

ent owned and managed) outdoor 

recreation sites in 328 wastal coun~es. The 

Na~ond Go&d Recreation Inventory hject 

(NCNP), a cool~perative project of USDA 

f;o~st Service, and k U~versiiry of Geor@a, is eke 

eqrrjlvdent 

~wa~on 

Remab;on md toufism m major ecsaomi5: forms 

ia &e costal zows. Outdoor reclfg?a~ot.a depnds, to 

a large eaent, on k character md qu~ty sfhtre 

nakrd envirotnment , 

g hll abvmQge of 

inle~sts into 60~~1;. By 

value fhah econo~c aid 

ntmaGon, plmers, managers, and poli~y maicers 

&st: ;~;emi~ve mas. A major ob-k to 

these ssessments is that very little, 

fristoricdy, has ken horn about the actual supply 

of non-public outdoor recreation fmifities, area3 and 

services. 

In dl areas of the count~gr, public agemies have 

provided and preserved a wide mge of oudoor 

remation opporthties. Public rec~ation is only a 

part of the total outdoor =creation pictu~, however, 

private commercid, industrial and mn-profit 

organizations provide a large portion, if not a 

majority of certain khds of outdoor recreation 

opportunities, Private in&viduals and corporatiorls 

own large tracts of land in tbe east and south upon 

which both Momd and conm11ed rec~a~on us;e is 

eAtional. The full extent of tbiis 

Bifficult to assess because of mon: 

ownership pakrtems, &malty in lo 

and the expm of conducting h-deptltn stil~~ey~. 

New methods of idenbifyung and accounting for 

prirvate outdoor recreation supply must be developed 

before a EuUt arad 

recrea~on resour 

reclreatiolez. is mpidy decreashg flask Fom oa 

Outdmr Recreation 1988). 

NCRTP used a Me mge of commercial 

references, phone Eshgs, arad s~ 

agenclies; to iden~fy the commercid 

supplkas of outbor recseatirorril adquately ewaalyh, 

bur be solrrees were biaed k bk &Sty to 

show be dep& of oppomruity. For htdaac;e, 

but 

not &e numks of boat sEp, atld the mnak of 

empe;rmn& but not &e amber of campita. 

~shal& in qud "41reiahg for sites witib 

poten~ay vast &@e~ms 

o~"gom&ty. ms is an im 

does not prr=venf p~lh 

dis~bution of sugplieds in in coastal are=. 

Outdoor Recreation Planner, USDA Forest 

Service, Akm, CA. 
Pdvate O~tdmr Wwrc?ia%ii@n Supply: me Miss* 

Link 

Supply md demand ~laGoxts&ps in outdoor 

remation have long been mder hves~gstbioa 

Research has been prduc~ve ha fomdahg 

aeofies d develqling trelrd aaalyses that have 

proven helpfuf to pl rs, manage=, and policy 

rnAefs. In the area of economic vduation of 

outdoor ~creaLion, results kve also been 

substmtive, pdculmly in rhe 

~c~ation supply (ksident's 

NOAA 1988). But it is also lnewssary when 

assessing the vatue of outdoor recreation to 

differentiate betvven public and non-public 

facitihes, asem md services. As a result? the total 

economic value of nrrtud resource based recreation 

has probably been mderstated, 

Public recreation e;nisls, primdy, ou&ide the 

m&et place, ogera~ng as a "public good". Private 

recreation competes wieka other inte~s& and 

economic forces h tlhe more ~raditional m&eu of 

rlae maker (Cordell md o&els 1989). quest to 

pRsem lmd by non-pro& groups &o takes plaw 

wi~n ~s world of comp*g demiuzb. me= 

stu&es, w~le con~buhg to overd knowledge, do 

not tell us how liarge a role non-public outdoor 

rem;rlion plays h ine coastal eommu~v atld what 

that role is. 

After reaching the peak of growth in the mid 1970s, 

net leisure time has steadFty demased. Despite this 

decrease, pwth in &md for outdoor recreation 

has zmaimd relatively comma (President's 

Commksion 1987). Qmnt demmd ma& qgeu 

to match cfie pctlpulahon pow& mte (CordeU. d 

ohm 1989). mese demaod tsends leave m 

uncles md homplete pictu~ of rhe p~~ent 

sirnation md k klt~~ of & coastal zone. Tt is 

eiea &at alS. mas wiU be aEeG(:ed lin ssm way by 

=madon demmd. Some ~oke &at cbe slovver 

grow& in gdeipa~on is a sesulr sf m a&g 

na~ctmal populadon. =re is eebeace &at rho= 

over 65 show a siwficwt demse in heir 

pddpation in author recreatjion ad~~es OJ.S, 

ent af the hte~or 1986). If this is so, inen 

&ose areas where people re&, like Rorida, wiill 

have demands different &om other regions of rhe 

country, How then do we account for the mount 

and variety of outdoor recreation oppohty in 

these coastal destinations? 

It is possible kt (he preeam of pubk ouadmr 

recreation set asides 

encourage the &row& of 

demd (Gibatlson 

coasu anzas the 

resource a~butes may 

elemeflt in outdmr remation 

Work by Van How and otlhem (U.S. Dep 

of the Interior 1986) ad Cordefi d oem (1989) 

indicaes the =Gent tred dhat mmt geople are 

recreatjng closer to fiome. City d munty p& 

are the focus of most outdoor rec~atim ad^^. 

Travel to distmt sites has dec~ase& If dhe 

strongest demand is for neatby reso-, then the 

grivatr: recreation res 

concentrat& near pqulbon ceners. 

The complex hteractiom E>etwwrm pubfi~ and 

p~vate recreaLion resources md to be exm 

mon: closely. Ulhately he 

be able to pro~ds: d&a for ata 

of pblic and p~vatg: sudoor 

the coastall mas. me mxt step in 

these relatiomhips is to cmpletePy 

iden* the private resourn bm, the goal of this 

inventory project. 

Outdoor reerea~oa &w saggesrts lltDillf dhe p111?wac;b: 

of outdoor remadon ties depeads m a 

populaLiorr souvw (CorbeU armd O&TS 1988). 

mewfore, a p~ihve camlation ktvven pqd&on 

supplielrs shod e~st a~ every level 

papula~cm is ma= dder1y altrre~ shs 

of lafedor 1986; Co&U anrd 

&$ion 1986). Tbwljh 

tbese studies wen: not spedc for type of outdoof 

remation, logic sumests bat the= should be sow 

vdation in the type of outdoor rec~ation 

oppo-ties enjoyed by the elderly. 
CordeB and others (1989) 

remation is more likely t 

water as well, Counties with more water area, 

lakes, river des, or shore& should have more 

private outdoor remation oppomnities. A positive 

correlation for number of c 

==ation rmppliefs with water area and water 

related v&ables would then be expected. 

For other demogramc, economic and land use 

variabh (Tables 2-4) ere are few theoretical 

amp~om or previous studies to indicate possible 

reiatiomws. The NCRIP data provides an 

explomto~ look into the relative presence or 

absence of these variables compared with 

commercial outdoor =creation supply. 

By identifying specific relationships between these 

variables and commercial outdoor recreation supply, 

and managers can compare 

as to achieve some level of 

predictability for the presence of the qualities 

mcessary to suppart commercial outdoor recrealoion. 

Specific resourct: use values can be more effectively 

ssed particularly in ~gards to their context. 

Methodology 

A comprehemive discussion of the methods of data 

collection used by NCRIP is included in these 

proceedin@ (Schretter 1991). A comprehemive 

survey of national directories, Chambers of 

erce, professional and trade listings was made 

to idenfcify outdoor recreation sites and 

facilities. a were coLlected they were 

summarized by county into facility type and 

entered into a data base, 

different sources, and 

. For this islvesegation, o* 

thb: CPi8tf"ibUtlim of cormmere 

opened facilijles (such as m 

cwehoab, stablw, go@ co 

cdss) hcltud&. llhe word suppGe"is used to 

re&r to & fxuties, sgiavices d sites beawe 

some faaq WS, i,e, chartesboats do not irxlude 

Id or water mas. 

Commercial outdoor recreation supply is presented 

in two ways. First, the spatial dis~bution of the 

aggregate number of sites is made based on the 

density of sites at the county level. Second, at the 

county level, the aggfegate and individual site types 

are comlated with the socioeconomic variables 

using canonicd correlation and individual 

repssions. Canonical conrelation was selected due 

to the large number of variables and site types, and 

the clustering of the site types. A SAS proem at 

the University of Georgia mainframe computer 

generated the canonical correlations. 

Individual regessions were calculated to indicate 

the unweighted individual relationshp between each 

variable and each of the five most numerous site 

types and the aggregate total of all commercial site 

types. Beta was used to indicate the direction of 

the correlation. Data were analyzed by aggregating 

counties at the nationd, regional, and state levels 

using dBase Stats from Ashton-Tate. 

halysis of data in the Southeast is significandy 

distorted by the presence of Florida in the data 

base. Twenty-six percent (4818 of 18,271 sites) of 

all coastal commercial outdoor recreasion sites 

nationwide are in Florida. This represents over 63 

percent of the 7,557 sites in the Southeast, This 

cannot be accounted for solely by the fact that the 

entire state of Florida is included in this inventory 

because most of these suppliers are located in the 

southern tip of Horida. Six counties of southem 

Florida represent over 2500 commercial outdoor 

recreation suppliers. For this reason Florida is 

considered separately from the other states (North 

Cmlina through Texas). 

Spatial Distrirbution 

The dis~bration of cornmereid o~rdom recreation 

supplie~ i~ tfjie soar&east &&rs from the na~oad 

&stribu~on (Table 1). OutsicIIe of Ho~da tkre aue 

fewer suppGers pr county &an within Horida. 

Across all regions, hcluding the Southeast, a 

relafive few counties with a heavy concenbration of 

commereial outdoor recreation suppliers drive up 

the average. Differences within the region at the 

state level are obscured by Florida data. 
Figolre 1 illwtrates the bi-modality of the 

diskbution of commercial outdoor recreation 

suppliers by county in the southeast and Florida. 

Nearly one quarter (37 of 150) of the southewtern 

codes contain five or fewer suppliem, one sixth 

of tkae counties (25) contain over 100 sites. The 

numkr of suppliers per counq rmges &om zero to 

458 in the southeast. Commercial outdoor 

recreation supply "ppem to be predominantly an all 

or nothing situation. 

A look at the number of commercial outdoor 

remation suppliers per county reveals some 

cts of commercial outdoor rec~ation 

supply. The counties with the greatest number of 

commerdd outdoor recreation suppliers a. located 

in or an: adjacent to (I) counties with large 

populations, andlor (2) counties with specific 

outdoor recreation atations in the form of a 

National Park or National Forest, or (3) an area 

with a tradition of outdoor remation (Myrtle 

Beach), or (4) an area developed spcifically for 

outdoor recreation (Nilton Head or Jekyll Islmd), 

Map 1 shows the aggregate (all types) number of 

commerGial outdoor recreation suppliers per county 

in the Soutlheast, 

In North Carolina the counties with the most 

commercial outdoor recreation suppliers (Carteret, 

120 and Dm, 1 10) axe adjacent to The Outer 

Banks National Seashore and contaiPl a National 

Forest (Croatan). A lesser concentration of number 

of suppliers are within the counties adjacent to and 

including the largest population center in the North 

Carolina coastal zone, Wg~ngton (New Hanover, 

70 and Bmmwick, 66). In South Carolina this 

pattern holds as well for Myrtle Beach (Horry, 

105), Hilton Head (Beaufort, 90), and Charleston 

(86). 

Georgia presents an anomaly of sorts, in that 

Cumbedand Island, a major outdoor recreation 

resource, is located in Carnden County (10) which 

has few commercial outdoor recreation suppries. 

The rermoteness of Cumbedand Island from hotels, 

major highways and other elements of developed 

infrttstructuz, and the primitive nature of its 

experience illustrittes that a significant public 

natural area alone is not sufficient to encourage the 

presence of commercial outdoor recreation 

suppGers. The Savannah area (Chatham County, 

49) contaiw the second highest total of suppliers in 

Georgia. Glynn County (69) contains the most and 

contains areas developed specifically for coastal 

outdoor recreation. 

From Alabama along the Gdf coast to Texas the 

spatial distribution of commercial outdoor recreation 

suplplkts shows the sme trend. The most populous 

counties me the best supplied or are adjacent to 

well supplied counties. Houston (Harris County, 

TX), Greater New Orleans, and Mobile Bay, 

Alabama all represent centers of commercial 

outdoor recreation sites in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The situation in Florida is unique, both in terns of 

representation and analysis. Because of proximity 

to the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, the entire state of 

Florida is considered for inclusion in this study. As 

previously stated, over 60 percent of the identified 

commercial outdoor recreation suppliers in the 

Southeastern coastal zone are located in Florida. 

More than 2500 commercial outdoor recreation 

suppliers are located in counties extending around 

the tip of Florida from Pah Beach to Tmpa Bay. 

This area is truly coastal in its enviroment and 

contains more commercid outdoor recreation 

suppliers than any other distinct area in the coastal 

nation. 

Along both coasts, South Rorida has developed an 

effective tourism infrastructure in the form of 

hotels, highways, and significant public set asides 

for preservation and recreation (i.e. Everglades 

National Park), Other land uses exist along side 

outdoor recreation in these counties. Rapid 

population growth, agriculture, and related 

economic development have made Florida an object 

of intense interest because of the interaction of 

socioeconomic and natural forces in the coastal 

areas, 

Commercial Outdoor Recreation Supply and 

Sociometric Variables 

NGRIP data reveals both regional differences over 

all commercial outdoor recreation facility types, and 

differences in the distribution of specific site types 

among tbe regions. The depth of these differences 

can be further investigated by comp&g the 

disb.ibution of sites to land use, economic and 

demographic variables. These variables are listed 

along with correlations with the six most numerous 
supplier types and total suppliers in Tables 2-4 for 

the nation, region and Florida. 

Due to the fact that the data are county based, and 

that variables an: dvided into &~ctypes, the 

dishbution of sites tends to cluster more than to 

spread into linear form. Canonical Cornlation 

tecmque was selected to investigate which groups 

of variables have more powerful relatiomkps with 

outdoor recreation suppliers. Indjvidual regressions 

between total commercial outdoor rematicm 

faGilities by county and specific variables were 

computed to find the significant individual 

correlates. 

Canonical Correlation 

Initial canonical analysis included a large number of 

variables in each goup. Due to proefrmming 

limitations the nationat database was the only one 

used in our canoaicd comlation. The 

interpretdon of these statistim is open to a large 

amount of ambiguity so is used here only to note 

the strength of the correlaljion between groups of 

variables. men the list of facility types ad the 

per county total of cornmerciaf outdoor recreation 

sites were compared to the cluster of land use 

v~ables a correlation of ,694 was obtained, The 

canonical correlation between sites and demogaphic 

variables was a much swonger .936. Only a few 

economic variables correlate with commercial 

outdoor recreation supply though the canonical 

correlation was quite high at .937. 

From this analysis there appears to be a greater 

relationship between economic and population 

factors with the numbex of commercial outdoor 

recreation suppliem than for patterns of land use. It 

is also possible that significant regional, state, or 

comty level relationships between the variables and 

commerGial outdoor =mation suppliers are lost by 

aggregating the data into a national whole. 

Repssion Analysis 

An in-depa look at individual repssions between 

socioeconomic variables and supply data reveals 

that regional &&rences are lost by a 

the national level. Strong refationships in one 

region may be off-set by weaker, non-eetent, or 

relatiom~ps of opposite direction in other regions 

(Tables 2-4). In gene& the data for E(orida sbws 

the strongest comlatioais of number of mwGem 

with land use and s0Cioe~o~)ntic v&ables. r 

states were mazed but the small nmkr of 

counties in most of hm prevented refiabk 

statisticat ~erence. Comlariom amss rbe rest of 

rhe Sou&ast viiere gelneraULy we&er thm for the 

FTo~da data. 

Land Use Variable Analysis 

Nationdy, and for tfx: rest of the SoutfKast, 

cornlatiom wen: generally weak between waterrelated vafiables and number of commercial outdoor 

recreation suppliers. The only water based 

variables available at time of mdysis were total 

amount of water area and petcent of wetland. 

Wetlaads were not a consistent cotrelate of 

remation supply in the Southewt or natimwide. 

Several counties in South Florida made, Mom, 

and Collier) have both high numbers of marhas and 

cha;rte&oats, sad also helude large areas of tfre 

Everglades (?.&It= 4). 

responsible for some of the 

wetlands. Mom County 

podon of the Everglades a9d ghe Florida Keys, 

where the majority of the outdoor nemation 

suppGers are actually located. Also in Florida, 

water ma showed some conelation with water 

based facilities like marinas and charter boats, and 

some wgative conrelation with campgroumis. 

The total mount of land area in each county did 

not appear to be correlated with tbe number of 

commercial outdoor =mation supptiers. At the 

natiod level total area had a moderate correlation 

for only one facility type, campgrouMis (m.54, 

Table 2). In Elorid 

somewhat stroner 

the rest of the Southeast. Percent of forest in the 

cow war negatively correked with several 

supplier types in Florida (Table 4). With the 

role of forests in re 

remation this finding w-@ fuzibr study, 

particulariy in light of recent tremts of siwcant 

loss of forest amage in Florida (Hubbard 1990). 

This trend was not evident in other areas of the 

southeast. 

Economic Variable Analysis 
Of ~e rlhrete ~CC)L~O~G v~albles avdable for chiis 

malysis onfy &e percent of people below povew 

level hcome consistently ~oaelated (negaevely) at 

the naGond, re@on;al md Flio~da levels, l?ls the 

tables in&cake (he= seem to be fewer pople LirJing 

in poverly when: eomrnercial out-door ~crea~on 

suppliels m mo= mmerous. In HofiiPa &re is 

statiLsticd si@ficance in the femssion computed 

for dl five major suppEer lypes aad Ihe total of dl 

suppfier tyaes with pverly level pafile 4). 

Dernogalphe V~able Analysis 

Population is Ihe most coasistently md strongly 

comlated variable to number of co 

outdoor recreation suppliers. At the national level 

comlations were found for popula~on with golf 

courses and the total of all facilities. Other 

demograp~c variables; percent elderly, prcr=nt 

white, total employed peasons and those employed 

in semi= hdustries dl showed a sm& but 

sta~sGcdly si@ficmt level of comla~on wib 

population. 

Naeoinwide, pop\ilation demity comlated less wieh 

numkr of suppliers &aa &d told populahon, Ow 

possible explana~on of this is that gopulatJon 

density may encourage co 

 creation oppofidry up to a eerzt* level past 

which supply falls off drama~cdy. Ln coun~es &at 

include lxge cides, speifie&y Boston, 

Phladelpka, md New Yo& CiQ, thefe is far less 

outdoor recreation opporhm~ty ban in the 

sumom&ng counties. New Orleasls and Mobile 

Bay both show a tendency for this mnd in lthe 

Souhast region. Anorher possibiGty is that lage 

populations may ekt in geograpkdy large 

couh~es reducing population density but leaving 

enough lmd and water area available for Ihe 

development of larger numbers of 

outdom recrearion suppGers. Further study is 

ideated, particularly sin= total area did not 

correlate highly with number of sumGers. 

Other demographic vdables showed mixed 

rela~onsfrips. The perwnt of elderly correlated 

positively with most faciliry types in the Florida 

data. ff the elderly participate less in outdoor 

recreation, as predicted by =creation theory, then at 

best a weak ~latioasEp would be predicted in 

Flort:da because of its nspuration as a rewment 

des~na~oe. aemly there a otber factors at we, 

Possibly, the influx of touttists are not adequately 

ac~ountetB for, or e8;te of outdwr recrestion 

popular with rZle el&rly arr: not hduded wih h 

scop of chjs sttady. h tbe Southeast atld at tBe: 

tna~od level hre maned to be litale: mmjation of 

numkr of suppliers %via llhe percent of elderlly. 

Rae showed ody a weak: ~elatiomhip tirilth 

reial outdoor rr=ma~on suppliers, as ttK 

of white people per cow eomlated only 

weay at all levels. The comlations, wbile small, 

appeared in relation to some fw*v Hdda 

h&cating a weak trend for more commercial 

outdoor ~crearion suppliers when a kger 

pescentage of the county papulation is white. 

cant hwg of the NCW &ta is &at the 

n of econo~c, land use, and derno~wc 

variables with 

suppfiers wa an for tbe 

remainder of the coastal Southeast or the coastal 

nar;jlon as a whole. It is possible fiat 

comlarions we= mo~e pwerfiul bcause outdoor 

 creation is a mo~ signiiGcant part of ahe 

economics and Efesbyle of elb.e stae, Because of tlhe 

smsztl number of coastal coutl~es in some states, a 

state by stae sb~~cal eompGson is &Bcdt. 

Ro~da represents a tesbg pud for liltae 

interxtion of outdoor recpea~on kt)in o 

competilag demm& md en~onmentd 

because all of its 67 courltties we= incl 

study area aad because outdoor recreation plays a 

sig~cant role h that state's economic and Gfmtylg: 

pattern. Momat;ion gathered in nod& has 

implications for ohr cowlatl areas evdenchg 

rapid growth d development. A unJque 

oppor'tunity eists to exgatlti the howledge base 

with fuxther explom~oo hto Eilobida's outdoor 

=creation base and its e 

Both the spatial distribution and repssion anatysis 

of tbe number of eomme~ial outdoor aecreatiotll 

suppliers indicate the hportance of a marby 

popdation center for the support of comanercial 

supply equation. This study was unabge to 
hvestigate these dinnemions. Region&, state, and 

comty diffenences reflect a uniqde combination of 

the total foms Muencing the nmber of 

rcial outdoor remation suppiiers at each 

level. Every commhty har; i& own natd 

capabaties, &mo$rqhics, land use 

on d tre&, and economic climate 

the role of outdoor 

community looks into 

the full spem of Muences on outdoor 

remation and recognizes the im 

resource character and quality in their community. 

