Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experiential Benefits, Place Meanings, and Environmental Setting Preferences Between Proximate and Distant Visitors to a National Scenic Trail

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Effective management of conserved natural areas often requires a good understanding of recreation visitors who possess various values for those areas. This study examined differences in experiential benefits sought, place meanings, and environmental setting preferences between proximate and distant visitors to a publicly managed national scenic trail, which transects a variety of conserved public lands. Data were collected using on-site post-hike interviews with visitors at low, moderate, and high use trailheads. Proximate visitors sought mental and physical health more strongly than distant visitors, while distant visitors sought environmental exploration more strongly than proximate visitors. No significant difference in family bonding and achievement benefits existed between the two groups. Meanings related to place dependence, family identity, community identity, and place identity were more strongly ascribed by proximate visitors, and both groups rated ecological integrity meanings highly. Distant visitors showed stronger tendencies toward preferring a lesser level of trail development, lower level of encounters with other groups, and higher level of natural landscapes, which indicated an inclination toward natural settings. These findings indicate a managerially relevant role of the degree of proximity to environmental resources on individuals’ recreation behaviors, meanings ascribed to the resources and setting conditions. Understanding differences and similarities between groups dichotomized by proximity to natural resources should advance more effective management of recreation and benefit opportunities for diverse visitor groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson DH, Fulton DC (2008) Experience preferences as mediators of the wildlife related recreation participation: place attachment relationship. Hum Dimens Wildl 13:73–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson DH, Nickerson RG, Stein TV, Lee ME (2000) Planning to provide community and visitor benefits. In: Gartner WC, Lime DW (eds) Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure, and tourism. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 197–211

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson DH, Davenport MA, Leahy JE, Stein TV (2008a) OFM and local community benefits. In: Driver BL (ed) Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of recreation. Venture Publishing, State College, pp 312–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson DH, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Schneider IE, Leahy JE (2008b) Proximate and distant visitors: differences in importance ratings of beneficial experiences. J Park Recreat Adm 26(4):47–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Babbie E (2004) The practice of social research, 10th edn. Wadsworth, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 16:74–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler PM (1992) On the fit of models to covariance and methodology to the bulletin. Psychol Bull 112:400–404

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaiuto M, Carrus G, Martorella H, Bonnes M (2002) Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in land use changes: the case of natural protected areas. J Econ Psychol 23:631–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburg AM, Carroll MS (1995) Your place or mine? The effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Soc Nat Resour 8:381–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown PJ (2008) An evolving OFM and the future. In: Driver BL (ed) Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of recreation. Venture Publishing, State College, pp 397–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Budruk M, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Schneider IE, Anderson DH (2011) Differentiating place attachment dimensions among proximate and distant visitors to two water-based recreation areas. Soc Nat Resour 24:917–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng AS, Kruger LE, Daniels SE (2003) “Place” as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: propositions for a social science research agenda. Soc Nat Resour 16:87–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark JK, Stein TV (2003) Incorporating the natural landscape within an assessment of community attachment. For Sci 49:867–876

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole DN, Hall TE (2009) Perceived effects of setting attributes on visitor experiences in wilderness: variation with situational context and visitor characteristics. Environ Manag 44:24–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport MA, Anderson DH (2005) Getting from sense of place to place-based management: an interpretive investigation of place meanings and perception of landscape change. Soc Nat Resour 18:625–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport MA, Baker ML, Leahy JE, Anderson DH (2010) Exploring multiple place meanings at an Illinois State Park. J Park Recreat Adm 28(1):52–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond J (1992) The third chimpanzee: the evolution and future of the human animal. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver BL (2008) What is outcomes-focused management? In: Driver B (ed) Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of recreation. Venture Publishing, State College, pp 19–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver BL, Bruns DH (1999) Concepts and uses of the benefits approach to leisure. In: Jackson EL, Burton TL (eds) Leisure studies: prospect for the twenty-first century. Venture Publishing, State College, pp 349–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver BL, Bruns D (2008) Implementing OFM on public nature-based recreation and related amenity resources. In: Driver BL (ed) Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of recreation. Venture Publishing, State College, pp 39–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewert AW (1998) A comparison of urban-proximate and urban-distant wilderness users on selected variables. Environ Manag 22:927–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewert AW, Hood D (1995) Urban-proximate and urban-distant wilderness: an exploratory comparison between two “types” of wilderness. J Park Recreat Adm 13(2):73–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Farnum J, Hall T, Kruger L (2005) Sense of place in natural resource recreation and tourism: an evaluation and assessment of research findings. USDA Forest Service. PNW-GTR-660. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida Trail Association (2011) Hike Florida on Florida’s own national scenic trail. www.floridatrail.org. Accessed 10 Jan 2011

  • Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2006) Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanink DM, White K (1999) Distance effects in the demand for wildland recreational services: the case of national parks in the United States. Environ Plan 31:477–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harnik P (2000) Inside city parks. Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iso-Ahola SE (1980) The social psychology of leisure and recreation. W. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque

    Google Scholar 

  • Iso-Ahola SE (1999) Motivational foundations of leisure. In: Jackson EL, Burton TL (eds) Leisure studies: prospect for the twenty-first century. Venture Publishing, State College, pp 35–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaltenborn BP, Williams DR (2002) The meaning of place: attachments to Femundsmarka National Park, Norway, among tourists and locals. Nor J Geogr 56:189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kil N, Holland SM, Stein TV (2010) Improving the management of natural resource recreation areas through understanding place attached visitor segments. J Park Recreat Adm 28(3):16–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Kil N, Holland SM, Stein TV, Ko YJ (2012) Place attachment as a mediator of the relationship between nature-based recreation benefits and future visit intentions. J Sustain Tour 20:603–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline RB (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 2nd edn. Guildford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyle G, Chick G (2007) The social construction of sense of place. Leis Sci 29:209–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn NA, Brown RD (2003) Effects of recreational use impacts on hiking experiences in natural areas. Landsc Urban Plan 64:77–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manfredo MJ, Driver BL, Tarrant MA (1996) Measuring leisure motivation: a meta-analysis of the recreation experience preference scales. J Leis Res 28:188–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore RL, Graefe A (1994) Attachments to recreation settings: the case of rail-trail users. Leis Sci 16:17–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore RL, Scott D (2003) Place attachment and context: comparing a park and a trail within. For Sci 49:877–884

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyaupane GP, Graefe AR (2008) Travel distance: a tool for nature-based tourism market segmentation. J Travel Tour Mark 25(3–4):355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oishi Y (2013) Toward the improvement of trail classification in national parks using the recreation opportunity spectrum approach. Environ Manag 51:1126–1136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Outdoor Foundation (2011) Outdoor recreation participation report 2011. www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/ResearchParticipation2011.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2012

  • Pierskalla CD, Lee ME, Stein TV, Anderson DH, Nickerson RG (2004) Understanding relationships among recreation opportunities: a meta-analysis of nine studies. Leis Sci 26:163–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proshansky HM (1978) The city and self-identity. Environ Behav 10:147–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2004) A beginner’ guide to structural equation modelling, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott D, Mowen AJ (2010) Alleviating park visitation constraints through agency facilitation strategies. J Leis Res 42:535–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Shumaker SA, Taylor RB (1983) Toward a clarification of people-place relationships: a model of attachment to place. In: Feimer NR, Geller ES (eds) Environmental psychology: directions and perspectives. Praeger, New York, pp 219–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith JW, Davenport MA, Anderson DH, Leahy JE (2011) Place meanings and desired management outcomes. Landsc Urban Plan 101:359–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith JW, Siderelis C, Moore RL, Anderson DH (2012) The effects of place meanings and social capital on desired forest management outcomes: a stated preference experiment. Landsc Urban Plan 106:207–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stedman RC (2002) Toward a social psychology of place: predicting behavior from place based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environ Behav 34:561–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stedman RC (2003) Is it really just a social construction?: the contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Soc Nat Resour 16:671–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein TV, Lee ME (1995) Managing recreation resources for positive outcomes: an application of benefits-based management. J Park Recreat Adm 13(3):52–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein TV, Anderson DH, Thompson D (1999) Identifying and managing for community benefits in Minnesota State Parks. J Park Recreat Adm 17(4):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapsuwan S, Leviston Z, Tucker D (2011) Community values and attitudes towards land use in the Gnangara Groundwater System: a sense of place study in Perth, Western Australia. Landsc Urban Plan 100:24–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA Forest Service (2011) The Florida Trail. www.fs.fed.us/r8/florida/fnst. Accessed 10 Jan 2011

  • Virden RJ, Knopf RC (1989) Activities, experiences, and environmental settings: a case study of recreation opportunity spectrum relationships. Leis Sci 11:159–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warzecha C, Lime D (2001) Place attachment in Canyonlands National Park: visitors’ assessments of setting attributes on the Colorado and Green Rivers. J Park Recreat Adm 19(1):59–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams DR, Patterson ME (1996) Environmental meaning and ecosystem management: perspectives from environmental psychology and human geography. Soc Nat Resour 9:507–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams DR, Patterson ME (1999) Environmental psychology: mapping landscape meanings for ecosystem management. In: Cordell HK, Bergstron JC (eds) Integrating social sciences with ecosystem management: human dimensions in assessment, policy, and management. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, pp 141–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams DR, Patterson ME, Roggenbuck JW, Watson AE (1992) Beyond the commodity metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leis Sci 14:29–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan MS, McEwen D (1989) Test for campers’ experience preference differences among three ROS setting classes. Leis Sci 11:177–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yung L, Freimund WA, Belsky JM (2003) The politics of place: understanding meaning, common ground, and political difference on the Rocky Mountain Front. For Sci 49:855–866

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the US Forest Service, National Forests in Florida (03-CS-11080500-003). The authors thank research assistants for their assistance in data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 304 Hardin Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA

    Namyun Kil

  2. Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management, University of Florida, P.O. Box 118209, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Stephen M. Holland

  3. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110410, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Taylor V. Stein

Authors
  1. Namyun Kil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen M. Holland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Taylor V. Stein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Namyun Kil.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kil, N., Holland, S.M. & Stein, T.V. Experiential Benefits, Place Meanings, and Environmental Setting Preferences Between Proximate and Distant Visitors to a National Scenic Trail. Environmental Management 55, 1109–1123 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0445-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0445-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation