Top
divider

Perceived Impacts of Outdoor Recreation on the Summit of Cascade Mountain, New York

Author: Carena J. van Riper, Robert E. Manning, and Nathan Reigner Back to Table of Contents >> From Peer Review - Volume 16 (2010) (2010)

This study explored visitor perceptions of environmental and social impacts of outdoor recreation on the summit of Cascade Mountain in the High Peaks Wilderness Complex of the Adirondack Park. Data were collected during the summer and fall of 2008 through an on-site survey of a representative sample of visitors (N=198; 88% response rate). Only half of visitors reported noticing environmental impacts of recreation even though these impacts were extensive. However, most visitors reported some level of perceived crowding. Prior experience at Cascade was positively related to perceptions of environmental impacts, but did not affect perceived crowding. More intensive management of Cascade is probably warranted to reduce environmental and social impacts of outdoor recreation and this might most effectively be done in the context of a management-by-objectives framework.

Introduction

Mountain summits are often popular destinations for outdoor recreation. However, this popularity can lead to two important management issues. First, outdoor recreation can cause environmental impacts such as destruction of groundcover vegetation and soil compaction and erosion. These impacts can be especially severe on mountain summits due to their inherently fragile character (Hammitt and Cole 1998; Monz 2000b). Second, high levels of recreation use can also degrade the quality of the visitor experience through crowding and the aesthetic implications of the ecological impacts noted above (Manning 2011).

This paper reports on outdoor recreation on the summit of Cascade Mountain (Cascade) in the Adirondack Park. Cascade is one of the most popular mountain summits in this area. The primary study method was a survey of hikers to the summit conducted in the summer and fall of 2008. The survey explored the extent to which visitors noticed environmental impacts caused by outdoor recreation, the severity of these impacts and perceived level of crowding. Information on previous visits to Cascade was also collected.

Background Information on Recreation-Related Research

Perceptions of Environmental Impacts

A small group of studies has focused on visitor perceptions of environmental impacts caused by recreation use. An early review of this literature suggested that visitors’ perceptions of recreational impacts tend to be limited (Lucas 1979). With the exception of litter, visitors rarely complained about site conditions and usually rated the environmental conditions of recreation sites as “good” or better. This appears true for impacts on campsites and trails, as well as other resource impacts such as water pollution and wildlife disturbance. A study in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, MN, for example, found that campers seldom commented on campsite impacts other than litter, and that there was no correlation between visitor ratings of campsite physical conditions and expert ratings of the severity of environmental impacts (Merriam and Smith 1974). Hikers in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, ID/MT, reported that they were highly satisfied with trail conditions, despite the fact that some trails were severely eroded (Helgath 1975). Only 1% of floaters on the Pine River in the Manistee National Forest, MI, were concerned with streambank erosion (which was prominent), while 4% listed viewing and enjoying eroded banks as the high point of their trip; litter was far and away the most objectionable environmental condition reported by users (Solomon and Hansen 1972). The only impact reported by more than 50% of visitors to roaded forest lands in the Pacific Northwest was litter (Downing and Clark 1976). Finally, only one in four campers viewed vegetation impacts as a problem at four heavily used developed campgrounds in Pennsylvania (Moeller et al. 1974).

Two other studies generally corroborate these findings. One study reviewed visitor perceptions of environmental impacts at three Indiana state park campgrounds that were subject to varying levels of impact (Knudson and Curry 1981). The majority of campers rated ground cover conditions as “satisfactory” to “excellent,” even in areas where over three-fourths of the campsites were 100% bare or disturbed. Even the minority of respondents who rated ground cover “poor” or below reported that these conditions did not affect their enjoyment of the area. Moreover, two-thirds of respondents did not notice damage to trees or shrubs even though such damage was extensive in several areas. A study of river recreation surveyed floaters on several southeastern rivers regarding their perceptions of five environmental impacts (Hammitt and McDonald 1983). Experience level of respondents was positively related to perceptions of impacts, but a large majority of floaters, even those classified as having high experience, failed to notice or report any of the five impacts studied.

More recent research suggests that visitors may be becoming more perceptive of recreation-related environmental impacts. Increasing recreation use may be causing greater levels of environmental impacts, and visitors may be more sensitive to an array of environmental issues associated with ecotourism and the “greening” of outdoor recreation more broadly. For example, visitors to several U.S. national park areas (Acadia National Park, ME, Yosemite National Park, CA, and Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area, MA) were able to differentiate among a range of environmental conditions on trails and at campsites and identified “thresholds” beyond which additional environmental impact was judged unacceptable (Manning et al. 2004). A survey of visitors to the Mission Mountains Wilderness, MT found that many respondents noticed recreation-related impacts at campsites and that this reduced the quality of their experience, as well as their opinions of wilderness managers (Flood and McAvoy 2000).

Findings from other studies have been mixed. For example, open-ended interviews with campers in the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, OR found that most groups reported noticing recreational impacts to groundcover vegetation (75%), soil (52%), and trees (51%) (Farrell and Marion 2001; White et al. 2001). However, these impacts were judged by over 70% of groups as positive in nature because they facilitated camping (e.g., offered a cleared area to pitch a tent). A survey of climbers in the Adirondack Park, NY found that respondents objected to some recreational impacts (e.g., damage to trees as a result of poor rock climbing practices) but not others (e.g., multiple or social trails) (Monz 2000a). A survey of hikers in a natural area in Canada found that several types of impacts (e.g., litter, plant and tree damage, fire rings, trail erosion and widening) had a negative effect on four dimensions of the recreation experience (Lynn and Brown 2003). And a study of divers in the Caribbean found that most respondents accurately perceived differences in ecological conditions at dive sites (e.g., fish species richness, live coral cover) and that such attributes affected dive enjoyment (Uyarra 2009).