McLaughlira, W. 1990. L g Wifdemess to Rural 

Revitalization in America's &during 

Wilderness, D, W. Lime, EM. University of 

Mnn. St. Paul, Ec/fn, 

Natlonal O~eanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), 1987, National %marine Data 

Atlas #2: Land Use Characteristi=. 

Nationaf Oce~c and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOU). 1988. National Btuarine Data 

Atlas #4: Public Recreation Facilities in 

Coastal Areas. 

Black, William R. 1990. Global Warming: Impacts 

on the Transportation Infra-Structm. 

Transportation Research News, 150, Sept.- 

Oct. 

Bolgiano, Chris. 19.90. Private Forests: The 

Nobody Knows, American Forests, MayJune, 

Clauson, M.; Kmtsch, J.L. 1%6. Economics of 

Outdoor Recreation, Baltimore. Johns 

Hopkins. 

Cordell, H.K. ; Bergstrom, J.; Hartmann, L. ; English, 

D. 1989. An Analysis of the Outdoor 

Recreation and Wilderness Situation in the 

United States: 1989-2040, USDA Forest 

Service, GTR-RM-189. 

Ducsik, Dennis W. 1974. Shoreline for the Public. 

M.I.T. Press, Cambridge. 

Forest Farmer. March, 1991. , 

Hubbard, James E, 1990. Private Non-Industrid 

Forests, American Forests, November. 

Jones, Michael A.; Self, D.R. 1991. Re~reatiod 

Incentives in the Adoption of a Forest 

ment Program by Nonate Lmdowners: Mdeting 

the Treasu~ Forest Pro 

In Prwmxbe: Southeastern Recreation 

Research Conferen=, Volume 12, USDA 

forest Se~ce, GTR-SE-67. 

National Oceanic and Amospheric Administration 

(NOAA). 1990. 50 Years of Population 

Change along the Nation's Coasts: 1960- 

2010. 

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Comission. 

1962. Reports of the Outdoor Recreation 

Resources Review Commission. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Gove 

Printing Office. (A total of 24 reports on 

various aspects of outdoor recreation.) 

Powers, Thomas M. 1991. Wildland Preservation 

and the Economy of Utah. Southern Utah 

Wildemess Alliance, Newsletter. 

President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. 

1986. Working Papers. 

President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. 

1987. President's Commission on 

Americans Outdoors: the legacy, the 

challenge. Wasfiington, DC: Island Press, 

Inc. 426 pp. 

Schretter, Teresa. 1991. Supply Inventory Data 

Collection Methaiology: An Analysis of 

Techniques Used in the National Coastal 

Recreation Inventory Project. Unpublished 

presentation made at Southeastern 

Recreation Research Conference, February 

14-15, 1991. 

Task Force on Outdoor Recreation. 1988. Outdoor 

Recreation in a Nation of Communities: 

Action Plan For Atnericans Outdoors. 
ent of Agriedture, Forest Service. 

1977. Outdoor Recreation: Advances in the 

Application of konomics. General 

TecMcal Report WO-2. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1986. 1982-83: 

Nationwide Recreation Survey. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Govement 

Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of tfte 

Census. 1986. 1987 Population &timates 

Dataset. 

SUPPLIERS SOUTHEF1S TERN 

UNITED S TRTES 

81 to 467 

m 61 to 88 

Bi#l 41 to 68 

BB 21 to 48 

O to 28 

Figure 1. mustrates the bi-modality of the distribution of commercial outdoor recreation suppliers by county in 

the southeast and Florida. 
Tables 

Table 1, Summary Statistics of Commezial Outdoor Remtation Suppfiers in the Southeast and Nation 

Counties with Counties with 

Mean Median fewer-6 morethan100 

Nation 

N=328 

Southeast 

N=83 

Florida 

N=67 

Source: NCRIP 1991. 

Table 2. Regression Figures for Facility Type and Socioeconomic Variables National Coastal Counties, N=328 

Golf Charter Total 

Variables Marinas Campgrounds Courses Boats Stables Facility 

% Agricltr -. 17 -.13* 

% Forest -. 16 -. 17 -. 14 

% Urban -.21 .I5 

% Wetland .23 -.20 

Land Area -54 .33 .I8 .21 .37 

Water Area .18 .22 .31 .22 

Population -28 .23 .58 .33 .42 .55 

Density .13* 

% Elderly .32 .37 .37 .25 -21 .39 

% TWhite .29 .32 .34 .25 .35 .39 

Service Ind. .19 .I5 .48 .28 .33 .45 

Employed -21 .18 .52 .30 .37 .49 

WH Income .16 -. 14* .20 .40 -16 

% Poverty -.30 -.30 -. 18 -.41 -.30 

Unemploy -.20 -.20 -.26 -. 18 

* p<.05, otherwise p<.Ol. 

Source:NCRIP 1991. 
T&le 3. Repssion Figures for Facility Type And Socioeeonomi~ Vkabl~ Southeast Without Rod& W3 

Golf Gh.arter Total 

96 ArpiGltr 

9% Forest 

96 Urban .37 

96 Wetland 

Lad Area 

Water Area .30 

Population .36 

Density .29 

% aderly .27 

% White .33 

Service Empl .38 

Employed .33 

JdH Inc 

% Poverty -.3 1 -.27 -.27 

Unernploy -23 * 

* pe,05, otherwise p<.01. 

Source: NCRIP 1991. 

Table 4. Regression Figures for Facility Type And Socioeconomic Variables Florida, N=67 

Golf Charter Total 

Variables Marinas Campgrounds Courses Boats Stables Facility 

% Agricultr 

% Forest -.47 -.53 -SO -.31 -32 

% Urban .47 .42 .40 .41 

% Wetland .57 .61 .56 

Land Area .38 .50 .50 .35 .48 '51 

Water Area .54 -.59 .35 .59 .31 .62 

Population .67 .67 .42 -78 -67 

Density .59 .50 -33 .SO .52 

% Eilderly .40 .53 .46 .36 .45 

% White .38 .49 .39 .38 .45 

Service Empl -62 .63 .39 .73 .63 

Employed .63 .64 .40 -74 .63 

HH Inc .47 .5 1 .36 .5 1 .73 

% Poverty -.54 -.45 -.56 -.40 -.51 -.57 

Uaemploy -.3 1 

Source: NCRIP 1991. 
Directions in Modeling of Recreation 

and Tourism Behavior 

Daniel J. Styas' 

Atrseact. Mdlixng of ==&ion d tourism hhavior has becn 

directed primarily by apptid problems. This paper reviews the 

changhg naarc of the =nation nt d policy 

kg the shift toward a onsumer otientation. 

to the chhnl~ing applied questions, eight dircctions in 

the inodGling of kiisure behavior are discusmi. Mote processorithtd models d efforts to intcgrarc disciplinary pmpectives 

rue calltci for. 

The pups of this paper is to review trends in 

behviod mocteling in recreation and tourism and 

to suggest future directiom. Trends in recreation 

and tou*m mdeling are ir-Ben~fied prlrnsuily as 

respooses to chaoging management and policy 

quesrions. Recreation and tourism are very applied 

gel& md both resewch ad modehg in these 

Gelds, wMle lofien viewed as tkeoretical, are 

primdy dlisected by tht: apspkd ques~om. 

Research, hcluding formal meling, influences the 

management and policy agenda, but these feedbad 

the role of models as 

paraQips than as tools for 

solving particular problems. 

W pqr foeurn attention on the chmgitag 

management and policy agenda, dong with the 

implications of these changes for researchers in 

geaed, ardl mdelers more specificfly. Managers 

and sesewehers fa inmixsingliy complex problems, 

rewirrioig systematic 

and sbusture efforts to figd solatiom. While 

models are more often seen as tools for simplifykg 

ir vdue will inmasingly be as tools 

A Brief Wstoriicsl Pers 

Much of the quantitative modieling in recreation 

during the 1960's and 70's was cded out in 

' Professor, Deparbment of Park and Recreation 

Resowces, MGhigan State University , 13 1 Natural 

Bldg. East Wing, MI. 48824-1222. 

conjunction with nationat, state, and regional 

g efforts (e.8. ORRRC 1962, Cicchetti 1973, 

Adams and others 1973). Most of these models 

were directed at esbating or fo~casthg 

remationdl use. During the 1970'~~ the travel cost 

method aaracted many econodsls to both 

methodological and appilied problems in reereaeon 

(Hetcher and o&ers 1990). Fmd mdeling in 

=creation kcme increashgly dminated by 

economic modeEng approaches, with standard 

economic assumptions prominent in model 

specikation decisions. These assumptions for 

example encouraged nodinear spcifications, and 

the inclusion of v&ables that would capture income 

rand substitution effects. In Rspme to policy 

questions, rlhe purposes of these demand models 

shifted more toward valuation questions than strictly 

behavioral oms (Lmger and Haugfit 1991). 

Management md poficy ques~om graduallly shjifted 

from $he objecGve of meetkg demand in the 1960's 

to valuabon md e ng capacity problems during 

rbe 19'70's. me approach, to both vizluation and 

cming caysaccity was to simplify the pr&lems via 

fomd or ihllfomal models (some would ague 

sversimpllfy). Economists tacHed a& valuation 

ques~on while other social scientis~, principallly 

sociolo@sts and geographers, sru&ed cwing 

capacity (Gracefe and others 1984). 

Valuation problems were addressed almost entirely 

within a modeKng ework md almost 

exdusively by economists. ModeLirag played a more 

mixlest role in studying carrying cqacity problems, 

in spite of several good modeling approaches to the 

probkm. Among these are a mmkr of models that 

are based in opmtions resexch tee~ques 

including sever& simulation models (e.g. Shechter 

and Lucas 1978, Stynes 1978). Unfortunately, 

mdeling expertise came lwly from outside the 

field and what hpact modelem had in he carrying 

capacity area quicHy dissipated as outside interest 

in rec~ation problems wmed or shifted to 

vduation. This was unfortunate as the cwing 

capacity topic offered in many ways an ideal testing 

ground both for the application of models to 

complex management questions and for the 

integration of disciplinary perspectives on a 

problem. 
ition to the 1990,s 

1980's may be chmacterized as a &wition 

period &meen wfiat we evrienced in the 1960- 

"I*s d what we Mli&t expect in h 1990's. To 

some extent the 19803 sp~sented a sewat from 

the quantitative approaches of the late 1960% sd 

early 70's. Sod& psycholo@sts, who 'iilre 

socisto@sts do not have a swong model-ing wadition, 

ros ro clemly domhate recreation researchem both 

in mmbers and in detemidg the recreation 

research agenda A sirnilar slhik may be seen in 

to~sm, with social-psychologiicat orientations 

dominahg earlier geogapbic and economic ones. 

Mfore impoflantly, duhg the 19802, the perception 

of alpplied problems wiw remation was 

&matically reconfigured &om a =source 

management focus 80 a focus on the consumer d 

his or kr expenience. ms chmge in pperspctive 

has, of course, much ew1ler roots among 

researchers, but not mt3 rhe 1980's diid it begin to 

&o influem mmagement p~losophy, and hence 

to $e@ to m&d apnGec8 ~serarch, and in turn 

modeping, By the 19809s, a comumerl maske~ng 

ode~(iarion ww atready strong in tou~sm research. 

me eonvergenes: of tou~sm and =creation =search 

dukg the 1980's therefore served to support and 

g consumer orientation wimn 

remarion. 

change in orientation presented new problems 

r maoagers, policy make^^, ~semhers and 

modelers. Each of these pups have struggled 

houghout the 1980's to m&e the necessary 

adjusments. Changes in mmagement and policy 

Gtives have wide mag hpEcations. It is 

to recoeze, however, that chmges in 

me a ~sponse to the changing 

Use other fields, modeling in 

ly played a major role in guiding 

the research agenda itself. 

bns in Modeling of kbure Behavior 

Ei@t diPrsctions in modeling may be identified. All 

of these may be seen as responses by modelers to 

the applied questions being asked. Many of these 

changes in mdehg ane already well underway, 

while others are just be 

11, A focus an individuals; and Cadivfdual 

differences--Grater anention to the needs and 

behavior of brrdjrtiiduais has required more 

desegregate models &at better capture behavioral 

processes at the level of Lndividud decisiom&ers. 

Such models are generally seen as providing richer 

explanations of behavior and shed light on 

dlifferences in behavior at the individud or, more 

redisticay, mdet segment level. Trip generation 

and trip disbibution models developed in the late 

f 960% and tfiroughut the 19703 (e.g. Ellis and 

van Doren 1966, Gesario 1973, Cicchetrti 1973) 

largely described aggregate behavior or the behavior 

of an average consumer. During the 19805s, these 

models becme increasingly irrelevant to many 

(although, not dl) of the management and policy 

questions being asked. =oughout the 1980's we 

have seen a shift: to desegregate versions of these 

models using dliscsete choice methods such as the 

multtinominal logit model (Stynes and Peteson 

1984). mese models and selated multi-altribute 

decompositiond tecmques (Louviese 1988) have 

been extended to a broader rmge of leiswe choices, 

wkle also being used extemively to study consumer 

preferences for Imdscages (Scbroeder 1991) aPnd 

reccrea~on experiences more generally (Louviere and 

Tirnmematls 1990). The trend toward desegregate 

mdels in ~c~atJion follows shilas s~Els in 

geography, economics, mukethg, and 

transpoflation during the 1970's. 

2. Emphasis on quallity as much as quantity--In 

response to consumer interest in quality and the 

specialization of both produce and markets, 

managers are increashgly concerned with quality. 

Existing models have not adquately dealt with the 

quality dimensions of recreation and travel products 

and services, This is partly due to the ErniQtions of 

the predominantly aggregate approaches to date. 

Desegregate models can better capture quality 

dimensions, particularly those that may vary across 

individuals or recreation& subgroups. Incorporating 

quality in quantitative models will require better 

measures of recreation quality. We qualitative 

metbods will be: helpful in developing these 

measures, we need to dispel the mistaken notion 

that quantitative approaches c 

by developing improved (quantitative) measures of 

quality and incorporating these measures in 

behavioral models. Modelers have typically defined 

quality as an attribute of a site or something 

i&rent in the recreation experience. In some cases 
qof aq.l assaldurm 03 papam aaz xotnt?yq uoy1lr;man 

JO sl=rpour tq salqtspzn uogamojq flqQpads 

JO slCrefi a)audozd& pm (~861 sass pm mods) 

jo ansrraur panmdur;r %iy@nb 93th sv 

'($86~ =qo p sawS~ to661 aosrapad: pm sadis 

*%*a) 1~ gwod! wog swtq pm swa1qord an 

aaql q.arlm~ oi 1Cp-d paua wq aiap oi 

ropqaq noF)lear3ar 30 imqwqap e s~! uofi~wojut 

JO is~apur isopq .sqqlr;~~ uogt2wojuf 

JO uogaxaplsaocr D* arow ap roFAgqq uop~ma 

JO qapouu anozdy oa sLa~ ]saS8ns (6~61 Lap8 

O~EWO~ jo m~ouofta aql pm 

@o&)au aoge39nmwoo " f~~fi~ 

3waqsaua masg mapl[ -rsygqaq uopaar~a~ yo 

q;spour q avd oj~ ind q o~ rnprua asayi Inq 

"lapw pop~qaq @saga uogzrwo~rrf gupjcPr?.:, 

N 'slapow igno q &EM 

sayl 03 pa~3q uaq 

mq aeit$aaNg q3maisar 8qmmug '(8861 sauhs) 

aopmp13 anpn xo %no?srrnsrd %opr!mo= ~gqnd 

'Bq~ahp~? 'aoglr;3npa jo as!@ a.y, a! aq %loo$ 

plama8~arrrur str aoqp?wop pm? aope3~wuro:, 

P Bwml A@ema;13q an? sa8r!myy: 

--slapour q la*Brnd@E saurnsura;, &pn)dg~) e9 

.lapour sw;rllsds re ap siymaq 

aopma JO maawaja ~uneatlp aq ssn3syp "jdmxa 

JOJ "1~1:) ranpa pa sadp~ -m;muAp o~ 

nopaw ~alilizarfjl mq dlaq p qapm uo~~~.y~ur.ls 

p 9;~rqmoJdcfr? sma~sds jo asn .a8mq:, 

30 qaprxr p s~saord ~3gqpaa~ %oiolre~pur 

31 $0 aovaggaapt q 

1Cq rnwaag aoux st 

qneasar saq~tnb 

a8uo1 aaqra pmwap saq 

saw pal ~arroqs *aptslno 

8qwa-1- aqt qp pap 03 

+qapom 1oriuo3 XIo1uanuf 

mql zaqlta slapow 8qnanb 30 asn aqi SF aldmxa 

a~dqs v .Swapow roj osp inq 'iuaura3amur 

XOJ Xpo iou say3~:ordde luaragfp spmurap 

nopear3ar no anp3adsrad a3puas v *Iana;il lo 

uog~a"a" 30 s~gspai3mq3 aq fa 

=was mq Jaqm pnp~d pnz~oi ma1 pm? 

'pa@ewis aq m:, jego hropanq ut! sr! uogewa 

jo 4ddns aqr ilr;aq uayo 'sama~adxa flp3npo~d 

q xaurnsrroa aqr jo alas ;syl qt~ Laienbapeuy 

pap qapom xoynqq uopa"3a 'a~dma lad 

'(~861 Aauoq~[) wau =pas qaql woq aAuap 

prl~ wspnoi pnr! uoglr;a~ar 30 siuawata pfiuassa ayl 

jo 6mw mdurfsraho 30 ao&y 03 slaIapc;>ur pasna3 

saq qapour asaq uo a3mgwa~o wq *uotiP:iaapo 

pnpold lr; knn oi paaj yq~. jo "%uf;lay~ur JO 

's3~woao3a 'LqdMoa8 "lag ~uaura8ounrm a3mosaz 

woq tc~pqd paModiLoq am ursy;mol pun! uorit2a:,ar 

q pasn qapH asplag saylo uuog paMouoq 

10 paidvplr; Xia8;1t!f~ uaaq ahgy Wspnoi pm uofigamar 

q q:,nasar $sow am "apw-spanpoad ustry8 

J;P~$P~JI saa!uas sp: IaABJp zs) rr~!)~ta~ms %ut$1~id~& *t) 

"(9961 Y3aaW 

pm UOSME~~ Aq paugap a~uapadxa uolpr@aDar ayl 

JO saf3ais rayto moj aq) JO s33adtx pa~~alas sr! RaM 

st? 3o;Alr;qaq ajfs-uo q~oq wick3 leg qapw atnba~ 

surajqod 1Cm~ .afiaq~led lama lo aopmma 

qjo md an? irty sawas anpm JO Supoddns 

jo sxap~nord pm %an raqo 'ramsuo:, aql 

3uawaljlamm JO saioJ: a% apnpg jsnw muapadxa 

Iaaw ro aoy~a~aig aqajo slapow prnt fSu~pua1srapun 

rn~ *smrnosar pxnjeu Bw3al0~d 313 ro ~uaurXofua 

loqs~n 8gwar3y ilr; pamp ST inauraSremur 

saw*" pa~nba ST a8pal~ouy y3ng ,smuapadxa 

rojysylr, ata-w 03 sl? Ilantt sa sa31nosar urslJno3 put! 

aogt2a3;~ ~apur papaau sf ~of~lrqaq ~awsuo;s 

jo 8"fpwslapun ay *ssa~ord ~09d~~03 

aqa tnoqlc! aogzrmo~uy raiiaq ~ro~ paaa r! s! sag 'p 

roj 8wpoJtd Xldvs snsaA am %ufat!mut 03 =our 

aq* pulf*saapullfIa.rao= ;ra)wq 08 p=N 'C 
Msdets of secrea~ora khavior &ost &ways 

incluk mmy sliuclurral assrsmp%ions, &at arrs all too 

often unspecaed aerd untested. mese ssmpGomts 

ase afien &~cd to &e ~pficabst-gr sf the model to 

a phcdar problem, 

A case in point is the deb&e over the 

approp~ateness of consumer sqlus a a memlrre 

of vdue (See iFor exirmplel ChawUe 1990). ms 

debak has generay centered aoutld fiehian 

eompnsarc;d demand fslncdons versus 

rmcornpnasated MmlbalGm moBe1s. Ta & mid 

rec~atjloa applieaGcitfn as ttllm out to be a ~vid 

tecmcsd maMer, Irr focushg on & md o&er 

lheoseticd issues, & debate has tomy fis~cf &e 

poht bat m;ulze(s for recrea~on m hndmentaLly 

&fkrent &m hse for Wber and most o&er 

m&et gods. It is Ithe smcture of rhte meet (d 

the purpose to w~ch values m put) sat dete 

wMch meam~s of vdue qpropriate, For 

out Ms memure usudly is he 

consluner surplus. W s%krsc&re of hber nndets 

(seded bi&) hpigiies susptuses for thkr aere zem, 

1998) assilba, much $igher suspluses to hber 

remation. The Forest Senrice also seeks maaket 

pllims for wc~a~on based on shiZas goods hat are 

provided in totally different markets, The flaw here 

is in assuming that economic (excbmge) vdue is 

somehow inberent in he good, takr &an a result 

of rk shructure of rhe market ia wEch it is 

excharrged ad he context h wgch a @ve value is 

used. Our models study at~butes 06 go& and 

sewices, okn to the neglect sf market struc&n:s 

md purposes. 

There are many other structural characteristics that 

have lmgely been ipoPed in economic models, e.g, 

public-pllivate mix, bput-output strumre of 

remation businesses, firm size, agglomemtion 

factsw, d competition. Unhrstanhg of rhe 

structural characteristics of recrealjlon markets is 

criticd to much of the present recreatjlon and eavel 

poficy agenda. The lack of study of smctural 

chara~teristi~s wih reereadon and. tourism is not 

limited to economics. In geographic models, failure 

to account for spatial structure has been 

acknowledgd (Fothe~ghm 1981). In sociology, 

concerns over the appropriate social group and 

decisiom-g unit are also struc 

(Cheek and Bureh 1976). 

comemed with 

choices, dong with the coasunner% role in 

producing =creation e 

commer considerable 

~ematioo and travel 

achieve a v~ety ofpersonal 

prception of qu&Q d ove 

 eref fore fiimy depe&ssit on hisr or her 

mo~va~ofls, w%ch CaZl vary over indi~dua 

coasiderable boBy sf 

have ody begun lo consider haow m&vaaoas may 

be cqrured lin beba~d m-b. To date, 

researchers hve comnmted priundy on 

idenefying and me g motivadom QTiasIey 

1986). ZMotivatio occaasional](y beea EI~ $0 

explain Merences h perce@on?s or sadsfacbm, 

ly been used &cdy to hpmve 

models of rrtcrea~on or mve1 we 

agJn have a, problem of nr&v 

anid modelers ophg h somewhat &~a re 

The above list is both a list of shopteomhgs of 

cumnt mode& of leisure behador aad aa Mation 

of where rndebg needs to go in order 

chanag management and po1lcy 

creates tpso critical problems for modelers. 

Fbt, the failure of tional msdels to most 

of ttrese variables into account rrrtpasents potential. 

sources of error in model predictions of use, 

demand, value and recreation behavior, more! 

generalfry. 'Ibis is the lesxer of tfie tw 

The more serious pmblem is ehat the 

models become not just 

ad policy questiom of the day. 

modehg, like ~semh moR genedy, must adapt 

to the changing problems. 

problems may be addre= 

current models, some questiw demd quite rrew 

and different approach=. 

Some efforts during fhe 1980's to bridge the gap 

are best seen as -don tools. Some of the most 

useful models during this period have been bd 

conceptual models and management Meworks 
&at have prosed some organization and direction 

aeptable cbange (LAC) have played si@&cmt 

roles in re-orien~g management pwosophy and 

resemh toward a strongr consumer onientation. 

1EBr~s to hegrate this work into more formal 

behaviorat m&bg FviU likely requinr: extensive 

reement and hpmvement of these conceprs and 

tds, both to mwt the qukmentr; of formal 

m&ls and to correct a number of shortcomhgs 

that modefing will tend to reveal. 

=mation behavior do not come close to capturing 

basic behavioral processes. Our models are best 

described as statistical, correlationall, or "black box" 

models. As long as they predict well, we use them. 

There are both prac~cal and tfieore.tical advmtages 

to more process-oriented mdels. Models that 

cqtm basic processes are often simpler and more 

stable over drne. mey provide greater insiglrls into 

behavior. In other sciences, modefing has played a 

much stronger role in directing inquiry into 

Eundmentat laws and processes. Indeed, the term 

"mtxlef" is okn synonymous wirth "theory" in these 

fields. Few modek of =creation behavior constitute 

very rich *ories. 

Over the past ten years psychologists in pdcular, 

cant contributions to our 

re behavior, while economists 

developed better appreciations 

of the shortcomings of their models. The 1990*s 

should be a period of intephg dis 

conMbudons to our understanhg o 

P>eh%vlor. Our bowledge base has grown 

greater use of models to help 

organiiz Bbe compje~des of leisure behavior. 

Two comphentary malieling thrusts are 

recommended. On the sple band, efforts must 

proceed to address the eight items noted above. A 

variety of aypproaches designed to capture commer 

ation, motivations, qudlity, market sb.ucture, 

amics, and pwsses at the level of designated 

market segments are needed. Imitially, these modls 

will likely need to address these issues one or two 

at a time, seehg to simplify what are quite 

complex mattem in the most appropriate ways. Most 

wiIl start by simply adapting existing models until it 

is clear that quite different models are called for. 

An essential complement to these modeling effort-s 

will be more c0mpn:bemive models that attempt to 

put all of this together, illustrating where each of 

helping to idedfy missing 

of coaceptual models will prove 

as useful to managers as to rr?semhem in 

orgezing our approaches to increasindy complex 

problems. 

mommendations ar~. directed at 

modelers in recreation and tourism. These involve 

broader concerns than the eight directions 

above. Fit, we should seek more 

process-oriented models. Most existing models of 

Secondy, models and modeling should adopt more 

integrative approaches. Recreation and tourism 

research tends to be corn 

disciplinq pesspectives 

models of recreat_ion behador lcenect this 

enta2imbon. Vimdly all formal mdels 

of recreation rand tsurdsm behavior originate from a 

handful of discipfines wilh seong rzi&Ihg 

tradjtions, pd Aly economics, geogaphy , and 

rrmspoaabon* Fomat models are seldom used in 

sociological or psychological investigations of 

leisure. The result is a considerable gulf between 

what research has found out about leisure and what 

subset of this knowledge has been &anslated into 

models of leisure behavior, We inmasingly find 

that the missing pieces of our models are social and 

psychological. By employhg a common 

mathematical language and providing orgaraizationaf 

structures, models are one of our best vehicles for 

integrating different disciplinary perspectives. We 

need more sociologists and psychologists with 

modeling orientations. 

The carrying capacity topic illusmtes the potential. 

Here we have a complex set of problems, both 

management anQ scientific ones, that require 

comprehensive solutions. Most of the major 

recreafiorn research themes and management 

cowems arise in the carrying capacity context. 

Each of the eight directio&short-comings of models 

of leisure behavior surface here. Characteristicafly, 

the geographic, economic, and some of the 

environmental aspects of carrying capacity have 

been modeled, but solutions to the problem rest 

heavily on perceptions, motivations, and 

management objectives, The social and 

psychological elements of the problem have not 
ken modeled. If we wish to demofl~ibrateftest the 

abitity of modeling approaches to help clarify and 

solve management problems, while also contributing 

to directing, organi~g, and integrating research, 

the cwing capacity topic would be a good place 

to start. Unforhulately, just when it seems most of 

the key pieces are available, managers and 

researehers have turned to a new set of problems, 

leads to the final recommendation. As an 

appued field, it is encoura@ng to see modeling of 

leisure behavior directd at applied problems. 

However, models and modeling approaches are far 

more useful as vehicles for directing and organikg 

research than for solving applied problems. 

Recreation and tourism researchers have seldom 

used models for other than fairly narrow applied 

es. Such limited use of modeling is largely 

a limited understanding of modeling within 

recreation and tourism. Most of the best models of 

leisure behavior have been developed outside the 

field and there are few researchers within the field 

wich strong modeling skills. Quantitative g of 

leisure researchers is skewed heavily toward 

statis~cs. 'Ibis gives leisure scientists some 

knowledge of estimation techniques, but few skills 

in the broader art and science of model specification 

and application. The range of functional forms and 

mathematical structures that leisure scientists are 

exposed to is limited largely to linear models and 

the normal disabution. While modelers from 

outside the field can help in building models to 

solve particular applied problems, the use of models 

as paradigms for a leisure science must come from 

within. This use of models will require substantive 

changes in the training of leisure scientists. 

, R.L.; Lewis, R.C.; Drake, B.H. 1973. An 

Economic Analysis. Appendix A of 

Outdoor Razeation; A Legacy for 

America. Washington D.C.: USDI, Bureau 

of Outdoor Remation. 

Cesario, F.J. 1973, A generalized recreation trip 

distribution model. J. of Regional Science 

13233-248. 

ChappeLle, D.E. 1990. Review of RPA valuation 

guidelines. Technical bulletin No. 9001. 

Wacjhington D.C. : herican Forestry 

Alliance. 

Cheek, N.W., Jr.; Burch, W.R. 1976. ?"he social 

orgdzation of leisure in hmm society. 

Cicchetti, C.J. 1973. Forecasting recreation in the 

United States. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. 

Clawson, M.; Knetsch, J.L. 1966. ]Economics of 

outdoor recreation. Baltimore, MF): Johns 

Hopkins University Press, 

Ellis, J.; van Doren, C. 1966. A comparative 

evaluation of gravity and systems theory 

models for statewide recreation flows. J. of 

Regional Science 657-70. 

Fesenmaier, D.R. 1990. Theoretical and 

methodologicd issues in behavioral 

modeling: Introductory comments. Leisure 

Sciences 12(11): 1-8. 

Fletcher, J.J.; Adarn~wicz, W.L.; GrAam-Tomasi, 

T. 1990. The travel cost model of 

recreation demand: Theoreticd and 

empirical issues. Leisure Sciences 

12(1):119-147. 

Fotheringham, A.S. 1981. Spatial structure and the 

parameters of spatial interaction models, 

Annals of the Assoc. of American 

Geographers 7 1 : 425-436, 

Graefe, A.R.; Vaske, J.J.; Kuss, F.R. 1984. Social 

canying capacity: An integration and 

synthesis of twenty years of research. 

Leisure Sciences. 6(4):395-43 1. 

Hirschleifer, J.; Riley, J.G. 1979. The analytics of 

unmrtainty and irrfomation: An expository 

survey. J, of Economic Literature 17: 1375- 

1421. 

Langer, L.; Haught, A. 1991. Trends in the role of 

valuation economics in public policy 

decisions. In Modeling Leisure Behavior 

and Values: Selected papers from the 1990 

National Outdoor Recreation Trends 

Symposium 111. eds. D.J., Stynes, B.L. 

Driver and G.L. Peterson. Fort Collins, 
CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mt. 

Forest and Raage Expmt. Sta. 

Louviere, J.J. 1988. Analyzing decision m 

metric conjoint analysis. Beveily Kills, CA: 

Sage. 

Louviere, J.; Thmemans, H. 1990. Stated 

preference and choice models applied to 

recreation research: A Review. Leisu~e 

Sciences 12(1): 9-32. 

Louviere, J.; Timmemans, H. 1991. Preference 

analysis, choice modeling and demand 

forecasting. In Modeling Leisure Behavior 

and Values: Selected papers £rom the 1990 

National Outdoor Recreation Trends 

Symposium III. eds. D. J., Stynes, B .L. 

Driver and G.L. Peterson. Fort COW, 

CO: USDA Fbrest Service, Rocky Mt. 

Forest and Range Fixpmt. Sta. 

Maboney, E.M. 1987. Marketing parks and 

recreation: The need for a new approach. 

Visions in Leisure and Business (Winter). 

Manhdo, M.; Tiemey, P. 1991. Influencing 

recreation choices: Developments in 

persuasion theory. In Modeling Leisure 

Behavior and Values: Selected papers from 

the 1990 National Outdoor Recreation 

Trends Symposium III. eds. D.J., Stynes, 

B .L. Driver and G.L. Peterson. Fort 

Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mt. Forest and Range Expmt. Sta. 

Pufitchell, A.A, (ed). 1978. The effect of information 

on consumer and market behavior. 

Chicago: American Marketing Assoc. 

Mtchell, R.C.; Carson, R.T. 1989. Using surveys to 

value public goods: The contingent 

valuation merhod. Wab@on, DC.: 

Resowws for the Future. 

Ourdwr Wecreario~z Resources Review Commission, 

1962. Prospective demand for outdoor 

fee~at.ion. Study Report 26. Wahinson 

D.C.: US Gov't Printing Office. 

Sehyer, R, 1986. M[btivation for parridpation Itn 

outdoor recreaccion and barriers to 

partidpadon -- A 

issues. A Litefature Review. Washingtoa, 

D.C.: hsident 's Commi&on on 

Ame~can's Outdoors. 

Sfiechter, M.; Lucas, R.C. 1978, Shuhtion of 

rematiod use for park and 

m ent. Baltimore, MD. 

H 

Schroeder, H.W. 1991. ctive and motivabioM 

parameters in models of perceived 

recreation site quaEty. In M&bg 

hisure Behavior and Values: Selected 

papers from the 1990 National Outdoor 

Remation Trends SympoGum III. eds, 

D.J., Stynes, B.L. Driver and G.L. 

Peterson. Fort Collins, GO: USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mt. Forest and Range 

Expmt. Sta 

Spotts, D.M.; Stynes, D.J. 1985. Measuring the 

public's familiarity with ~creatioo areas. 3. 

of Leisure Research 17: 253-265. 

Stokowski, P.A. 1990. Extending the social groups 

model: Social network analysis in 

recreation research, Leisue Sciences 

12(3):25 1-263. 

Stynes, D.J. 1978. Recreational carrying capacity 

and the management of dynamic systems. 

Proceedings Workshop on Computer 

Applicatiom in Recreation. Alexandria, 

VA: National Recreation and Park Assoc. 

Stynes, D.J. 1988. Public awateness of urban patks. 

Trends 25(3):40-43. 

Stynes, D.J.; Driver, B.L. 1991. Trendrr in the 

measurement of the beneficial 

comquences of leiswe. In M&tiag 

Leisure Behavior and Values: Selected 

papers from the 1990 National Outdwr 

Remation Treads Symposium III, eds. 

D.J., Stynes, B.L. f)niverdG.L. 

, CO: USDA Fom& 

Service, Rocky Mt. Fmst and Range 

Expmt. Sta. 

Stynes, D.J.; Peterson, G.L. 1984. A =view sf logit 

models with itPlplicatiofl~ for modehg 
=creation choice. J. of Leisuh~e Research 

1 6(4): 295-3 1 0, 

Stynes, D.J.; Peterson, G.L. 1990. Momatioa 

effects and biases in the travel cost 

method. In Swial science and Natud 

Resome Remation hlanagement ed. J. 

8. Boulder, CO: Wes~ew Press. 

Stynes, D.J.; Spotts, D.M.; Stru&, J.L. 1985. 

Relaxing assmptions of perfect 

Momation in park visiation models. 

Professional Geographer 37(1): 21-28. 

Tinsley, H.E.A. 1986. Motivatim to participate in 

=creation: Their idedcation and 

Review. 

Washiagton, D.C.: President's Com 

on American" Outdoors 

U.S. Depment of AgfiGt~l-, FOI&S~ Semce. 

1990. Resourn priehg and vduatim 

procedures for the recommended 1990 

RPA program. gton, D.C.: USM 

Forest Sencice. 
RaillTrails in South Carolina: 

Inventory and Prospect 

Robert L. J and James F. Sc&d, Jr.' 

patterns and investigating asswid rail-trail conversion projects. 

that problem by exmining Nielson's 

abdoned iaiW Inventoriw, tfK: South Carolina Rail Plans, 

urnen&, d mponses to a rail-trail 

qutstiomak sent by state wcreation planners to more than 580 

an 1,300 miles of railroad 

in South Cwfina, but only 18 

rails open for public use. 

Creating a bette~ rail-trail rryskm in Sou& Carolina will quire 

increased public awmms, greater local initiative, a statewide 

compr*ctremive trail plan, trails legislation, proactive railbanking, 

the combiniilg of rail-trail and utility corridor fumtions, and a 

iCment of atate govement resources. 

Key Words! rail-trails, hiking trails 

Iln its heyday dulsiaag the 1920s, Amerlica's railroad 

network included mose than 260,000 miles of tightof-way. Duriag tbe years since, however, trucking 

competi~on and other factors have led to the 

abandoment of more than 120,000 miles of track. 

Attrition continues at a rapid rate--currently more 

thati 3,000 miles per year--and by 2000 there may 

be only 100,000 road miles left. 

The huge supply of abandoned railroad right-of-way 

in America is of considerable interest to recreation 

planners and managers. Although most railbed 

taken out of service is eventually obliterated or 

badly fragmented, a great deal is suitable for 

recreational development. Abandoned railroad 

rights-of-way ane about 100 feet wide, occupy 

roughly tea acres to the mile, and offer gentle 

grades, scenic mctions, convenient locations, 

linkage hmtions, and other features that make them 

nearly ideal as traib for the enjopent of bicyclists, 

plearnue wakes, 

Associate Professor, Depment of Geography, 

University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, 

, Coronado National Forest, 

300 West Congress, Tucson, AZ 85701. 

Men, joggers, bkd-watchers, cross-counbry skiers, 

and horseback riders (RTC 1989). These same 

characteristics make them highly appealiag as 

, and Prildlife corridors 

(Grove 1990, Lirtle 1990). This paper focuses on 

the trail development option, which is commody 

temed rail-trail conversion. 

Rail-m eonverrsion is an idea whose time has 

come. The FniEial rail-wail projects developed in the 

1960s were weicomed as a wo&while hovation, 

but they we= too few and scattered to serve as 

much mo~ &an a hart.lrhger of things to come, In 

the 1970s, however, mounhng demand for public 

remation faclllities and penway co~dors provided 

a strong impetus to rail-trail development. As the 

1980s drew to a dose the nation's ne~orl5; of railtrails stood at more &an 3,000 miles of Erails in 34 

states, at least 250 additional projects were in the 

g or constmc~on stages, and 30 million 

hericans were aaslng rail-trails each year (Milk 

1990). Strong leadership and technical assistance 

was also being provided by the Rails-to-Tr~ls 

Conservancy (RISG), a 62,000-member non-profit 

orgdmtion of rd-&ddevelop^ and advwates 

that publishes a raewslettes, manuals, and 

guide books. 

Although the RTG md other rail-trail advocates 

have projected continued healthy growth in rail-trail 

development, it is &ely that growth will be very 

intedtzent in many locales and completely stifled 

in some. Rail-trail conversion is subject to a 

variety of constraints (RTC 1988). The railway 

abandonment process is complicated, and 

opportunities for local input may be very limited. 

In most places, ~sidents remain ill-informed about 

the advantages of rail-trail projects and community 

leaders lack strong incentives to consider rail-trail 

options before they are foreclosed or preempted. 

Numerous troubles arise from the fact that nearly 

all railbeds cross or impinge on private land, 

highways, utility corridors, and easements. 

Adjacent property owners often lay claim to derelict 

railbeds, and many local residents oppose trail 

projects for fear they will bring littering, 

trespassing, vandalism, and other problems into 

their neighborhaxis. Money difficulties are a 

perennial problem, since it can be fairly costly to 

acquire, build, and maintain rail-trails (RTC 1988). 

All things considered, it is no wonder that only 240 
abdomd railkds had been converted to raif-trails 

by 1990, 

hie distribution of rail-dls is very 

urreven, The main concentrations are in the 

Nohast and Mdwest (evcidlly Wisconsin), 

where projects of this type were being developed as 

edy as 1964. An interesting question is why railtrail pro+cts have been compatatively scarce in the 

South, even though the region has a large stock of 

abandoned railbed. Rail-Wls have been 

coaistntcted in a variety of southern locales, and 

more are in the works. Nevertheless, the South has 

lagged well behind other regions of the country, and 

morida is the only entire region with an 

active rails-to-trails . In view of these 

facts, studies investigating rail-trail development in 

the soulhern states could prove very helpful. 

South Carolina is one southern state whose rail-trail 

system has never been studied systematicdy. This 

paper reports the salient results of a study designed 

to inventory South Carobak abandoned railbeds, 

catalog existing or planned rail-trails, identify 

pcstential rail trail convefsions, and suggest means 

by which the state's rail-trail system could be 

expanded and improved (Schmid 1989). 

Methods 

There is no single, comprehensive source of 

i ation about the amount and location of South 

Caroliuna's abandoned &road rights-of-way. It was 

the~efo~ necessary to glean relevant data Erom 

Nielsen's (1 97 1, 1986) abandoned railbed 

inventories, the South Caralina Rail Plans (SCPSC 

1980, 19&4), and various publications of the U.S. 

portation (1977a, 1977b), the 

South bohak eatiqg, planned, and 

-trails also entailed u&g a v&ety of 

*ormation sourees. A key source of relevant data 

was a simple (two questim) rail-hl su 

sent by South Cmlina" Sp 

Recreation, arxf To~m to 

municipalities in 1989 (Scbid 1989). Recipients 

were &ed any exiskg trails 

located on ad beds, and to provide 

details as appropriate. They were also asked to 

provide Fnfomation about my abmdowd raillroad 

corridors that could be conveaed into trails, There 

were 106 responses, with 4 mentio~g existing 

trails and 29 offering information about potenlrial 

rail-trails. 

De Hart's (1984) book on South Carolina hiking 

trails provided useful infomation about some trails 

and trail segments. Supplementary infomation was 

obtained from many sources, includirng private 

foundation reports, Land and Water Conservation 

Fund project reports, the U.S. Forest Service, the 

National Park Service, the Nature Conservancy, the 

National Railway Historical Society, and various 

state agencies such as the Land Resources 

Commission, the State Forestry Commission, and 

the Heritage Trust. Each agency or organization 

associated with existing or planned rail-trails was 

sent a National Rails-to-Trails Inventory Survey. 

This is the same htrument used by the Rails-toTrails Conservancy to judge whether particular railtrails should be included in the RTC's annual guide, 

Results 

Abandoned Rights-of- Way 

South Carolina's railway system peaked at 3,784 

miles in the 1920s. Between 1923 and 1970, nearly 

one-fifth (721 miles) of this right-of-way was 

abandoned (Figure 1 ). An additional 262 miles 

were abandoned in the 1970s, and 347 more in the 

1980s. By 1989 abandoments totalled 1,330 

miles--more than one-third of peak length--and 

abandowd railbed could be found in 36 of the 

state's 44 counties. Much of this abandoned railbed 

lies in and near urban areas, where adrlitiond trails, 

greenways, and wildlife corridors are most needed, 

Accessibility is usually good because most railbeds 

parallel highways. 

Officially Designated Rail-Trails 

Despite the large supply of abandoned railbeds, 

ody five officially designated rail-trails, totalling 

just 18 miles, were open for public use in South 

Carolina by 1989 (Figure 2). These projects are not 

only in vvidely scattered parts of the state, but also 

reflect diffeznt managerial oppoaunities, concepts, 

and methods. 
The Cathedral Aide Trail--Sou& Carofimk oldest 

rd-trail is in the heart of Men. Dtibbed the 

Ga&e&d Aisle Trail, it is a three-mile long railtrail developed as part of a 25-mile network of 

trails that crisscrosses the 1,200 acre Hitchcock 

Woolis Preserve, a71e trail came into existence in 

1939 when a portion of the long-abmdomd (since 

1852) Chdeston-to-Hamburg line--once famed as 

the longest rajlroad line in the world, and the first 

in America to carry passengers--was converted to 

recreational use. The trail traverses a parcel of land 

that was once paxt of maon& Thomas 

Hitchcock's private hunting preserve, and then 

became a nature preserve managed by the 

Hitchcock Foundation. The Hitchcock Woods trail 

system is maintained with volunteer help and 

contt.ibutions, and is available for public use at no 

charge. 

The Swamp Fox Trail--In the 250,000-acre Francis 

Marion National Forest north of Chatleston, the 

Forest Service owns and main- the 21-mile 

Swap Fox Td. This trail has the semen&, 

totalling about six miles, that occupy grades of a 

300-mile logging railroad system built in the late 

1800s and abandoned in the 1920s. The elevated 

tramways, boardwallcs, and bridges of the Swamp 

Fox Trail have kept hikers high and dry in the 

swmpy terrain since the trail was opened to the 

public in 1970. Although located close to 

Chatleston, the trail is estimated to get only 1,000 

visitor days of use each year--apparently because it 

is not well publicized and can be unpleasant to use 

in the hot, muggy summer. Hurricane Hugo 

destroyed 70 percent or more of the forest's mature 

trees in September 1989, and the trail accordingly 

offers good vantage points &om which to view the 

results of the nation's single most dma&g storm 

(Janiskee 1990). 

The Blue Ridge Railroad Historical Trail--One of 

the most historically interesting and scenic trails in 

the southeastern U.S. is the Blue Ridge Raifroad 

Historical Trail, which is located in Oconee County 

near Walhda, The trail has a five-mile spent 

g at Stumphouse Mountain Tunnel Park 

and extending along an easement leased to the 

Pendleton District Historical and Remationd 

Commission, The converted railbed was once part 

of the Blue Ridge Railmad project, an ill-fated 

atrempt in the 1850s to penemte the Appalachiaos 

and gain access to box~Ue and the rich Interior 

region beyond B tcy atld the Civil War 

aborted tbe enteqrise, leaving a 1,617 

unfinished turn1 and miles of unused 

1974 Seneca" Boy Scout Troop 

convehg the old dM into a 

job was complete8 in 1976 as a 

project, and the trail is now listed on the Nationaf. 

Re@ster of Iliis Trails. The 

Stumphouse M 1 Park attract9 

thousan& of visitors each year, mmy of whom use 

the assocJated rail-trail and pbitive cmppo&. 

The Boy Scouts still maint* the trail as a civic 

undertug, and about 300 We the trail each year 

to earn a medal or patch. 

The West Ashley Bikeway-*The West Ashley 

Bikeway is an expensive ($140,000) two-mile railtrail constructed in 1983 by ~leston's 

Department of Parks with the help of Land and 

Water Conservation Fund monies. The project 

provided a major facelift for an abandoned, trashstrewn railbed obtained via a 20-year lease (at $1 

per yea) from the SC Bep ent of =&ways and 

Public Trmp~ation, which had acquired the rightof-way for an ewressway that was 

Although meant to be only the 

ambitious bikeways system for 

conceived in the 1970s, it has 

closed-to-motor-traffic bikew 

ices as a bar park and 

jogging, but it sees little 

use as a bikeway because it is sandwiched between 

two busy roads and there are no connecting 

bikepah. 

Big Trestle Park--In the late 1970s, the Seaboard 

Coast Line Railroad abandoned its Charleston-toSavannah line aMt donated the half-mile Broad 

River Trestle and 1.5 miles of contiguous right-ofway to Jasper County. By 1984 the County had 

converted the trestle into a fishing pier with the 

fight-of-way as an access route. Dubbed Big 

rtaking is one of the region's 

projec&. Unfmately, it is 

also among the least successful. The trestte has 

been destroyed by several 

of monists), and with the 

locals still come to this si 

County still grades the otd railbed twice a year and 

litter, but the future of the trail is 

. The South Carolina Depmint of 

mation, and Tourism (1990) did no2 
ioelude Big Trestle Park in its new d-Ms 

brochure. 

Rail-TMs Under hvelopment 

Four additional rail- were der development 

in South Carolina as of 1989, although one project 

been canceled. In 1988 North Augusta 

used municipal &cis and a state recreation grant to 

buy a 5-mile sement of abandoned right-of-way 

from the Norfo& Souttkem Railroad for $100,000. 

The corridor was needed for the city's water, sewer, 

and other utility lines, but the railbed will also be 

used as a rail-trail called the Greeneway. Named in 

honor of North Augusta mayor Thomas kne, the 

Greeneway will run beside the city's biggest park 

(Riverview Park) and within easy walking distance 

of most of the city's residents. It is slated for 

opening by 1992. 

In 1981, Charleston's Public Works Commission 

paid the Seaboani Coast be flfioad $1.75 

million for 10 miles of abandoned right-of-way 

stretching from Folly Road (SC 171) to Main Road 

on Johns Island. Although primarily acquired for 

sewer lines, this land will also serve as a greenway 

buffer and rail-trail known as the West Ashley 

Greenway, In 1989 the Charleston Parks 

ent budgeted $50,000 to start trail 

development. 

Marion is another plam where a local rail-trail is in 

the making. In 1986 Marion County purchased the 

Marion-to-Mans segrnent of the abandoned 

Mullim-to-Pee Dee railroad line. The portion that 

was within the city limits of Marion was deeded to 

the city, and by 1987 the city had converted this 

tive greenway in the hem of 

the community, Marion officials have since 

aqukd two more files of the line: for a fitaess 

trail, and are coflaborating with the County in the 

r&l-trail can be extended ei& miles 

of the Pee Dee fiver. 

The city of Cayee, located just aaom the Congaree 

River from Columbia, re~ently canmled plans for a 

parfr that would have incorporated a 1.25 mile 

railbed abandoned in 1975 after being used to haul 

clay for brick Hns. The city had 

sewer line the length 

build picnic shelters, 

trail called the C;ui&nd Trail. Re 

Potential Rail-Tds 

Mmy of South Cmlina's ab 

McComiek, Bamwell, York, and Cheraw 

comd~w. These comnndties have been 

working on the proposals for up to four years, and 

in all but one case (a segment &g between 

McComick and Calhoun Falls) acquisition of the 

abandoned riat-of-way is the major remaining 

obstacle. 

Discussion 

Given the well documented need for additional 

nways, and wildlife corridors, the 

rail-trails dlready opened or under development in 

South Carolina alre not emu*. The stzlte is 

with numerous qportunitie for rail-trail wnvermon 

projects, however, and tbre foundation has been laid 

for what could become a rail-trail network serving 

every region of the state and many of its cities. 

Creating a network of this scope and wad will 

require increased public ss of rail-trail 

values and oppdties, initiative on the 

part of local recreation agencies, more 

comprehensive planning, new legislation, and a 

stronger commitment of state governmew @sources 

to technical and financial assistanct! for rail-trail 

development. 

The rd-Ws under development in North Augua 

and Charleston illustrate a reladvely new and 

prodsing approach to rail-lsaif conversion in Sou& 

GmWa. Both of these pmjeets employ ab 
It =mairis to be seen whether this or any other 

state are not even red for trail use, and 

&re is still no "db or other formal 

Unfortunately, if abando~d railbeds are not 

promptly cmverted to rail-trails, the o~o~~ is 

often severely impaired or lost. Thus, if rail-trails 

afe to be developed at a rapid pace in South 

Carolina, some corrective actions must be taken in 

the mar future. 

Experience has shown that responsibility for the 

g, acquisition, development, and maintenance 

of rail-trails rests primarily with local recreation 

providers. To improve these efforts there should be 

rno~ and better commdcation of ideas and sharing 

of experiences. The leadership in this area 

demonstrated by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 

and its affiliates is exemplary, but state gove 

also needs to play a very active role. At present, 

state infomation services and technical assistance 

related to rail-trails are very iimited. 

South Carolina's govement can give rail-trail 

development in the state a tremendous boost by 

emulating other states with successfuf rail-trail 

programs. A logical place to begin is with a 

statewide comprehensive trail plan, a project that is 

long overdue. Since rail-trail proposals tend to be 

blocked at the acquisition stage, improved 

acquisition strategies, tactics, and funding 

mechanic;ms ate also urgently needed. Many 

obstacles could be removed through Trails Act 

legisldon providing for right of first refusal to the 

state on abandoned railbeds, power of eminent 

domain, owner exemptions from liability when land 

is used for recreational purposes, comervation 

easementf, and other means to preserve abdoned 

rights-of-way and develop them for recreational use. 

Much can be done to promote the "railbanking" 

process that yields voluntary agreements between 

railroads aad trail mana@ng agencies to dedicate 

u rail corridors to interim trail use, The state 

must also improve its techniGal arsistanee and strive 

to provide more fundhg for rail-trail projects. 

Literature Cited 

De Hart, A. 1984. South Carolina 

Charlotte, NC: Fast & Mch.clillan 

Publishers. 

Grove, Noel. 1990. Greenways: Paths to the 

future. National Geographic 178:77-98. 

Interstate Commerce Commission. 1989. Rail 

abandoments: Use of rights-of-way as 

trails: Supplemental trails act procedures. 

Federal Register 54801 1-8013. 

Janiskee, R.L. 1990. Storm of the century: 

Hurricane Hugo and its impact on South 

Carolina. Southeastern Geographer 3053- 

67. 

Lennon, J. 1972. Establishing trails on rights-ofway: Principally railroad abandonmen&. 

Wasbgton, DC: USDI, Bureau of 

Outdoor Recreation. 

Little, G.E. f 990. Greenways for herisa, 

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 

226 pp. 

Mills, J. 1990. Clearing the path for all of us 

where trains once ran. Smithsonian 

21:132-140. 

Nielsen, W. 197 1. Compiling an inventory of 

abandoned rights-of-way for use in 

recreational planning. In Proceedings of 

the National Symposium on Trails, pp. 

103- 106. Washington, DC: USDI, Bureau 

of Outdoor Recreation. 

Nielsen, W. 1986. Right-of-way: A guide to 

abandoned railroads in the United States. 

Bend, OR: Maverick Publications. 

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. 1988. Development 

costs of selected rail-trails. Washgton, 

DC: Rails-to-Tr~ls Conservancy. 

Typewritten. 

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. 1989. 1988 mual 

report. Washington, DC: Rds-to-Trails 

Conservancy. 
Schmid, J.F., Jr. 1989. South Carolina rail trails: 

hventory and prospect. Unpublished 

masters thesis, University of South 

Carolina, 108 pp. 

Sou* Cmlina Department of Parks, Recreation, 

and Tourism. 1990. Sou& Catofha failtrails. Columbia, SC: South Carolina 

I)epment of Parks, Remation, and 

Tourism. Brochure. 

South Carolina Public Service Commission. 1980. 

South Carolina rail plan, 1980. Prepared 

by Wilbuf Smith and Associates. 

Columbia, SC: South Carolina Public 

Service Commission. 

South Carolina Public Service Commission. 1984. 

South Carolina rail plan, 1984 update. 

Prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates. 

Columbia, SC: South Carolina Public 

Service Commission. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 1977a. 

Availability and use of abandoned railroad 

rights of way. 'Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Tmportation. 

U.S. Department of Trmportation. 1977b. 

Availability and use of abandoned railroad 

rights of way: Task 2, Inventory of 

abandoned rights of way. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. 
Figure 1. Railroad right-of-way abandoned in South Carolha, 1923-1970. The state's rail system peaked at 

3,784 miles in the 1920s, but nearly one-fifth (721 miles) had been abandoned by 1970. 

Figure 2. Rail-trails opened or under construction in South Carolina 1989. Track abandoments in the state 

totaled 1,330 miles by 1989, but only five officially designated rail-aails were available for public use, and just 

four more were under coostruction. The Gui project was ab Not show on the 

map is a rail-aail project under coosaction in the city of Marion in the late 19808. 
Monitoring and Evaluation 

of an Off-Road Vehicle Riding Area 

in Kentueky 

an, James Vogel, and Jerry Conleyl 

- Abstract. There is considctabie current interest in developing 

recreation monitoring sysms for wildland 

monitoring includes pfiysicd-biological mcasunments of site 

impace and social mewurements of visitor numbers and 

peroeptions. Design of monitoring systems involves 

replrescntative smples of several variables on large and diverse 

land areas at relatively low cost. This paper discuses (1) how a 

monitoring system has evolved since 1973 for an off-road 

vehicle (ORV) riding area, (2) results of monito~g 

memuremen&, and (3) evaluations of the measurements. 

Monitoring systems are seen here as a drastic change in &fing 

about recreation management, as part of structured management 

infomation systems for decision-making. 

Mo~to~g and evaluation are being ifperewhgly 

calfed for as necessq ectnnpomnts of recreation 

1990), Recrea~on 

monitoring nee& to include both physical-biological 

measurements of site impacts and social 

measurements of visitor numbers and perceptions of 

conditions. Research on site impact measmments 

has been done for some time, but considerably less 

research has been done on social monitoring of 

numbers and types of visitors causing the impacts 

(Harnmitt and Cole 1987). Recently, research has 

been undernay to develop integrated systems of 

monitoring measurements for large land areas 

(Chilman and others 1990). 

The research reported here represents the first 

remeasurernent of a system of recreation monitoring 

measurements. Then the evaluation of the 

remeasurement results is discussed. Evaluation 

concepts in the recreation research literature, which 

focus on using management objectives and 

'Associate Professor and Graduate Assistant, 

Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois 

University, Carbondale, IL 6290 1; Recreation 

Areas Supervisor, Tennessee Valley Authority, Land 

Between the Lakes, KY 4221 1. 

stand&, we= not wgwble in this study 

itt and Coie 1987). New 

to evafftation of m 

explod. 

What happem to area coaditiws when a large 

wildland atea is opened to ORV riding? How am 

tions be measu~ted? How are the mults: of 

these memments evaluated for management 

pqoses? This study reports (1) how a remation 

monitohg system has evolved since 1973 fbr aa 

off-road vehicle (ORV) riding area, (2) mults of 

the 1989-90 m meamuements, and (3) 

development o appro%& to assist 

evaluation of the monitoring data 

How the Mo&tow System Evolved 

How did it happen that a system of integrated 

monitohg measmments, both physicat-biological 

and social, developed for the study ma? 

Wmit0ria.g began with measuf&ment of ON site 

impacts, cowls d in&Mews of ORV riders we= 

adcted, then Ernesument as an inept& syaem 

took place in 1984 and in 1989-90. 

Turkey Bay ORV Area 

The study area is a 2500-acre designated ORV 

riding area near Turkey Bay within 

the Lakes (LBL), a Tennessee Valley Auhrity 

(TVA) administered area in western Kentucky and 

Tennessee. The area is ninety percent forested, and 

is characterized by shallow clay soils with a 

limestone chert base. The ORV trails ma contains 

over ninety-two miles of ORV traits and old 

logging mads. It offers a variety of riding 

experiences ranging from flat open meadows to 

steep hiu climb. 

Tuxkey Bay was establirshed as an ORV area in 

1972. Beginning irt the fate 1960's, a pmbkm was 

recognized with unconbroUed use of trailb&s 

bughout the 170, acre Land Between the 

Lakes. By the time President Nixon issued 

Executive Order 11644 in February, 1972 qag 

federal agencies to develop policies and pdm 

to control the use of off-road vehicles on public 

lands, LBL was worlcing on prew pfans for 

Turkey Bay as a solution to dbe problem, Several 
yem of discussionts has produced a consensus that 

LBL should attempt to provide riding opportunities 

exclde all off-road ricfing from LBL. 

be cornistent with I,BL's role as a 

dentommion area and would avoid tkre high costs 

g off-mad riding. 

ent was also =ached to provide one 

area open to offLroad veGcles ratfier than 

pmviding a desipated trail system. The open area 

management idea was iden@& as the logical 

choice for IBL for several reasom. In contrast to 

s, the open area concept 

between riders and those 

pumuing non-motori~d forms of recreation, it 

allows for a high degree of rider Ereedom, and it 

hits edordement to a relatively short boundary 

rather than the length of a system of trails. It also 

focuses a~entiora on a specific area for monitoring 

of en~mental impacts (as required by Executive 

Order 1 1644). 

W 'JTuaJkey Bay area was given find approval for 

the following criteria: a 

to main eneances to LBL and 

complex to allow easy access 

anagers, one main entrance to 

the desigtlated area to faditate management 

and definable natural features 

s enclosing an area of the 

desired size and shape, a diverse topography and 

vegetative cover to interest riders, soil with high 

resistance to erosion to minimize adverse effects of 

ORV's, and existing use of the area for off-road 

riding indicating a preference for the area by local 

riders. 

Development of Turkey Bay ORV Area, completed 

prior to its official opening on July 1, 1972, 

included establishent and marking of boundaries, 

minor graiding and gravebg of the enEraf36e road 

and s&&g areas, bush hogging and mowing of a 

camging area d the imtallation of some basic 

s, an enttance sign, 

chemnical toilets. 

No ~l coostmGtion was done (so= old roads ad 

d from prior land uses). The second 

ration some improvement and expansion 

ing ma was done with instaation of 

pdGnic tables and Eue rings. Total cost of 

development was approximatety $30,000. 

In the years since the initial developent of the 

area very little beyond normal maintenmce has 

been necessary. Grading and instattation of water 

bars on old logging roads that were 

was done on a few wcasions. AdaQional signs 

including speed limit signs on the d, a 

rules and regulations sign, and a s of 

rough tenh and stating "ride at your own risk" 

have been ktalled. kangemen~ were made for 

patrol by LBL safety officers. Nomal forestry and 

wildlife acevities have continued and hunters are 

not excluded from hunting in the ORV area, 

At the time of Turkey Bay's establisbent, the 

major type of off-road use was trailbike riding. 

Four-wheel drive trucks and Jeeps were only a 

minor proportion of use at that time but increased 

greatly in the late 19'70's. A propottionate increase 

in deeply rutted trails and hill climbs was noted and 

was a main focus of the monitohg in 1984, 

e-wheel, and then four-wheel all-terrain 

vehicles (ATV) arrived in the late 1970's and mid 

1980's, respectively, and have become the dominant 

ORV vehicle type at Turkey Bay. 

Monitoring Research 

The Turkey Bay ORV area was the first public land 

area officially designated for ORV riding in the 

United States. Because ORV riding was a 

controversial use of public land, a monitohg 

program was made a condition of the designation. 

The monitoring at Turkey Bay is characterized by 

methods that allow the gathering of critical data 

with minimal costs and manpower. The initial 

monitoring plan drafted in the fall of 1972, and 

implemented in the summer of 1973, concerltrated 

on the mapping and measuring of use areas, 

primarily old logging roads and trails (all in 1972). 

Trail length and width were measured and each trail 

was rated according to use level -- light, medium, 

or heavy, In addition, ttventy 25-foot trail sections 

were marked for erosion measurements. The width 

of bare soil was measured every five feet and trail 

depth was measured at three points along the trail 

section by placing and eight-foot pole across the 

trail and measuring from the bottom of the pole to 

the bottom of the deepest rut. Tree and shrub 

moaality were determined by counting all dead 

stems, half inch or larger, to a distance of 15 feet 
&om the trail center. procedure was 

duplicated in control plots of the same 25 x 30 foot 

size, parallel to the trail seceions. Comp&son of 

mo~ality from the trail and control sections 

indicated mortality due to off-road vehicles. Photos 

were taken of trail sections to provide a visual 

record of changes. 

Several metbods were used in an attempt to 

measure impacts on wildlik, including deer track 

counts, turkey counts and brood surveys, and casual 

field surveys for sighting and signs of birds and 

mammals. In addition to the trail sections and 

wildlife surveys, 16 photo-points were established at 

areas thought to be most vulnerable to off-road 

riding, such as stream b and steep hills, The 

monitoring plan was designed to be carried out over 

a period of five yem with mapping and 

measurement of total area impacted and survey of 

establistlred trail sections done every two years 

(1973, 1975, 1977) and wildlife surveys done every 

year. 

