Managing Visitor Impacts in Parks: Part II A Survey of Visitor Response to Alternative Management Practices

1. Managing Visitor Impacts in Parks:Part II � A Survey of Visitor Response to Alternative Management Practices Logan Park Graduate Research Assistant University of Vermont/Virginia Tech University Robert Manning Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont Jeff Marion Steve Lawson Department of Forestry Virginia Tech University Charlie Jacobi Resources Specialist/Visitor Use Acadia National Park

2. Research Questions General: How can the environmental (and associated social) impacts of visitor use be managed? Specific: What management practices are most effective at encouraging visitors to stay on official, maintained trails? Why are some management practices more effective than others? How do management practices influence the thinking and behavior of visitors? How acceptable do visitors find alternative management practices?

3. Theories of Visitor Management

4. Theories of Visitor Management Strategic purpose of management practices

5. Theories of Visitor Management Strategic purpose of management practices Direct versus indirect management practices

6. Theories of Visitor Management Strategic purpose of management practices Direct versus indirect management practices Potential effectiveness of information/education

7. Application of Information/Education to Recreation Management Problems

8. Theories of Visitor Management Strategic purpose of management practices Direct versus indirect management practices Potential effectiveness of information/education Stages of moral development

10. Theories of Visitor Management Strategic purpose of management practices Direct versus indirect management practices Potential effectiveness of information/education Levels of moral development Communication theory

11. Communication Theory Applied behavior analysis Central route to persuasion Peripheral route to persuasion

12. Study Methods Visitor survey Administered during control 1 and treatments 1-4 Random selection at end of visit Response rate of 71.7% Sample size of 590 completed questionnaires (ranging from 100 to 161 for the control and treatments)

13. Primary Study Variables Whether or not visitors reported walking off-trail Why they did or didn�t walk off-trail Whether they noticed a) the study treatments and b) the environmental impacts caused by walking off-trail How the treatments affected their decision-making/behavior The degree to which visitors supported or opposed a range of management practices

14. The Sample Nearly evenly split between males (51.8%) and females (48.2%) Highly educated (69.9% had earned a college or graduate degree) Middle-aged (59.2% between 40 and 60 years old)

23. Discussion Visitors underreported walking off-trail Treatments tended to reduce walking off-trail (but probably not enough) Important reasons for walking off-trail include: �exploring� and photos walking around other visitors who are blocking the trail �illegal� and �unavoidable� reasons �careless�, �unskilled�, �uninformed� reasons insensitivity to environmental issues Visitors are operating on a range of moral planes Increasing acceptance of management practices after their implementation

24. Conclusions It is unlikely that indirect management practices (e.g., information/education) will satisfactorily solve the problem of visitors walking off-trail We recommend an integrated suite of direct and indirect management practices that includes: Regulation that visitors remain on the official trail Presence of uniformed rangers (as needed) to enforce this regulation Symbolic fencing along the trail Redesign of summit loop trail Extend it Widen it in strategic places Addition of spurs to photo points

25. Conclusions (continued) Aggressive information/education Inform visitors of regulation and reason for it Identification of appropriate areas for �exploration� This type of management program should be tested for its effectiveness A holistic analysis of the carrying capacity of the summit should be conducted An emerging principle of park and outdoor recreation management is that intensive visitor use requires intensive management

26. Conclusions (continued) We believe that the multiple research methods used in this study (experimentation, observation, visitor surveys) were complementary and reinforcing More research is needed on the efficacy of park and outdoor recreation management practices