Qually vital to management decisions is 

idonmation concerning the use and users of taae 

area. The desires and opaom of the riders as well 

as who the riders were, where they came from, and 

when and how much they would use the area were 

not known. In 1973, studies were conducted to 

coastruct a profile of the off-road cyclist at LBL 

(Chilman and Kupcikevicius 1973). The methods 

used were brief on-site interviews conducted at 

staging areas followed by more detailed 

questionnaires mailed to each person interviewed. 

Another year-long study, employing brief on-site 

inte~ews, was completed in 1976 (Chilman and 

Mize 1976). This study was done to determine the 

number of visitors who ented Turkey Bay ORV 

area as well as the number who were off-road 

riders, (be amount of time they rode while in the 

area, and the %uency of accidents. The survey 

infomdon was coordinated with data Erom an 

counter on the entrance road 

round by the DL staff. 

The intended five-year Life of the initial morrito~g 

plan expired in 1977. Thou& some new 

monito~ng options were investigated by LBL staff 

in 1981 d 1982, no monitoring remeasmments 

were do* until 1984 (tadley 1985). At that he a

summer-long mo~toaing effort combiaed impact 

ts, and user surveys. The trail 

study sections were not resurveyed; rather, the 

impact meBurements focused on remapping and 

measurement of the impacted area with more 

specific, written measurement and erosion 

assessment procedures. Counts and interviews were 

repeated in a mmer similar to those used 

previously. 

The most recent monitohg, begun. in the winter of 

1989 and continued through fall 1990, encompassed 

repeating the user surveys, counts, and impact 

measurements, with some modifications of the 

methods used in 1984. Wildlife studies designed to 

compare the populations of several key species on 

the ORV area and another area within LBL with 

similar enviromentd characteristics were scheduled 

to begin in 1991. Hunting harvest data was used in 

the past as an available gauge of game populations 

within the ORV area and will continue to be used 

in future monitoring. Several eagles continue to 

occupy habitat in the Turkey Bay area and periodic 

census counts appear to indicate that their numbers 

are increasing. 

Results of the Monitoring Measurements 

The monitoring results discussed in this section 

reveal the changes occunring to the physical and 

social environment at Turkey Bay. However, 

changes have occurred in the management 

environment as well. The rules and regulations 

have remained shoa and simple but have been 

expanded. To the initial rules requiring spark 

arresters, operation of ORV's within the posted 

boundary, and prohibiting night riding there have 

been added requirements that all riders wear safety 

helmets, a 15 mph speed limit to be enforced on the 

entrance road, and prohibirion of the use of alcohol 

while operating an ORV. The designated boundary 

of the ORV ma has been expand& s1iatl.y in 

several places to take in places where riders had a 

strong desire to ride including a hill climb, a dry 

creek bed, and two open fields. The total area 

increased from 2,350 to 2,500 acres, 

There are presently several special events held 

anrruafly at Turkey Bay ORV Area at the request of 

local ORV dealers and rider org&ations. These 

events are pmitted with the intention of fostering 

cooperation between ORV dealers, riders, and LBL 
management, and include mmu facturer-spomored 

"fun days." 

inmased to 2.5 percent in 1984 and to 3.5 

in 1990 flable 1). 

Impacted ha Measurements 

The most dramatic aspect of the monitoring results 

has been the relat-ively low mount of hpacted 

area. The rate of incn=w Ln impacted area has 

generally been slow but constant (Figure 1). The 

number of miles of trail inmased rapidly in the 

first years of operation as new trails were added to 

the existing network of old logging roads, then 

slowed somewhat after 1975. By 1977, after five 

years of operation, the miles of trail had almost 

doubled and the area impacted had more than 

tripled. These changes might be alarming if not put 

in the context of the total number of acres within 

the ORV ma: in 1977 only 2.1 percent of the total 

area was being directly impacted by ORV's. 

Year of Measurement 

Figure 1. Percent of Total Area lntpacted at Turkey 

Bay ORV ha. 

The interim between measurements lengthened aker 

1977 to 7 years. In those years between 1977 and 

1984, the rate of increase of impacts slowed 

considerably. The miles of trail only inmas& at a 

rate of about 2.5 miles per year. The rate inc~ase 

for ifnpacted area slowed also as the acres of 

ground impacted hreased 22 percent (about 1.5 

ames per year), Tbe portion of the area impad 

The Eirst eqansion of the trail syaent don 

the south side of the ORV ma mmst to th: 

8 

trails had reached 59 miles in 

blocks 50 to 100 acres in size 

trails. Today, the largest such sections remaining 

are about 50 ams rand the more typical unbroken 

block is about 20 acres. 

In 1984, Ladley indicated there were 12 major hill 

climb areas (Ladley 1985). Today, there are about 

two dozen of these but most of the newer ones are 

small, lightly used and not severely eroded. The 

oldest of these, close to the entrance road and with 

18+ years of use, are very sevedy 

are up to 6 feet deep (primarily front four-wheel 

drive vehicle use in the 1970's), but they have 

generally been stabilized at that stage as the deepest 

ruts reached a solid chert layer and receive little or 

no use due to their nearly impassable state. 

Soil, Vegetation and Wildlife 

The major method used to gauge the effect of ORV 

riding on soils and vegetation, the trail study 

sections measurement, was discontinued after the 

1977 monitoring. Those measmmentlr did indicate, 

as might be expected, serious erosion on steep 

sections of trail, especially at hill climb$, and on old 

logging roads where four-wheel drive vehicles 

operated. Displacement of soil and rock was 

observed but it was not being ond 

the base of the slopes, Whetn 

pavement of chert was reached, erosion effectively 

stopped. Trails on the relatively flat 

occurs where ffK trail grade is steep arPd ne 

on tbe level seam. 

Soil Cowwartion %M mlwhohadan 

opportunity to view the 

including the oldest and most severely emid Itill 
cEmbs, felt the level of erosion was not a cause for 

cosem and noted little 

stmm beds or to Kentuclky Lake. 

As for impact on vegetation, plmts not gro 

directly in the trail where they would be driven on 

show little or no dmage. mough some trees 

growing alongside the trail suffer eqosure of and 

daumage to roots, only a very few trees, with nearly 

complete root destruction, have been lcilled. The 

area trees, having established themselves in the dry, 

rocky soil of Turkey Bay, appear to be quite hardy. 

The control plots showed no differene in mortality 

bemeen shbs and seemgs dongside the trail and 

those in the control plots. Aside &om the 

vegeta~on killed diirectly on the M, ORV's appar 

to hve little direct hpact on the fon:st vegetation 

at Turkey Bay. 

With 96.5 permnt of the ORV area re~eivjng no 

direct wheel-to-ground hpact, it is reasoaable to 

suspct that most wildlife species have nor been 

distrthd. Field susveys conducted as part of the 

ori@sal mo~tohg plm showed &at a vkety of 

wildlife conhad to Mabit be ma. Sixty-four 

species of bir& aad severzrl species of m 

we= sighted or ident;ified ~ough sign, There has 

been an inerease of &key and wher bald eagle 

sightaings. The deer hwest data has shown that the 

number of deer killed in the Teey Bay area 

compares favorably with the number killed in 

similar areas throu&out LBL. Deer are also among 

the species of wildlife most fiquently sighted by 

riders. 

Visitor Use 

Accurate estimates of visitor numbers at Turkey 

Bay have not always been available. The surveys 

adrniraistered in 1975-76 estimated about 16,004) 

annual visits. Ladley's month of visitor counts and 

checlrpoint interviews during July and August, 

1984, put the number of visitors for that period at 

3,057. Visitor counts are 1acls;ing bemeen 1984 and 

G c~tlnter moitoring and observation 

1990 indicate the number of visitors 

for July and August is very dose to the number 

seen in 1984. The total number of visitors for 1990 

is about 30,000. Visits appm to peak in tbe spring 

md fall seasons. 

nmkm of users appear stable, other user 

cs are not. The ratio of ORV to mn-ORV 

VJsitors has inmased aMt the types of ORV's 

tors were ORV 

43 pwt$ in 1976, 

Similarly, the four-wheel ATV was just 8 

in 1984 but today is the most -=nay ussd ORV 

while We-wheel ATV use is dec-g (Table 2). 

A new addition to the 1990 on-site intenriews is a 

question that asks the respon&ents to rate bir 

overall satisfaction .with Turkey Bay ORV 

scale &om one to ten. A on#: wodd lindicate "not at 

all satisfied wMe ten would Wcate "very 

saticified." Results put the avemge mpaase above 

. ORV riders indicate they are p 

a place to ride as other oppo-des 

The= arr: very few comparable 

on and none offer rhte cmbbd variety 

freedom to ride, and he adrmiaioa 

avdable at mrkey Bay. 

There have not ken any serious hitor =laced 

pmblems at Turkey Bay. bvious! nradtolrialg ad 

note occasiond rule violations, litter, and 

vanddlism, but not at a level ted 

or mon: than encountered at 8. 

Three mas have been identified as needing s~easdy 

attention and e 

riding without helmets, 

entrance road The bo 

into disrepair and some exterior trails had 

developed. A concerted effort was made Q3lring 

summer 1990 to close off all out-of-bounds trails 

and mark the bouadary very clearly. The speed 

limit and helmet regulations require steady, 

consistent enforcement. LBL patrol officers have 

wrinen citations for each of 

this and previous years. 

Evaluatio~~ of the Modtow Data 

Stankey and others (1983) indicated that 

"monitoring is a necessq but ias&c=ient activity 

mment. An evafuatdve 

to inteq~t data must also be 

developed." They atso stated that "Monitoring 

involves obsewation of phenomena Eund systemdc 

collection of data for the purpose of evduabiqg 

attainment of area management objectives." &It 
what if no maaawment plan obje 

eet? Wow then is evduation to 

work'90 be developed? 

A fomd management plan was not developed for 

t$e T&ey Bay ORV ha in 1972 because We 

was horn about ORV riding and its effects on 

The Tu&ey Bay monitohg pro 

SM to o.btaia infomation for 

management purposes. Now that mdto*g data 

been collected over a 17-year period, what 

of "evduatlve &mework" can be developed to 

eide management? 

ework devdoped opmted at 

The fitrJt level was suggested by Stankey and others 

(1983): "evduation -- the analysis and 

hterpaea~on of the data, conrp~ng actual effects 

or intended effects." Four 

"irntended e&ctsi%ere identified and their 

call in light of rhe mo~tobg data was 

eowgered. The second level consisted of the 

pssible development of "evaluative standards" 

(Sklby aad Meberleitl 1986). And the third level 

wrer;ri kyo~t-id basic otecdves and stand=& to 

corltsider olher asp& of the sebg discussed by 

Wagar (1966) in h idenb&ification of remation 

"quality" factors. 

At tbe fimt level of evaluation, four "htended 

eficts" of desi~akg the ORV riding area could 

be iden~ed from TVA records, publjcations, and 

disassions with managers. The four "intended 

eficts" were (1) to contain ORV riding within one 

area of LBL, (2) to keep enviromental impacts 

within a~ceptable limits, (3) to keep management 

costs low, and (4) to provide himy sa&factory 

visit elg~riences fw LBL ree~atlonists (Vogel and 

an 191). Coneent of ORV riding within 

Warn Turkey Bay Fa has worked well. 

have strayed beymd the 

es, no mcoatfoued ORV fiding 

L has been qorted in recent 

yem. & for envkomental hpacts, the finding 

that only 3.5 permnt of the total 2500 acEs is being 

rid&n on aftrer 18 years of ORV riding would 

probably not have been predicted in 1972. 

Mmagement costs estima 

$6,000 per year are much tion 

of ORV riBing on design 

sabfirction m~~s obtaid during visitor 

hte~ews, dong with indicators such a favorable 

cornmen& ~ceived, altest to the achievement of 

provi&g satisfactory visit evriences, It appears 

that 'WBL has been successful in acfiieving the 

'"tended effects'bf the ORV riding area 

designatjlon. 

The second level of evduation consisted of 

discussions about possible 'kvalaluative standards." 

The establistunent of stand& are usually prompted 

by managers"rceived need to set limits on 

Impacts that are approackg crrirical levels. The 

intensive measurement of physied effects of ORV 

riding at Turkey Bay did not indicate that impacts 

have reached critical levels. One result of zoning 

ORV riding into an area with few other uses is that 

other user groups do not eomplaJin about the 

presenee of ORV users, or ORV trails or noise. 

This lack of complaints frsm LBL visitors has 

probably ken a factor h LBL managers not 

preeivhlag a need to set limits. Past egorts to 

create wakr &versions on slophg gds have not 

been successhl for vdous ~asons, but &her 

stu&es of effee~ve water bar devel;spmem we 

proposed. Stdads for erosion control may be 

ctevelopd wkn moR is 16: 

implementation, Observa~on md measuRtnemB sf 

ORV ridjing pattern h&cated that riding tends to 

be fairfy evenly &stri.buted throughout the ma. 

For these reasons, there did not seem to be a strong 

need to estabGsh standatds for physic& impacts or 

number of riders at this time. 

The third level of evaluation involves the conbuing 

search, beyond basic management objectives or 

stand=&, for ways to improve recreation quality. 

For this, we used four factors identified by Wagar 

(1966) as important for recreation quality: to 

provide a range of oppomnities, to zone areas 

according to different conditions and uses, to 

develop management strategies specific to the zone 

colxti~ons, and interpretation, Because quality 

means different things to different people, 

discussion of visitor interviews about their 

perceptions of conditions was induded. The 

research team and LBL managers then discussed 

how tkse factors relate to the Turkey Bay situation. 

Under discussion was the range of ORV riding 

opporlunities that ORV riders had identified in the 

=@on, the uniqueness of Turkey Bay in terms of 

size of area and freedom to ride mphere witsn 

the designated area, the areas of Turkey Bay ORV 

area that had different conditions and fhe 
impfieations for management. (Specifically, we 

identified two zones with different conditions from 

most of the area: the access corridor which is used 

by the 37.5% of visitors to the area that ;ue nomORV riders and the lakeshore area. Conditions 

within these two zones would be studied during 

Lastly, the management 

ssed various visitors' 

to improve the area, including 

g water and better camping 

facilities. 

Finally, the researchers and LBL managers 

els of evaluation in relation 

and barnjag (Qua) 

cess 

process 

would provide a structured qproach for integrating 

the information collected and evaluated concerning 

area conditions into ara area rnanagement plan when 

deemed necessary. 

Discussion 

The molluitoring system reported here is a shift in 

g about recreation management. It may be at 

least as important to have a system of periodic 

measurennents as it is to have a management plan 

for an area. Changes occur in many ways on large 

wildland mas, and it is necessary to quantiQ and 

discuss hplications of the changes in conditiom as 

they occur. 

Hammitt and Cole (1987) stated that, "Reliable data 

are needed to manage recreation just as reliable 

inventory data a~ needed to manage other natural 

resoufces, such as timber. Unfortunately, they are 

seldom available. In maeation, management has 

too frequently had to rely on guesswork or the 

persoaal experience and intuitjon of maagers. 

anager's professional opinion is 

, it is no substitute for reliable and 

systematically colleaed inve 

s is paniculaly true 

is wuent, as in go 

The recreabion monitoring system repoated in this 

g &om phary 

dependence on "personal experience and intuition of 

managers" to a systenna~c, infomation-based 

foun&t;ion for management. 

Otker places where similar recreation moslitofing 

systems are being innplemented are: 0 

Scenic Rivernays, a 134-mile-long National Park 

Service area in Missouri, and, for backcounw 

management, an 1800-square-mile area of Grand 

Canyon National Park in Arizona Problems of 

large size and divezsity of wildland areas, and low 

budgets for management, are being overcome at 

these locations. 

The concept of management infomation systems 

for recreation management means obtaining current 

infomation for resolving conflicts, making 

decisions about site development and management, 

and to help manager's respond to specific request 

for infomation from the public about specific 

locations. This infomation can also be useful in 

decisions involving multiple resources, where 

recreation is now at a disadvantage. 

Problems remain to be addressed in further 

monitoring research.. Monitoring means a 

continuing flow of hfomation rather than 'honeshot" studies. Methods are needed for processing 

this flow of data and m g it readily available for 

management. Computer avaifabitity in field 

locations will help. Concepts from the area of 

management infomation systems (MIS) in business 

management will also be advantageous. hother 

problem currently being researched is ways field 

level managers can become involved in monitoring 

data collection and analysis. Can monitoring be 

incorporated in their already busy work schedules, 

and can field managers be trained to think of using 

data for answering management questions? Beyond 

training present managers, a basic change in 

mg and training of future managers to design 

and utilize monitoring systems is needed. 

These are exciting times in the area of creation 

morritoring research. The design of monitoring and 

evaluation for large wildland areas is like wofing 

puzzles with many pieces, In this sense, it begins 

to pdlel the actual complex work situations of 

many recreation managers. M 

suggested that 'Tk success of future research will 

be detemined, to a large degree, by the extent to 

which researchers and managers understand each 

others' roles and processes." Perhaps mo~toring 

research can help us tow& achieving this 

understanding, 
man, K.C.; Foster, D.; Evers 90. 

Updating the Reereation Capacity 

Process: Recent Refimments. In: 

Prwedings of the National Wilderness 

Mmagement Conference, edited by D. 

Lime. University of Mnnaota, St. Paul, 

m. 

Chilrnan, K.C.; Kupcikevicius, K, 1973. Profile: 

The Trail Biker. Paper presented at Trail 

Bikes and Land Use Planning Training 

Institute, Lake BarMey, Kentucky. 

Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois 

University, Carbondale, IL. 

Chilrnan, K.C.; Mize, D. 1976. A Systematic 

Sampling of Visitors to Turkey Bay OffRoad Vehicle Riding Area. Research 

report submitted to Tennessee Vdey 

Authority, Golden Pond, KY. 

Hammitt, W.E.; Cole, D. 1987. Wildland 

Recreation: Ecology and Management. 

New York: Wiley and Sons. 341 pp. 

Ladley, J.C. 1985. Refining the Recreation 

Resource Inventory Model: An 

Application at a Designated Off-Road 

Vehicle Area. M.S. Thesis, Department of 

Forestry, Southern Illinois University, 

Carbondale, IL. 77 pp. 

Lucas, R.C. 1990. Moflito~g Social Conditions in 

Wilderness: Introduction to the Topic. 

1990. In: Proceedings of the National 

Wadem Management C 

edited by D. Lime. 

ng, R.E. 1986, Studies in Outbr 

Recreation 

State U&v 

Nall, R. 1972. Monitoring Plan for the Off-Road 

Vehicle Area in Land Between The Lakes. 

Report on fife at Land Between The Lakes, 

Golden Pond, KY. 12 pp. 

Shelby, B.; Heberlein, T.A. 1986. Carrying capacity 

in recreation settings. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University Pmss. 164 pp. 

Stankey, C.H.; Brown, P.; Clark, R. 1983. 

Monitoring and Evaluating Changes and 

Trends in Recreation 9por~unity Supply. 

In: Proceedings of Conference on 

Renewable Resource Inventories for 

Modtoring Clhanges and Trends. Oregon 

State 'University, Cornallis, OR. pp. 227- 

230. 

Vogel, J.; Chilrnan, K. 1991. Monitoring 

Measurements 1989-90, Turkey Bay OffRoad Vehicle Area, Land Between The 

Lakes, Kentucky. Report submitted to 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Golden Pond, 

KY. 66 pp. 

Wagar, J.A. 1966. Quality in Outdoor Remation. 

Trends in Parks and Recreation. 3(3): 9- 

12. 
Table 1. Gomp~on of Results of Impact Studies 1973-1990" 

Smdy 

Year 

Percent of 

Total ORV ORV Area 

hfiles Acreage Area Acreage Receiving Impact 

1973 21.1 14.6 2,350 0.6% 

1975 36.0 28.1 2,350 1.2% 

1977 41.4 48.2 2,350 2.1% 

1984 59.0 58.6 2,350 2.596 

1990 91.9 87.9 2,500 3.5% 

table does not include entrance road, camping or staging areas. 

Table 2. ORV Types Used at Turkey Bay ORV Area, 1973- 1990 

ORV Type 1973 1976 1984' 1S)90 

Trailbike 95% 79% 36% 27% 

Thme-wheel ATV -- -- 41% 17% 

Four-wheel ATV -- -- * + 49% 

Four-wheel Drive, others 5% 21% 9% 7% 

'In 1984, another category, Three-wbeel ATVs and Trailbikes comprised 

14% of total. 

"'Four-wheel ATVs were included in the "otherf' category in 1984. 
Marketing Outdoor Recreation 

and Tourism in Georgia: 

The Development of a 

Statewide Directory 

compbmive data bs which integrate public and private 

recreational apportunitits. Acting upon this recommendation, the 

nt of Recreation ami Leisure Services at Cieorgia 

Southern University published the Oeorgia Outdoor Directory: 

An information C3uide To Recreational Opportunities. ?his paper 

provides an in-depth discussion of the needs, methods, results, 

and implications of this process. 

Lack of infomation about outdoor recreational 

oppodties acts as a major barrier to activity 

participation. Convemly, infomation presented to 

nists in a timely and orgked fashion 

helps to promote satisfyitlg leisure experiences. 

Until recently, there was no comprehensive source 

of Somation that fully addressed the range of 

Georgia's outdoor opportunities (including both the 

ptiblic and private sector). 

The eorgia Outdoor DireGtory was desigmd to 

awomplish three primary objedves: (1) to inform 

the public on the availability of outdoor recreational 

se~ws (e.g., hbructiond classes, guided trips & 

equipment rentals) and the sponsorship of outdoor 

rematianal places (e.g., federal, state & private); 

(2) to pmote Georgia tourism (both as a 

totmist-desbation and to emourage inwtate travel) 

atnd recreation-bwd economic development; and 

(3) to assist outdwr recreationd bushsses with a 

crost-k means of advertising. 

' Department of Recreation and Leisure Services, 

Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 

30460. 

Ned Far The hject 

me 1980's have been characterized by many 

experts as an era of "cutback managementt* in the 

Federal ent, particularly with respect to 

social p . Remation is no exception to this 

trend. Considering these budget reductions, 

govemenM agencies (which offer recreational 

services) have been forced to closely evaluate their 

role in the provision of such services. Some 

agencies have responded by curbing their 

involvement in recreation, whereas others have 

abolished these. interests entirely. For example, in 

Spring, 1990, the Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources threatened to close two state parks & 

historic sites and restrict the services in seven 

others in response to a statewide budget crisis. 

These drastic measures were averted only ~ough 

public outcry. 

The private sector has been increasingly called upon 

to fill these recreational gaps. Covemment agencies 

often manage the resource (e.g,, State and National 

Parks), but allow concessionaires and non-profit 

associations to control many of the service-related 

responsibilities. The Third Nationwide Outdoor 

Recreation Plan (NORP) success my predicted 

privatization to be a major trend of the 1980's. 

As a result of the transition from the public to 

private sector, recreationists are often left confused 

about the availability and sponsorship of 

recreational opportunities. Since decisions about 

participation are largely knowledge-dependent, it is 

imperative that potential users receive organized and 

up-to-date information. Acconiing to the PCAO, 

the fi& most commonly cited reason for 

pmicipation in recreation was the availabili~ of 

information. Moreover, 32% of the American 

public rated lack of infmation about recreational 

oppofluities as a major detemnt to participation 

(NOW). 

If we are truly at the "dawn" of the infomation 

age, it is not evident as far as outdoor recreation is 

concerned. There is far too little information 

sharing between the vast array of recreation 

providers. As a result, it is very difficult for 

potential users to contact providers for reservations 

or to obtain information on the availability of 

activities. Some directories are available, but 

typically they provide limited types of information. 
ple, they either represent a partiwlar 

agency (e.g., Department of Natural Resources) or 

simply prom&e regions of the state as 

tourist-destinations (e.g., Deparbment of industry, 

Tde 8z Tourism). Existing directories simply do 

not hclude cmprehensive infomation on outdoor 

remation, including both the public and private 

seetors. 

According to the PCAO, better infomation systems 

to benefit the public. Some of these 

ations include: (1) "a comp~hensive 

infomation system inlegrating public and private 

remational opportunities"; (2) the "mation of 

state remation clearinghouses to provide the public 

witb infomation on recreation opportunities"; and 

(3) ""that states take the lead in developing 

remation oppo~hty data bases." Until recently, 

no organization or agency had been willing to 

coordinate the effort. merefore, the Deg 

Recreation h Leisure Services at Georgia Souhem 

Universiv msponded to this cwenge. 

Methods 

Sinw this project =presents applied research, 

stancilardizd methods were not comidelced to be 

appropriate. Instead, the methodology was Mored 

to meet a spedfic goat - to develop a dirtectory of 

outdoor recreationdl services for the state of 

Georgia The directory was completed by the 

steps: (1) developing a list of keywords 

(recmational activities & services) to delieate the 

scope of the project; (2) checking each keyword 

against the collection of Georgia phone-fiche 

directories; (3) compiling an initial list of 

remation providers based on the infomation 

collected; (4) telephoning each provider on the list 

to &te& their address and exact affiliation with 

rewa~on; (5) sorting the resulting hfomation 

accoHting to the service provided (e.g., instruction, 

(7) contacting a print shop to photocopy and 

mble the directory, 

Results and l[mplications 

In May, 1990 the first edition of the Georgia 

Outdoor Directory was produced. Aside from 

providing a needed service, the project's lilinkge 

with the $9.1 billion Georgia tourism industry 

hed a strong economic justification for its 

support. Since 1980, Georgia has become an 

inmasin@ y popular tourist destination, primarily 

because of "Georgia On My Mind", an aggressive 

advertising campaign launched by the Department 

of Industry, Trade & Tourism. As a result of this 

campaign and other factors, vJsitation at the state's 

welcome centers jumped from 10 million in 1984 to 

15 million in 1987. Other examples include: 

increased attendance at Georgia's State Parks and 

Historic Sites, up to 14.9 million visitors in 1990; 

and continued interest in Georgia as a destination 

for sportsmen, approximately 66,000 non-residents 

visit the state annually to hunt and,or fish. 

As visitation increases, so does direct recreational 

spending (e.g., fees, charges, licenses, etc.). For 

example, in 1990, Georgia State Parks & Historic 

Sites received over $1 1.5 million in facility 

gemrated income, representing 45.7% of their total 

operating budget. However, indirect spending (e .g., 

food & gas purchases, lodging, etc.) accounts for 

the significant "other" portion of tourism 

expenditures. In 1987, the Georgia Hospitality and 

Travel Association reported over $4.6 billion 

resulting from overnight accommodations alone. 

The net result of tourism dollars means "clean and 

new" money being pumped into the local economy. 

It was anticipated that the directory would provide 

infomation to an increasing number of Georgia 

tourists, thereby indirectly serving to shulate tbe 

statewide demand for outdoor recreation. The 

added visitation (and subsequent income) would be 

berlleficiaf to the state at large, but especialdy 

important for outdoor-related enterprises in tlne 

private sector. One of the intended purposes of Ihe 

directory was to assist outdoor-nelated bushesses 

with their advertising efforts. 

It can only be assumed that the directory has been 

successful in accomplishing its objectives. Since 

the directory was published, it has received 

widespread acclaim for its comprehensive and 

imovative approach to marketing Georgia's tourism 
potenhab8. via outdoor ~creatim, Literdly thousaslb 

of copies have ken sold, the list of purchmem 

include: Georgia State Parks & Historic Sites, 

Georg$a Depmmenh, of Industq, Trade & Twel~srn, 

Chambers 006 Cornmere, youth serving agencies, 

public libraries, and interested citizens, 

References 

U& kfoma~onn exehmge, 4991. Aarskk* TX: 

Texas Paks md W2&fe Dept, 

CBements, J. 9989. Georgia facrs: A 

eomprehemive look at &orgia today, 

comty by comty. Dallas, TX: Glernen& 

Research II, Inc. 

Msrgm, $*M, 1990, &or@a oukdwr &mctoq: h 

ation pide to ~c~a~sd 

opportunitiesS Sta~esboro, GA: hp 

of Recreation & k&m Services. 

Presi&nt3s comm&"iTSion on Ame&ms outdoors: 

The leggy, the cMBenge, 1987, 

WaKn@on, DC: Isld Press, 
Marketing Tourism To The 

North Carolina Legislature 

Nancy G. McCebee am.% Lq D. Gustke 

Absbrac~ Oiven the growth pmibiiities of the North Carolina 

tourism induetry, it is imprative that the inxhtsq e&mm 

opportunities for cooperation between gove 

non-profit agencies by &signing and iqknnenhg an accuraie, 

positive, and effective mdeting plan. To develop a mabting 

plan, a survey of No& Carolina kgisfatonr was designcd atrd 

conducted in onier to detemlrre the current opinions, attitudes, 

and Eutowlcdge &out tfte touhsm indusq. A conceptual model 

of how new ideas or innovations arp: adow into a social system 

- The Diffusicm of hovatims meory - was also used to 

detemb how to infum the mdeting plan ha the legislam, 

A population of 170 legislatom were ihntified for the survey, 

and 78 (43.8%) responded. Resuits itKiicattd that although 

legislators may not have a high awareness arad specsc 

knowfdgc about touris% hey do rtppmciatc &e value of thc 

industry. 

Opinion Lesbders were identified so that ?hey may be targeted in 

thc marketing plan. The format for the plan was based on 

Lovelock and Wehbcrg's model. The phary components of 

tk model included situatimal analysis (the survey), 

idtntification of prdzlems anrS opportunities, establishment of 

mmketing goals and strategies, an action plan, and a monitoring 

systcm to insure continued success. 

The marketing plan Lncludcs several recomndations. A major 

goal in the plan was to availability of mgulat; up to daie 

knowledge about tourism in North Carolina to legislators. The 

primary sbraiegy for achieving this goal includes the active use of 

opinion leaders tw "infomation disseminators". Educational 

efforts should focus on those identified as opinion leaders. 

Legislatm look to 4 take the advice of those kgislators they 

respect because of their time in off"tce, education, and committee 

membemhip standing. The use of opinion leaders in this way is 

considered superior to the use of lobbyists or printed material, 

although it is a much mom difftcult chri~lel to use. 

Another goal of the marketing plan involved increasing the 

awareness of the economic advantages of the tourism inkstry in 

North Carolina to its citizens. If the general public is educated 

about the strengths of tourisrn in North Carolina, they will elect 

officials who also appreciate the industry. The strattgy for 

reaching this god includes a promotional capaign that focuses 

on 1) the diversiq d impact of the indwtry, and 2) the 

ir*ortant role that every sikn plays in m&mg tou~sm a

success in firth Carolina, 

A monitoring system is also recw 

fsmat and informal surveys of thc kgislature. 'his sews as a 

=Ifcheck for the markctifig pian to rrssurc ah& it mmahs hely 

and achieves its goals. 

Tmvel Data Geater, 1988). Rwnt reducltim in 

state revenues resufting dK>m a slowdo- in Me 

state's ecomy -atem Zegislative for bke 

industry and may It in a e&ction in politicat. 

and kmcial support for tourism. The bat4 

responded to this kat by nxo@&g to 

tiow of the itkdustry, atxi 

t the lindustry's value to 

Given the growth jpossibatries of tourism, the 

focusing on le@slators. Tbis plm should: 

nt image ;tund bowled@ 

of the Mustry held by leg331ators. 

2) Propose methods or techniques for 

improvliPtg commutlieation between public 

and private tourim eatities and Ehe No& 

Cmha state legislature. 

3) Focus on the education of 

coflcerning the impact and 

inciustry. Senators and represenMves mwt 

be aware of how they can faditate 

improvernentr; in the 

economic impact of in 

North Carolina. 

4) Develop markehg profiles of le&latoa, 

which identify opinion leaders who can 

facilitate dovation aJMi. ado@on of a 

positive image of try& 

what it can do for 

T%e basis of effedve 

taget mdets. Cmm 

shgar sewice prefelrenms with whom @ asv 

seeks to develop a relatiow@. For the tourim 
in North Carob, an hportmt target 

s the state legidahre. It provides 

lef5isldve mp~ and awates $5.4 million in tax 

otion of No& Carob as a 

travel deshdon. 

& No& Cmb Association of Convenrjlon and 

Visitor Bureaus en Office of Parilrs md 

Todsm Research t no^ Carotlna State 

ty to conduct a survey of the State 

bRgislal~re in June 1990. Thr: study involved 

mmeykag bsth the Senate md the House of 

Repsentatives to identifv le@slatrive awareness and 

bowledge of the tourism industry. 

141e survey ~sults are reported, and a matkehg 

plm tmge~g the No& Carrrlifla ba&lamre is 

pmposed based on LQvelock md Wehkrg's fomat 

ht ehe marketing plan 

ecrry. The Mfusioo of an hovatrlion is "tkre 

process by wbich aa bovation is communicated 

@ adopt& (or Mected)" (hvelock andl Wehkrg, 

1984). h bsva~on isany god, service, idea, or 

bb~or paltern tbal is perceived as new by an 

SGdual, The tou~m hdaslry casl apply lfie 

eompt of &figion of hova~on wkn wo&g to 

educate le@slators tfurough lobbying. 

&nerd Hypotheses 

A ~l;pl part of ahe re%earch pwss bcludes rhe 

gemdon of bypoaheses - tentaItive guesses or 

conjecms about sr?latiow~ps wienma 1986). 

Possible h~otbeses for Ms eiaesis klude: 1) 

h@8natom h;ave bit& %goyledge of &e touhrn 

d i@ eeeaodc vdue to h state, 2) A 

hg earn bb: o hprove 

~m~oza ktwee 

& Noeh Carolina state le&slatusle, arnd 3) &fisicm 

of hovdon &ory ~agl be wplied to afie 

ictea~fiea~on of indjlviduals (opinion leaders) who 

Muenw mrplport for Nortb Caroka Tourism. 

And Procedures 

During the short legislative session in July of 1990 

le#statofs were inteniriewed in order to achieve two 

phq objectives: 1) the idenrification of the 

awmness and howledge of the le@slators about 

the todsm iradusw, ;and 2) their opinions and 

pe~eptions of the idustry, A total of 170 

legislators were iden~ed as potentid respondents 

by squiring a list from the tegislative Office 

Brailhg in Rdeigh, Nofi GwoEaa Seven@-eight 

LRgislators mswe~d the sumey queshom, ~sulting 

in a response rate of 45%. N&ou& Lhe aespome 

rate WB low, it wia~ =presentative of the legislature 

in the catego~es of age, length of time served in the 

leaslature, educalion, and loca~on. 

were closed-ended. Seven of the 

questions were related to legislators' factual 

howledge of toutism, and 23 of the questions 

focused on the opi~ons about the impact and value 

eoofiperaevelly by &e Ravel Goundf's 

Aff& Tak hrce (GAm md he 

md Tota~sm Research (6) ) at No& Carsllna 

State 'Udvemity. 

Due to 1-k shforness of the July ~ssiom md the 

the neq~red to eonduet a tefephorw irplerview, 

legisfatom mswe~d one hdf of the surclreyl and 

wre: &en afsked if they would g~fer to tpe 

relephomed or have the rest of the survey m&led to 

them after; the session had enclejd. nose not 

contacted dating the short session were mailled a 

coqlete copy of the quesrjlonn~re and were 

requested to return it. 

Tkte Rspmes $0 e,pea-ended questions we= csnteBt 

mdyzed md mnds were ikn~li-iied wMe the 

Espsmes to ekne mszl~ple choice ques~o~ls wese 

~ded and hquency counts prxluwd using PC 

SAS satktical softwm. From W ~orna~on the 

swngb md wehesses of the rsu~sm irrduskzy as 

p~eived by &e iegisla%;~re were caa3tearziiwd. 

The &fhsion sf imovaGom &eory was afso 

applied to idendfly. legkla~ve op~on leaders md to 

develop &ffusion smtegks, A comprehensive 

&scussioa of this a~?plication is continued in the 

chapter foftowing the description of the legislative 

survey results. 
halysis And Results 

Survey Results 

A sound m&eting plan must be based on a 

situational andysis of the enviroment that an 

organization conbats (bvelock d Weinberg 

1984). After collecting and synthesizing the data 

from the legislative suwey, the results were divided 

into two prtrnq categories: hgislative fCnowledge 

and Legisfative Opinions. The kt deals with the 

legislator's knowledge of the basic statisrics and 

impact of tourism. The second addresses the more 

opinion-oriented results. From this infomation, the 

tourism industry can ihntify poblems and 

opportunities that will be important in the design of 

a successful mdeag plan. 

Figure 1. Legislators' perceptions of the value 

of tourism in North Carolina (N=78). 

valued the industry at 20 Billion dollars. A 

substantial 19.2% did not fespond to the question. 

Legislative Knowledge About Tourism 

The le@lators were asked four questlorn related to 

bowledge of the economic irnpact of tourism in the 

state. 'be ques~ons foeused genedy on the 

ated vdue of tourism to the state's economy, 

i& dollar value, the, nvmher of jobs geneaated 

Wugh tourism, and wages assodated with the 

tourism industry. 

The kt question about the economic value of the 

tourism industry was: How hprtant is tourism to 

the economy of the state? A substmtid 79.5% 

indicated that touPism was very hpaant to the 

state's economy, while 17.9% responded that 

tourism was important to the economy of the state, 

and only 2.6% said that tourism was not very 

impartant to the economy, 

Legislators also responded to this question: What 

would you eshate is the dollar value of touhm to 

the sta(4:'s economy (Figure I)? The results follow. 

cant 28.2% of (he responBiog legislators 

stated &at tourism was a 6 Billion dollar industry 

(& U.S. Travel Data anger estimates hdicat9: 6.2 

Billjtorr doll= are gera~mted by No& Gaoha 

Todsm). The *cod largest goup of le@slato= 

(25*6%) repofled ht P$ey we= mm of the value 

of & toUFism ~USQ. An additiond 12.8% 

vallued the hdustry at 1 BWon dollars, 5.1% at 100 

muon, 3.8% each at 112 and 18 BWon, and 1.3% 

A common benchmark used to determine economic 

impact of an industry is the number of jobs the 

industry generates. Le@slators were asked: mat 

would you estimate are the number of jobs 

generated in North CaroIina by tou~sm? 

One-fou& (26.9%) of &e legislatom indicated that 

tourism generated 200,000 jobs (Figua 21, while 

17.9% stated that 250,000 jobs are attributed to 

tourism (current statistics indicate that the tourism 

industry provides bemeen 200,000 and 250,000 

jobs in North Carolina). The next largest groups 

(9% each) reported 50,000 and 150,000 jobs were 

tourism-oriented. An additional 7.7% identified the 

industry as responsible for 100,000 jobs, followed 

by 5.1% who indicated other estimates. Slightly 

less than one-quarter (24.4%) did not eshate the 

number of jobs generated by the tourism industry. 

While considering the legislators' perceived quantity 

of jobs generaled in the tourism industry, perceived 

quality is wise to look at as well. As job quality 

often relates to wages, legislatom were asked: How 

would you describe the wages associated wiih Ihe 

tourism kdust~y? ost one-half (44.9%) 

anributed average wages to the toudsm indusw, 

wfaile 16.7% stated wages were above average. 

Over fifteen percent (15.4%) ~paed wages as 

lowfbelow average md 1.3% k&cated kgh wages, 

Over one-fifth (21.8%) &did not respond. 
Figure 2. Legislators' perceptions of jobs 

gewrated by North Carolina tourism (N=78). 

Legislative Opinions About Tourism 

f;etemi&g the degree of past success in efforts to 

gain support from legislatom is important when 

developing a legislabive marketing plan. Feedback 

hnn the legslaton about their prcep~on of the 

success of these efforts was eLicited by 

several quesbions. 

A variety of employment opportunities in mmy 

&verse indus~es exist in Nora Carolina The 

rela~ve perceived imp of tourism as an 

industry wEch employs a large number of citizens 

was iflvestigated by asking: Compared to other 

industries, how important is tourism as an employer 

in the state? Siefjlcant responses were recorded as 

both very impoaant (48.7%) d hportant (43'6%) 

~a;eived ama~ofity of the answers (Figure 3), 

fotlowed by 6.4% of the le@slators indicating that 

tourjism was not very &paant. Slightly over one 

peEeat (1.38) did not ~spond. 

A posi~ve image of an indusw and its leaders 

often hauenms he suppoa for md perqtion of 

the value md wortb of that idus~, The in%age 

that No& Gmlifza legislators have of the touIlism 

inQllssdy md its leaders ww inves~gated by 

series of ques~orrs. me first of these questions 

was: In terns of professional image, how would 

you rate the leaders of the North Carolina tourism 

industry as compared to the leaders of ohr 

industries? Over one-third of the legislators 

(37.2%) reported that tourism industry leaders had 

as snrong a professional image as other iadusbry 

leaders, while 28.2% of the legislators reported that 

Figure 3. hpflance of 

Carolina employer (0. 

tourism leadem did not have as strong a 

professional image. Both a monger professional 

image and a weaker pro%ssional image claimed 

5.1 % of the respondents, and 24.4% did not 

respond. 

The image of an industry is often characterized in 

words or phrases by which 

described. To clarify their 

about the image of the tourism iadustry, ledslsutors 

wen= &ed: Wbat words or 

to dlescrjibe the tourism indus 

(43.4%) of the responses were positive, using 

such as: s1eePi;lg giant, active, vev 

t, pmlpessiw, growing, and diverse. 

dese~p~orrs cme &OM 23.096 of tbe 

fesponding leaslators, ushg 

cLiisorgdzeB, hadequate, not as p&hd, and 

ineffective. A si@ficmt 43.6% elected not to 

respond. 

begex orgda~on was cited by 23.196, o 

Ze@slatm, 16.7% see the Mastry as comiung of 

age, and 65*5% in 

profession&m 9. 

le@sl&ors prwived efie ~wbry to be Ln 

apd 2.696 of the respaode 

pscniprtioas. Nemly om 

respmd. 

In an effort to isolate specific strengths aad 

sses which legislators asswid with the 

industry, legislators wen: asked a series of 

questions. The strengths were identified in re 
to the question: In your opinion, what are the 

strengtfis of the No& Carolina tcturism Mmtry? 

The major strength was identified as the na 

beauty of the state. Other hcluded 

revenue for the state, stron eture at the 

local level, variety, pmmotioaaf eampaip, and tlhe 

people in the Mustry. 

'I'he perceived we sses of the indusaty were 

discoven=d with this question; What are the 

weaknesses of the North Carolina tesm indusbry? 

Those most often identified were hdwtry 

promotion, ineffective lobbying, and fragmented 

organim~on. 

In an effort to gh insi@t lint0 how to strengthen 

the tourism industJry from the le@lamm9s 

stdpoint, those surveyed were asked: 'What should 

the industry do to improve or strengthen itself? The 

primary responses induded: 

1. Org~ze the hdustry, develophg 

leademKp, 

2, Actively prsmcrte he industry. 

3. Educate your comluituenIt;s md your 

le@sl&om. 

Despite mmnt chmgs md Bu~tUahiom in h 

economy, demograp~c exprts (U,S. Tmvel Dala 

Center, 1989-98) contbinue to pre&ct pow& in 

service indusbries, espeddly lin Eavel md l;ourism. 

An understm&ng of Zegklatbive gemeptions of the 

kohsm hduslI.ies7 revenue-geraerahg economic 

opportuniLies will help the hdustry to better 

understand the role it is expected to play in the 

development of the state in the fiurture. To discover 

hese perceptions, legislators were asked to respond 

to the following question: By the year 2000, what 

indusbries do you 

=venue genemom for 

&ffe~nr lirmdus~es were kdjicated, (Pie le&lators 

responded that ~OU~S~ would b the nmkz one 

=venue lgenemor for Norlla Carolha by the year 

2008, foUowec-1 by maaufaau&g, aMeulture, he 

rextae isldusw, md fo~sr resourws (the lurnkr 

md b~tum indufi:~es)* 

To hvesfigate h&er &e opi~ons of legklators on 

lkre subject of be eeonomrrie hpoaance of tourism 

as it relates to oeher hdusQmies irr rhe state, Ws 

ques~on wa &ed of Qkde le@slators: Trend expem 

suggest that totoukm wZ be the number om 

Fnhstr). h North Cmob by the year 2000. I3o 

YOU with this statr;miertt, and what does ti& 

(wen: m\m: of dlt: stabmerat), 

elicited from 7.7% of the legightom 

The thee most comm n: 

half of the quest-ion were: 

1. Tourism is hportant and sbould not be 

neglected (16.9%). 

2. The tourism industry is gd for the 

important (6.5 9%) 

The tourism indwtry has tfid to elidt and 

encourage legislative supprt. Attempts brave 

enjoyed varying degrees of success. Feedb& &om 

the leE(isllators about theh 

of these eHorCs was e 

your qaon of the su 

to~sm hdusm to encourape le&fative suppa fog 

1eglisl;ators reposed 

been sumssEu1 in encou 

In contrast, 28.2% h&c 

7.7% reported &at 

and a mere 3.8% did not respod 

Relative awaremss of tl"ke *act, value, aad 

con~butions of the touh 

Cmlina is Muenced by 

about dhe indusrtry. To 

ty of that geflt3mted 

(35.9%) of k le@slatan =wed 

had seldm hed or seen 

ag 19.2% &d not re~rrd. 

In or&r to g& a&&md lunswldge hut 

leesla6ve awmness of h value of k 8 
Figure 4. Success of tourism indusq to 

enmurage legisl&ve support (N=78). 

stry in North Caroliga, letegislators were asked: 

Wow does North Carolina rank nationdly in the 

ewnonnic impact of toulism? Slightly more than 

one-fifth (21,8%) hdicated that North Carolina 

d among tbe top ten states, while 15.4% 

placedl the strate mong the top 15. Over one-tenth 

(12,8%) =ported that they did not howlwere not 

sure of the stare's g, 10.3% responded that 

& st- mong the top 5. A s 

decbed to respond. 

Fmmcial assistmce is ow fom of legislative 

suppa wfiicth the toradsm hdusbry sees as valluable. 

To iden* be depe of legiislative commitment to 

om were asked. The first 

remotion. Over om-hatf (53.9%) sf the 

g legislators stated that more dollars 

dollars shodd be cmmitted to promotion, atld only 

1.3% did not respond. It should be noted that 

who indicaed a need for more 

mmy felt that current budgetary 

ade it difficult to consider that hmwe 

at this time. 

fn order to understand the competitive enviroment 

in which the tourism industry operates, an 

awmm of current commitments of resources for 

promotion by mounding states is helpful. To 

detemirte the legislators' perception of the 

hportance of being a sbrong competitor in the 

sou&astem Udted States, they were asked: For 

each of the following states, should North Carolina 

be more aggressive, equally aggressive, or less 

agwssive in promoting tourism vable I)? The 

majoPlity of the zspndents iaciicated &at No& 

Carolina should be more agmssive than all 

surrounding states (percentage by state); South 

Carolina (55.1 %), Tennessee (5O.O%), Virginia 

(50.0%), Rorida (34,6%), and Georgia (46.2%). 

'I'he next group of respondents favored equal 

promotional agpssiveness with: Virginia (35,9%), 

Tennessee (32.1 %), Georgia (32.0%), Iilorida 

(30.8%), and South Carolina (29.5%). Those who 

advocated less promotional aggressiveness 

according to each state were: Iilorida (24.4%), 

Geor@a (9.0%), Tennessee (6.4%), south Carolina 

(5.1%), and Virginia (3.8%). 

Developing and hpfernenting a moE agg~ssive 

and competi~ve promotion program =quires 

legisllzaive support, smmer m&ehg decisions, and 

ad&donal. fiilds for promollion committed by both 

the state and tbe rindustry. In an effort to identl& 

ifunbing sourms w~ch wodd m&e such a 

promotion. program a reality, the legislators were 

asked to select firom a %st of possible funding 

sources those hey would recommend to increase 

financial suppoal for tou~sm p~omotion. The 

ch of ;the following self-sustkning 

hnhg sour~es would you recommend the industry 

consider to hcrease financial support? The 

respondents could h&cate more than one source, so 

the percent;ages wal add up to more than 100%. 

A statewide occrapancy tax was favored by most 

(38.4%), while a statewide ente 

followed with 23,0%. Only 7.7% of the legislators 

recommended a meals tax, and 6.4% listed other 

possible sources* A substantial 39.7% did not 

indicate a pference or propose a so- of 

funding. 

A moxe aggressive promotion progrm will also 

require substantial leaslative support. Generating 

that support requires an understanding of the 

perception of the activities and efforts which are 

appropriate and necessary to elicit such support. To 

provide some direction which will insure the 

success of future efforts at encouraging legislative 

support, legislators were asked to provide advice to 
'sauauraaosciq qsd aaels 'mrrr?, spaw %s~a$ua:, 

gan%x$ "gu~? jsoq p3og "A~aq8~ roj snug :pqnpua 

pa3,aac, sanssr ~aq)~ 'm~ &3rndn:,30 rn JO angst 

aq~ aua ~a?~lal pa3sanbar voddns jmrrxuropard aq~ 

-puotSsa 3ou pp qf)G'I Xpo 'IqklJaUlaT 10U pq 

%I"$ pm 'sou pvq %z"L~ "Bo;fd pa1~1a-wspo3 

r: snoddns 01 stuan~psuoa arow ao wo dq pay~~osd8a? 

uaaq pgq Ray3 3~y3 pa3~3qu~ sro~visr8af tau~puodsa~ 

aq3 jo (%vgs) jpq-auo aano "ogsanb lag 3% 01 

asuodsar u~ l do la nap oa hsnpq zuswol atg peay 

ord pwoc(lYns 20 "~q a 303 paloh 

'l~q 't? parornods noX ahvq 'mgjo $0 wal xnoX 

8pna tpuo3ag jsu11!~8016 ro aop~lsllflal urspol 

goddns noA 1mg palsanbar wanlpsaor, moA 30 

Am anr?y 'ma4 1sq ayl ;jlul;~n~~ tlqd :suopsanb OM$ 

payst? araM srolr!lsf8a~ ayl 's.xolr!1@al pm Ajclsnpv 

uaamaq dgsuop~lar tauwo~ ayl Qpuap! laaaq 

o;~ -mfiolrd 't? jo uopatap? ayl 20 uopqspaf 30 

dgslods ayl u! pa13avar aq plnoqs srol~lsh3al 01 

urwnol~o am~rodur~ ahFlar ayl jo uopr?3Fpur u-v 

*puodsax 

3ou PI$ (%€'I) lunom ams ayj~ '3~~32~0durt 

aou SI?M 1~ 1~yl p~s %€.I agg~ 'ao~vlqlaal 3uow 

wnn urspno) qurnl[l1ou pp sangvan03 qayl 1r?y3 p~s 

(%P'VZ)"~~UO~ UI 'STO)E~S@~~ 3ay)O 03 lmv0d~l 

SI?M ws~"[nol p;a?'t?3n;,q pakanzns asoqi JO 

(%L'Ls) J@y-auO Jan0 jsrotvjsrfaal xay)o 01 wspol 

s!1~1?1rodur! MO~ 'uoyu!do rnoA UI :pay= aaM 

Aay) 'urqnoa $0 anpn ayl 30 uo!lplao3ar sanBr?ano3 

x~ayr 30 suogdaxad ,s.xolqspal ay) auFwalap o;~ 

.puodsar 01 pag~ap lunom 

aws ayi am" "mvodur? 1ou s't?~ I! ivy1 papuodsar 

%9'~ @O "sluanlysuor, qayl0.r lwodury llxa~ 

IOU st?" &snpu! urspnol aq 1tlq papods %L.JZ 

@UOllfPPf! Uv .~muodwf hah =M pp?S %S'6Z 

aIqM 's~uan~~)suor, lrlayl 01 jrn~fodq SF urspno) leq3 

parr?3puy 8933 pparelsqns v j~uant!lmo:, rnoA 03 

ST urqno) qupl, nolf op 1muodq tldoy 'paua3 uI 

:s~onoj auo 1q aa ernogsanb OM) paqsr! saM 

sro1lzlsf8al 'sdno.x;jl as;,* 01 wFno1 jo ~)3muodur1 

pantaxad aq1 ;;luFuu[alap o;~ +xxol~l@aj nnonaj 

3~aq pm sa!~uanlpsuo:, qaa :saogr!lndod-qns 

OM] yl!~ sgfure~ )sow an mo1r?ls18al ang3a~3.3 

*sqnsar jo u~op~arq t! sapfnoxd z alq%?;L 

.bssa3aa SEM 1uaurantoAuy ssat iql palv3f~uy 

~uapuodsar a10 A~O .sanssF asayl ~oj uoddns 

Ifslsnpq ayl sy] papu 03a.1 s~o~a~s@al 
aquariuins, the zoo, and local Chamber of 

Commerce funds. 

In response to the second question, 84.6% of the 

legislators =ported that they had spomomd a bill, 

voted for a bill, or sponsored a program as 

requested by their constituents. One-tenth (10.2%) 

of those sumeyed did not remember if they had 

sponsored legislation or a program, while only 2.6% 

responded that they had not sponsored a bill or 

. Non-respondents made up only 2.6% of 

those sumeyed. Again, the primq issue supported 

was an occupancy tax, followed by state Euncii.ng for 

promotion and numerous local issues. Other issues 

cited were historic presenration, the zoo, highway 

bills, and state park improvements. 

Since no single MustPy or profession exists in a 

vacuum, it is dmprtant to realize that mmy groups 

are competkg for the le~sla~ve dollar. It is atso 

impoew to deternine the perceived irrmp 

the tousism industry as a priodq by Ehe legi%lature. 

The followhg question was posed to the ledslatom: 

Mmy issues wem: faced by tlhe leelamre duhg 

tk pat shoe session and will be faced during the 

next session. Would you rate the suppoa for 

tourism tas : A k@ p~ofirty issue, a low prior* 

issue, or ;m issue havhg Gtde or no prioriw? Of 

those sumeyed, 148.5% h&ca~d that tourism was a 

low priodty issue* In contrast, 32.1% =reported 

to~sm as a ~gh priofity issue. Only 7.7% 

responded that tourism was an issue having little or 

no priority, and 21.8% did not respond. 

terackg with the legislature, the tourism 

must look at the issue of establishing a 

political acti.on eo ittee, or PAC. Wen 

legislato= wear? asked about tihis concept, they 

espoaded with the following: A significant 88.0% 

dedbed to respond; nose who did respond were 

*ost evenly split. A mere 6.7% Sated that a 

PAC would increase awareness about the touriSm 

indusabry and improve its lobbyjing ability, and 5.3% 

maintained that a PAC was not practical or e~ed 

for the tourism irxfustry. 

Application of Tbe Difhsion of Imvatioas Theory 

The diEfusion of imvations theory provides a 

model of how a particufar idea or innovation is 

accepted or rejected into a social system. Different 

types of people adopt or reject new idern ;at 

different rates of speed and often look to certain 

respected members n 

leaders. Objective 

the identifica~on o 

legislam in order to facilitate an iacfll:ase in 

S~pPofi of tkte tourism US^. 

imova~ons theory can be amlid in 

detedrze opzoa leaiden. Refative the or 

experienct: as a legislator, education, aold 

paai~pation on relevant cornittees are all 

faaors in the identification of opitlim 

leaders, If, in fact, opinion leaders can be iderttified, 

use of these sub-populations would be superior to 

lobbyists or pkted material, but a much more 

difficult chamel to use. 

- Time--By combining the results of the survey with 

background information pmvided by the Pheple 

Clerk's Office of botka the HOUR of Wepresegtdves 

and the Senate, a It't-equency &Mbution was plotted 

of thc: numkr of tems of oflclw foa each 

respon&ng le@stator, with sm tern qudbg wo 

yem (No& Cmlina Getleer of hbk Poky 

Reseach 1989). It was detemined &at the mean 

number of tems for &os smpled is 5.46, & 

median is 3, witln a moQe sf 1, TZ?ow wha have 

sewed moM: &ara 6 tems ap"e above ahe mem, so 

they can be iden~fied as pssible opuorr leadem. 

mese leggatom have a hei&&& awarema d 

knowledge of the hididen agendas ad ~omd 

teadersfip that eexlist in theh sod& system, 

not part of a bue htervd scale, 

medim md the maie could be dete 

9fion leaders ge~eay have a 

than the average member of their social sysltem, 

thtrefore an opinion leader in the legid- wiil 

likely possess a postMuate ducation. 'Ibw 

survey results indicate that an opinion canbe 

identiEted as h~g at leasf a post pduate 

education. 

Comittees--h order for an opinion leader to be an 

effective liaison for the tourism industries' change 
agent, beIsk must tbe a 

that tteet legislatiive ac 

MembersEp on at le 

comdttees is necessary. For the House of 

atives: 1) the Basic Resources C 

Resomces ad Pa, 2) Commep-ce, 

wi& the sub-cornnritte of Rdways, 

Appropriations on Natud and Economic Resources, 

and 7) Marltre Resources and Wildfife. 

Using these primary categorizatiottr of legislators, 

op~on leaders can be identified, which reMorms 

Hsothesis 1: If the diffusion of hovations theory 

is applied, spedfic categories of adopters can be 

isolated, so that op~on leaders can be, dete 

The typical opinion leader will have served six 

terns of office, have a postgraduate education, and 

will be involved in at least three important 

committees. 

=ugh analysis of the survey results and 

application of the diffusion of hovatioms theory, a 

m arketing plan was designed for the legislature. 

Situational Analysis, Identification of Problems and 

Opportunities, and Marketing Goals were 

established on the basis of the survey ~sults. 

Opinion leaders were identified tbrough application 

of the diffusion of hovations theory. Both the 

survey results and the application of the Wsion of 

inhovations theory form the foundation for the 

M&eting Plan, an executive smmary sf which is 

described in the next chapter. 

Executive Summary 

3) Focus on the eduadm of 1e&lamm 

4) Develop marlre~g pmeifs of le%itJ;9tttom, 

w~ch i&nrtifu owoa leadem who w 

facilitate dovation ad adoptim of a 

positive iunage of the to 

what it can do for North 

Goals: 

1) To increase state supported 4! of 

tourism by 25%. 

2) Increase av Up. 

knowledge m in No& 

to 1egis:Eators. 

3) Improve the professioaal hap of the 

tourism industry. 

4) Increase atvmness of the advmges of the 

tourism itxiustry in North Carolha to its 

citizens. 

Major Strategies: 

1) Establish and cultivate target 

sub-populations hewn as opinion le*m 

among members of the leflatune 

difision of ianovatio~ theory. Clritarion 

used for determining opitlio~ tea& 

includes relative time or experi 

position, education, 

cowttees relevant 

industry* 

2) Produce a fact skt that will regularly aad 

accumtely portray a infornative pictun: of 

the todm indusb.y to be 

legislators on a year-round b&s. 

nt hage and knowledge 

of the industry held by legislators. 
3) Create an "Mustry Declmtion" that will 

zed, united front for 

tourism. Include basic indusw objectives 

and ~mbry-dde stances on current 

issues. This will be revised yearly. 

4) Take a simple, educational approach to 

statedde promotion of tourism to 

coolstituents. 

5) Plan to re-mwey legislators yearly for the 

next 5 years to determine effectivelless of 

the Marketing Plan, and re-evaluate choices 

of opinion leaders. 

References 

Bamett, H.G. 1953. Innovation: The basis of 

cultural change. McOraw-Hlill Book Co. New 

Yo*. 

Crompton, J.L.; Lamb, Jr., C.W. 1986. Marketing 

govement and social services. John Wiley 

and Sons. New York. 

Dunner, Joseph, editor. 1964. Dictionary of 

Political Science. Philosophical Library. New 

Yo*. p. 321. 

Goeldner, C.R.; McIntosh, R.W. 1987. Tourism: 

Principles, practices, and philosophies. Grid 

Publishing Co. Columbus, OH. 

Kotler, P. 1988. Marketing Management: 

Analysis, planning hplernentation, and control. 

hrentice-Hall. Ebglewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 

Lovelock, (1.H.; Weinberg, C.B. 1984. Meting 

for public and non-profit managers. John 

Wiley ami Sons, New Yo*. 

North Caroha Center for Policy Research. 

1989. Article 11: A Guide to the 1989-90 

North Carolina Le&lature. Raleigh, NC. 

S Database. 1984. Tourism and vacation 

travel: State and lo vement planning 

1961-March 1983. . Spkgfield, VA. 

Perdue, R.R.; Trmmell, R.D. 1990. Marketing 

North Carolina as a travel destination: a 

marketing plan for cooperative industry 

development 1990- 1993. Travel and Tourism 

Division, state of North Carolina. Raleigh, 

North Carolina. 

Robertson, T.S. Jan. 1967. The process of 

innovation and the diffusion of innovation. 

Journal of Marketing, 31 : 14-19. 

Rogers, E.M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. The 

Free Press of Glencoe. New York. 

Rogers, E.M.; Shoemaker, F.F. 19'71. 

Communication of Innovations. The Free 

Press. New York. 

Rovelstadt, J.M. 1981. State of the art in tourism 

research: An applied prspective, Michigan 

Tourism: How can research help? Symposium 

proceedings. (pp. 6 1-66) East Lansing, 

Mchigan. 

U.S. Travel Data Center. 1989-90. Survey of state 

travel offices. Washington, D.G. 

U.S. Travel Data Center. 1988. The impact of 

travel on state economies. Washington, D.C. 

Wiersma, W. 1986. Research Methods in 

Education. Allyn and Bacon. Boston. 
Tables 

Table 1, Level of promotional aggressiverress for North Carolina compared to other southeastern states 

(N=78) 

Table 2. kgislators' recommendations about tourism industry involvement in other issues (N=78) 
Considerations in Using Qualitative 

Approaches in Studying Leisure, 

Recreation, Tourism, and NaturaI 

Resources 

Karla A, ~enderson' 

Abstract. 3'' purpo~ of this paper is to provide a framework for 

using qualitative approaches in studying questisns surrouding 

recreation, leisure, tourism, and natural resources. Ttw: qualitative 

approach to research includes intevtive procedures that 

iductively describe, translate, and focus on the meaning rather 

than the frequency of occurring phenomena in the social world. 

The thesis of thc paper is that researchers should have enough 

information to make choices about what research pafadigms and 

methods may be used and should understand the strengths and 

weaknesses of using a qualitative approach to address particular 

research or evaluation questions as they pertain to areas of 

recreation, leisure, tourism, and natural resources research. 

Qualitative methods may be more appropriate than quantitative 

methods for some research questions but may not be practical in 

other situations. 

Introduction 

The qualitative approach to research includes 

interpretive procedulres that inductively describe, 

translate, and focus on the meaning rather than the 

frequency of occurring phenomena in the social 

world (Van Maatlen 1988). The qualitative approach 

generally uses the natural envhment, focuses on 

detemining the m attached to phenomena, 

achowlledges the her as the insmment in 

interaction with the phenomena being studied, and 

uses words as the primary symbols for generating 

grounded theory specific to the context in which the 

research OGGUES. It is often contrasted to the 

quantitative qproach which focuses on. deductJ.re, 

statistrical tecwques for generating and analy&g 

data. These wo ways of desi 

* Karla A, Henderson, Assodate Rafessor, 

University of No& Carolina-Ghapl Hill, 

Curriculum in Leis= Studies and Rematioa 

Adanssmtion, CB # 3 185 Evergreen, Chapel HlI, 

NC 2759-3 1 85. h expanded version of this paper 

can be found in the author's 1991 book, 

Dimensions of Choice: A Qualitative Approach to 

Remation and Leisure Research (State College, 

PA: Venture Publis;hing, Inc. ), 

and inte~~ting data, bwever, are not woe 

opposites. Both approac 

research and evduation 

remation, leisure, 

ques tiom. 

21re putgo= of this pwr is to pro~de a

for using qualitative appro 

questions. A general u 

methods precludes an u 

methods. No one method can fully explain reality. 

The thesis of the paper is that re~abrs should 

have enough infomalion to make choices about 

what research patadips and methods may be used 

and should dentand the strengths and we 

of using a qualitative approach to addtess particdm 

research or evaluation questions. Qualitative 

methods are more appropriate than quantitative 

methods for some research questions but may not 

be practical in other situations. 

Background 

The qualitative approach is not clearly understood 

by many people. k is o&en easier to dwcrib than 

to define what is meant by the quaiitative approach. 

The distinction is not as easy as saying that 

quditative researchem use words while quamtitative 

researchess use numbers, although in an 

oversimplified way, this &stindon is true. The 

world view or pm&gm &at is held 

~femd to as either positi.vism or hepwtive s~d 

science), the generztl approach to rewiuch design 

that is chosen (qu&taeive verses quantitalive), awf 

obsewation, in dep& 

desepik the ways tha 

conducted (Henderson 

descriptions, however, can mate c 

without &emtanding dtee 

better than the other are not produGtlve, but 

researchers do need a broad phiiosoptrical base in 
order to enhmce our mdersm&ng of these 

me&& of research as lbey can be appE4 to 

tourism and natural resources. 

The resemher contemplating usiflg elbe ~aliative 

approach should be aeiiible, For exmple, 

qumgtative desip have typ,icay had protocols 

assodated with ahern. Ln tbe quditaIlive zypproacfn, 

systematic bquiry is sM the fimewobk used to 

idearn pamm of phenomena; however, the 

prowss of using qu&&gve me&& md tecmques 

is generdly not as bear s lita aplyirPg the 

qumtitative qproach, In qu&ta~ve methods hrr: 

is a tlauseously htedepe~fdi:ncy ktween the nammt: 

of the sodd world md the spedfic me&@ usd to 

study &;rr socid wodd (D~uglw 1976). A slriict 

adlherence to any me&& or tec~qae (i.e., suweys) 

may become a conkemenl; to what e;lpl k lemed 

though &e qudta~ve approach to resrurch wax 

1971). Fuaer, tlPe problems ht adhssed ;in 

the study of ~ma~on, toesm, and leisure m 

bounclless; Ihe~fom, we e 

in a bounded rabcsndrily. If msemch problems 

sunaun&ng toudm md rsatud resourms 

simplified too mu&, it is hpossible to adcldtless 

them adequately. 

A her cornam about the resemh &at hm beerr; 

coducted in our field dates to k gap between 

the reseacher and tfie practieoner. 

tf%e resemh addresshg leisure studi.es bas ody 

tkoreticd value, ahefe is a need to eontinuay 

consider how research catl con~bute to practice. 

Qualitative resewch, for exmple, may offer 

research done wifhin a context hctly applicable to 

the practice and provision of tourism, It also has the 

advantage that it may be presented in a way that the 

reader (e.g. a manager of a lresorts does not need to 

know sopw~cated s~~stical prmdures itl order to 

evaluate the vd&ty of tlLne resd&. 

nus, an emerging paradip Qbal focuws orll 

inteq~Gve views and Qlre qu&liagve qproacb mily 

Be a rash1 mew for addresshg some of he 

applied md basic qques~orrs lea unanswered by past 

to~srrr and lekm =search. % emmous 

comple~ties of leis@= cm ns longer be shpwed 

in psitivis~e md quanz~ta~ve terns (Canter 1987)* 

le stii~sgcs rare helpffml, rhey do niot pro~de 

eqlamia~om. A &versiq of researehers pumulitag a 

mdtitude of topi@ wiMn a vdev of 

methdslcrgies is needed. Reseuchem now have 

alternativm and 

sady of tourism 

Onto logicaf. and Epistemological 

Qualitative Appmwh 

is a wodd ~ew. It dwcnribg oato1o~ 

or the nahlrr? of the sociaf world- A 

model ox he whi& oeaaizs om'g 

e&g, It is bm&r than a i4iet of des 

for fesearch. nus, a paraBip p"oVi.&s tke 

leisute st=lience ape 

rbe coatention &r m;Clh cm be 

h&vidual, Posie~s~s bGevh: &at &enrjissr~ w 

ideas =fleet dhe social 

redty of tbe world (Scbwartz d Jacobs 1979). 

The htev~~ve pm&p allows ~seajr&rs to 

view humm khavior as a p"oduGE of bow peopte 

deb their world and to see reality bm ohm' 

eyes, The assumpti- of 

are that meags 

behavior can best 

enviroment, reality 

experience, and soc 

people (Bullock 1983). 

"Approachf% isused to is 

conducted Approaeate 

Epistemology is &e sciefl~e of 

ncompasm how .~e idenw pmblems, 

, d bold beliefs about how oloe gets 

assump~ons, hte=s 

tlhK: methods cbosn. 

g~;uch desdbd ia~e q(u&tadve d gum~abive, 

Qumtibdve emerges hm tbe podt;iiGst woM ~W 

and involves Ehe tesbg of &ow, the use of 

eoneolled da& coUed~n, d m dyds u&g 

gemmy have as a cmmoa&l;y b 9e 
hm theoretical aad methodological. positivi.sm that 

has dominated the m am of American social 

the 20th Gentury &idz and Lidz 

atitative approach exprophates an 

emer@g =search design, uses the natural 

envirohment, foeuses on detem 

o phenomena, =how 

as the insmment in interaction with Qhe 

phenomena being studied, ad uses words; as tfie 

phw synnbols for genabg grounded theory 

specific to the context in wftich the research occm. 

As a me= for illurnring conbrast, Table 1 

pmvides a summary of the typical relationsEps 

beween the pure qualitdve and the pure 

quanhtative approach. 

Methodology is the science of fmding out (Babbie 

1986). Methods are used to denote specific 

prmdures. For exmple, field research is a method 

that hcludes systemsatically gatlhering data in a 

mtrpd sewg on spe~jific aspects of social life by 

establisbg an ongodng relatiomMp with those 

g 1987). Pn depth interviedng md 

field neseavch t-ur= the rt?mt co 

ts re~arch. TecMques 

undertaken to discover 

a given method. Methods 

and spedfic tecwqws emerge fEom the approach 

selected. Methods choices avdable to the 

lnes~archer can be easily placed on a continuum. For 

exmple, obervation and irntewieering are methods. 

Eliither one cannot be considered s~ctly categoked 

as tt quatitative or a quaatiQtive method, 

can range from lintepeve field 

alitdve) to sopkriisticated numeric 

qumdtative) arad hterviewing can ratage 

fim smeturetl dose-ended telepitaorae interviews 

om smple (qumtitative) to an 

Gfe story accoufll us@ a theoretical 

smphg pmcedlure ((qu&h~ve). merefore, in 

dedbing methocOs om must 'exmine the 

wrunpdoras about the pardp aad the approach in 

a&r 80 bw wkther a parbicular method 

s a qu&t;dtive or a quanetaeve apwoacb, 

1981) has cau~oned lneseavckrs that it is 

somewes easier to fit re&@ to our methat than to 

fit method to the reality. mrefore, the nature of 

Phe pmblem rather than om's predisposition should 

dictate ithe methods chosen (Howe and Keller 

1988). 

Theory refers to an explranation of "what is, "A 

ework is a way of looking at the 

world and the assumpgom made about it. Glaser 

md Sbrauss (1967) indicated that there are two 

extremes of Ihteofy which in general, but not 

always, descI.ibe the: difference between the 

posirclvist aud intefpretive paradips. The 

deductive tfreory, theory that is testdcon 

theory that is fomd and is referred to as a priuri. 

The second type of &eory is grounded theory or 

induceive theory which is developed relative to a 

substantive area (contexmal. wi~ the place or 

activity) or relating to fomd theory after data are 

discovered (concepmal ties to an area of inquiry). In 

grounded theory, the creation of a theory is based 

on observation rather than on deduction. In the 

interpretive paradigm the focus is on grounded 

theory, theory that emerges from the specific data 

being exmimd. Researchefs whg the qualitative 

approach generally develop grounded theory but 

use a numkr of &oretical, or conceptual 

eworks as a basis for the =search or as a way 

sf interg~ting Ihe outcomes of r search. Fielhg 

and Eiielding (1986) suggesed ehat data are really 

only "rich'hben they axe grounded in a rehed 

aeoretical. perspective. 

Considerations About Approaches In Pladng A 

Resew& Brojed 

The design of a research project &ffers depending 

upon the qualita~ve md quantilative approach 

chosen. The qumtifadve approach dies on 

deteminuing ~lprocedu~es &ad of We and generally 

kllowing specifis: protocols with a stable matmenat 

of the data* The qu&ta~ve approach, such as in 

ushg field stu&es (e.g., participmt observation), 

aflows for the qrzes~ons to emerge as the lnesearckr 

be@m and may msdt in Lhe? vdable treament of 

che daa, In ebe qu&tative amroach, &ta &scovery 

md dat& malysis m ongoing pmcesses &ughout 

the research design, dep& and mutual 

depndence of qu~tative data are acbowledged 

within a context of me g that emerges as the 

data are discovered and intevreted. The qualitative 

approach also relies on a dynamic interchange 

between theory /concepts a& data tboughout the 

research. 
The outcomes of the =sea%& will also dliaer 

&Ween the two approaches. In cfae cfumtjilacjlve 

approach, the focus is on mswering specific 

~seach questsicsas or teshg bwothieses and 

codming hory. In q~ditative agprclaches the 

foas is on expl~&g, developing pateem, ;urd 

developing poernda:d kta by using dep& BE 

walys& and &t&l. Quata~ve qpmaches use 

des&pdom to eer;plGcate exp~eaes. As Guh & 

Lhcsln stated, "mey (quaiiitattlve ~seachers) 

empa&e, deschb, judge, compm, portray, evolre 

images, md mslte for she reader or listener, &e 

snse of havling ken &eret"1981: 149). These 

tasks m often =fern& to as "~ck(' descripfion. 

enemy tlhe result of rhre qu~ta~ve qproach is 

&scoveq, but &ese me&& may sometimes result 

abon, In gened, resewchem using 

the qualitative amroach arndyze data beyond mere 

desdpfion md focus on expimatiom witb-in a 

pamticula context, 

In =search choices uesGons 

su s, one must 

decji& if ebe inteq~~ve view wi& its focus onr Ehe 

emergenqcontextud approach is better for a 

pastireapla sirnabon or for herbmself thm the 

p1(=dete~mdlmecharuisfic aspects of positivist 

research (lE1b and WaEanrs 1987). Furlt.ler, one 

may IQok at the lhitations of each approach such 

as wIhe&er vdid Measu~ment iursmments e;rist md 

complete a project, 

Related to hse e major hemiom 

obsenrer's internebion, ebe subjects' awaaeness of 

ahe nesearcb, arad rhe situation (Gabby and Lincoln 

1981). Does one wm to be a pasticipant or an 

observer, is the research to be ove& or covert, is the 

situation to be =turd or conMved? On a practiGal 

bwk, om mi@t wmt to consider how much eime, 

mmy md olfner ~soureesuch as mechanical 

devliws md computers are avajllable. Table 2 

pmGdes rt ctaecust far conside~g some of the 

major quesbions &at orre may ask in addressing the 

md qumghgve approaches in 

m d namrd ~ssurces. 

le prceived infe~ofiv md lack OE undel"~tm&ng 

abr dohg hte~~lrive research md mshg k 

qudia~ve a~zflroad needs to be adhessed. A 

=%;archer m;lk" be abb to just* &e use of rk 

qu&a~ve amroach by uskg pmvious bowledge 

about tourism d leisure resear~h (cf., Chenery md 

Russell 1987; ElEs and Witliarns 1987, Henderson 

1990, f 991; Wowe 1985). One may, however, have 

ro address feelings of nrmghdty in choosing to 

corrducr qudfitahve stu&es (Shaffir and others 

1980). The qu&ta~ve qproach is sometaes 

scanred by posilivisls who do not understmd the 

interpretJve possibjlIities of scienct?, 

may better understand the ~sults of qualitaltive 

repofis, many believe ebat statjistics are the "ed all 

and be all of research. " Further, pdeigants 

(respondents) may feel that the resemh behg done 

may also have some rmaanality. The use of 

qualitatiive methods, wMe &coming more common 

in recrttation, paks, and leisure research, is sdll far 

from predomhm. Condueling research can be both 

an exciting and a frustratbg ewrience; the 

researcher chooshg to use a quallitatlve approach 

wiU want to know as much as sfhe possibly can 

about the approach and will benefit from fin&ng 

others who are supportive of the interprebive 

process. 

The researeher should &o be awm ths mbiguity 

is the nature of quditative mth&s. The reseacher 

using the qualita~ve approach focuses on "letting 

the data speab;" md utigzs a Be~ble design. The 

research queslrions axe the product and not 

necessarily the atecedeat of data collecllion 

(Bullock 1983). Tltae design. is purposely kept loose, 

On the other hand, the emergent qualities of the 

researGh are bigorous in that om must have a 

research plan that is defi~l-ive but that can be 

changed as the data emerge. hbiguity in 

interpretive reseach is evident in that wkjle one 

wants to remrtin open and fle;rible, it is also 

important to have a desie or plan for how one 

~maias open and flesble. In olher words, the 

qualitative approach relies on detailed descriptive 

and contextual ir%fomation and he researeher must 

have a plan for gujlding the wok and a plm for 

being flexible. 

Some qualiradve stu&es w2l use right, grestmctured 

plans and othe~ will & loose md &gMy emergent 

ones. Most ~seach usling the qu&ta~ve approach 

lies between these mo exfRmes. fir novim 

researchers, it may be well to develop a fdrly 

stmcrured ~tital &sign. to sewe as a road map. me 

=searcher, Rowever, must eonGnudly aemirad 

self of the hductivir-4. of tk reseib3:~ln king 

codrtcted. Mles md Hubemm (6984) 
recommended that when the researcher is interested 

in a ktter understood phenomena within a fmiliar 

culture or subcultu~, atighter design may be 

necessw. For example, if a resewher chooses to 

exannine the leisure exprknce for a phcular 

group of individuals such as single male elderly 

travelers, it may be necessary to establish a specific 

plan in order to get access to the sample. The 

researcher also may have less flefib&@ in how data 

are collected than with another group. In conducting 

the research, however, the researcher must remain 

as flexible as possible to let the best plan for the 

research emerge. 

Summary 

Many additional reflections are necessary in 

pl-g a resemh study using a qualitative 

approach, however the considerations presented here 

provide a basis for making decisions about methods 

choices in tourism and natural resources research. 

One overall assumption of the qualitative approach 

is that direct experiences are the way that we come 

to how truth (Dou@as 1976). Interacting with 

human beings is not necessarily predictable. Wle 

resemhers have a growing body of infomation 

about qualitative methods of research, qualitative 

designs often do not follow set protocols. Since 

qualitative studies are generally conducted in the 

natural enviroment (and not in laboratories) and 

since researchers are generally 

behavior, the reseaher really never knows what 

data are going to emerge. 

Qu&tative approaches are not appropriate to use in 

all situations and are not necessarily the "qproxh 

of choice" for some researchers. If a researcher 

does like uncertainty, in~gue, being around 

humans (who are highly complex and usually not 

very predictable), then sfhe will probably not be 

very secure ira using the qualitative appoach for 

resemh on tou~m and natural resources. If the 

~sew~her is not comfortable with the methods used 

in qudtabve studies, then sfhe should pmbably not 

be doing them. One's personal discomfort should 

not preclude having an qpreciation of the 

approach. Researchers wing qualitative methods 

need to employ the techniques of adventurers, 

detectives, and investigative joudsts ( 

Mller 1986). Some researchers are born with these 

inclinations for doing qualitative research and 

simply need to refine them within the qualitative 

approach; others have to learn and develop these 

interactive =search s, or at the very least, learn 

to appreciate how they miat be applie-d to research 

studies. 

References 

Babbie, E, 1986. The Practice of Social Research. 

(4th led. ). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth 

PubLishing Co. 

Bullock, C. 1983. Qualitative march in therapeutic 

remation. Therapeutic Recreation Joumat 

17(4): 3643. 

Chenery, N.P.H.; Russell, R.V. 1987. Respomive 

evaluation: An application of naturalistic 

inquiry to recreation evaluatiim. Jomal of 

Park and Recreation Adnniaismtion S(4): 

30-38. 

Douglm, J.D. 1976. Invesdgative Soda1 Rmarch 

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Ellis, C.; Wmanns, D.R. 1987. The impe 

renaissance in leisun: sedce evduation. 

Journal of Park and Receation 

Admiaistration, 5(4): 17-29. 

Fielding, N.G,; Fiel&g, J.L. 1986. g Data 

Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. 

Filstead, W.J. 1979. Qualitative me&&. In 

Qu&Ita~ve rtnd Quandtatlve Me&& in 

Evaluabon Research, T.D. Cook: and C.S. 

Reichardt, eds. Beverly 

33-46. 

hba, E.G.; kcoln, U.S. 1981. EBmtive 

GI~lser, B-G.; Seauss, A. 19rS7. % meovery of 

Ground4 maw: Smtegies for Quafjlb~ve 

Research, Chicago: 

Gunter, B.C. 1987. The leisure evriem: §elected 

properties. Urinal of hisure Re 19: 

1 15-130. 
, VV. 1981, The exprience of leisure. 

Leisure Sciences 4(2): 1 13- 126, 

Henhrson, K.A. 1990. fZeality comes &ou& a 

prism: Method choi~t?~ in leisure rewarcb, 

Society md Leisure 13: 169-188, 

hl[en&rson, K.A. 1991, Dimensions of aoice: A 

Qualitative Approach, to Recreation, P&, 

and Leisure Research. State College, PA: 

Venturn Publiswg. 

Howe, C.2;. 1985. Possibilities for using a 

qualitative research approach in the 

sociologiGal study of leisure. Journal of 

Leisure Research l"73): 2 12-224. 

Hovve, C.Z.; Keller, M.J. 1988, The use of 

triangulation as an evaluation technique: 

Illustrations from regional spposia in 

therapeutic recreation. Therapeutic 

Recreation Journal 22(1): 36-45. 

Kirk, J.; Miller, M.L. 1986. Belie and Validity in 

Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills, CA: 

Sage. 

Lidz, C.; Lidz, V. 1988. Editors" note: $8 in a 

me? Qualjltative Sociology 1 1 f la): 5-7 

, P.K. 1987, Se~des and FkMwork. 

Newbw Park, CA: Sage. 

Mes, M.B.; Hubman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative 

Data hdy&s. Beverly 

Schwartz, H.; Jacobs, J. 1979. Qualitative 

Sociology: A Method to the ss. New 

Yo*: Fzee Press. 

Shaffir, W.B.; Stebbins, R.A.; Turowetz, A*, eds, 

1980, Fieldwork Experience: Qualitative 

Approaches to Social Research. New Yo&: 

Van Maanen, J. 1988. Tales of Che Reld. Chicago: 

The Uhiivefsity of Qicago 

Wax, R.H. 197 1. Doing Fieldwodc: W&gs and 

Advice. Chicago: The University of 

Chicago Press. 
=noes bemen Qu&tative and Quantitative Approaches (adapted from Guba and Lincoln 

1981) 

Categov Qu&~tive Quantitative 

Design 

Naaur: of Data 

Rehtiotzship to "Rwory 

Symbols Used 

Data Collection mment 

Data Smw 

Setting 

Outcomes 

hteraction with People 

Values 

Emereg 

Ongoing 

Mutually dependent 

Dynamic, Discovered 

Words 

Researcher 

Explanations 

Real Life or Natural 

Perspectives 

Much 

Context dependent 

Predetermined 

One-shot 

Indepndent 

Predetermined, Confirmed 

Numbers 

Physical (i. e., Paper and Pencil) 

Statistics 

Laboratory or Controlled 

Prediction 

Limited 

Context free 

Table 2. Checklist for Conside~g Qualitative or Quantitative Approaches (adapted from Patton 1980: 88-89). 

Is tbR researcher interested in individualized outcomes related to tourism and natural resources? 

Is the researcher interested in examining the process of research and the context in which it occurs? 

Is detailed in depth infomation needed in order to understand aspects of tourism and natural resources? 

Is the focus on quality and the meaning of the tourism experiences being studied? 

Does the researckr desire to get close to the data providers (toukts) and immersed in their experiences? 

Do no measuring devices exist that will provide reliable and valid data for the topic being studied? 

Is the research question likely to change &pending upon how the data emerge? 

Is it possible that the answer to the research question may yield unexpected results? 

Does it make msrp! sense to use grounded theory exi;sting a priori theory in studying tourism and natural 

Does the researcher wish to get personally involved in the research? 

Does the restearckr have a philosophical and methodolo@cdl bias toward the bterpretive paradigm and 

qualitative methods? 

If the answer is YES to any of these questions, the researcher ought to at least consider the qualitative approach 

as a possible way to approach. the search question being addressed. 

3~. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995 - 635-055 

The Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation's 

forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, 

wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, 

cooperation with the States and private forest owners, 

and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives-as directed by Congress-to provide 

increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Forest Service is a diverse organization committed to equal 

opportunity in employment and program delivery. US DA 

prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national 

origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political affiliation 

and familial status. Persons believing they have been 

discriminated against should contact the Secretary, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call 

202-720-7327 (voice), or 202-720-1127 (TDD).