Perceived Crowding

There has been long-standing interest in perceived crowding in outdoor recreation (Manning 2011). An early conceptual analysis suggested that “When too many people use the same area, some traditional wildland values are lost” (Wagar 1964). This was illustrated with a series of hypothetical relationships between crowding and a number of motivations inherent in outdoor recreation, such as solitude, freedom of choice, and self-reliance.

Over the past several decades, crowding has become one of the most frequently studied issues in outdoor recreation. A single-item, nine-point measure of perceived crowding has been widely adopted, and this has allowed direct comparisons across studies, areas, and time (Heberlein and Vaske 1977). This measure is anchored at “not-at-all-crowded” and “extremely crowded”. Findings using this measure of perceived crowding have been compiled in several comparative and meta analyses (Arnberger and Mann 2008; Shelby et al. 1989; Shelby and Vaske 2007; Vaske and Shelby 2008). Data derived from the nine-point crowding scale are often treated by dichotomizing the scale into values 1 and 2 (not-at-all-crowded) and scale values 3 through 9 (some degree of crowding). The most recent and comprehensive analysis takes this approach in reporting perceived crowding from 181 studies representing 615 outdoor recreation locations and 85,451 respondents (Vaske and Shelby 2008). Study findings suggest that 25% of study locations and activities are judged by respondents to be over-crowded.

Perceived crowding has also been found to be a normative concept (Manning 2011; Manning et al. 2000). For example, perceived crowding can be influenced by not only the number of other visitors encountered, but by the characteristics of those encountered (e.g., recreation activity), the temporal or spatial context of encounters (e.g., at a trailhead or deep within a wilderness area), and the characteristics of recreation visitors (e.g., level of experience).

Visitor Experience

The amount of experience acquired at recreation settings is often referred to in the outdoor recreation literature as experience use history (EUH). This construct is based on the idea that as visitors gain experience, they build knowledge and become more perceptive of recreation conditions (Manning 2011). For example, a study of river floaters examined the relationship between EUH and attitudes toward recreation management, and found that more experienced respondents expressed greater concern over environmental conditions than floaters with less experience (Hammitt and McDonald 1983). The concept of EUH has wide-ranging applications that have helped to theoretically and empirically test visitors’ levels of stress and coping related to recreational impacts (Schuster et al. 2003), recreation specialization (Bryan 1977), place attachment (White et al. 2008), crowding (Budruk et al. 2008), motivations for recreation (Williams et al. 1990) and visitor satisfaction (Johnson and Dawson 2004).

Determining an appropriate measure of EUH has been explored in the outdoor recreation literature. A large body of work has considered this idea to be multidimensional, including measures of on-site experience and experience attained at comparable sites (McFarlane et al. 1998; Watson and Niccolucci 1992). Conversely, EUH also has been employed as a unidimensional construct specific to a particular area. For example, Schuster et al. (2003) examined how stress and coping processes were affected by experiences within a wilderness area in North Carolina. The authors tested the dimensionality of EUH and compared on-site and off-site experiences. Their results suggested that measures of on-site experiences could effectively capture the concept of EUH. In this light, EUH can be measured in terms of the number of previous visits to a recreation site, length of time spent at that site, and frequency of use (Backlund et al. 2006; Schreyer et al. 1984).

Experience use history can serve as a useful tool to segment visitors into user groups that range from low to high levels of experience (Petrick 2002; Schreyer et al. 1984). For example, Williams and Knopf (1990) used EUH to examine visitors’ motivations to participate in river floating and found that recreationists with different levels of experience had varied reasons for engaging in recreational activities. Backlund et al. (2006) examined anglers with a spectrum of experience levels in western South Carolina and northern Georgia. The authors found that EUH, as measured by the frequency of use in the last 12 months, was more closely related to the perceived importance of substitute streams than EUH measured by number of years visiting.

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine perceived impacts of outdoor recreation among visitors on the summit of Cascade in the High Peaks Wilderness Complex. This was explored through measures of perceived ecological impacts, visitor crowding, and EUH. It was hypothesized that more experienced visitors would be more perceptive of environmental degradation, more critical about their descriptions of the severity of recreational impacts, and more sensitive to crowding. In other words, experience was thought to be positively associated with several measures of impact to the visitor experience.

Methods

The data presented in this paper were part of a study that examined sustainable recreation across a spectrum of mountain summits in the Northern Forest. This larger program of research identified indicators and standards of quality in the Northern Forest region (Goonan et al. 2007). More specifically, this project examined visitors’ preferences for resource, social, and management conditions, determined the tradeoffs visitors would be willing to make among a suite of indicators and standards of quality, and assessed ecological conditions at three mountain summits (van Riper 2009). A subset of the data collected from visitors on Cascade was used for the purposes of this paper.

Cascade is located in the Adirondack Park, which is a six million-acre protected area in upstate New York. The Adirondack Park provides residents and visitors with important opportunities for recreation. The area includes 46 mountain summits above 4,000 feet, a portion of which fall within the High Peaks Wilderness Complex. Cascade is situated on the northern edge of the Complex.

The trails to Cascade and the neighboring Porter Mountain are popular day hikes, considered among the easiest treks within the 46 High Peaks (those above 4,000 feet) in the Adirondack Park. The primary trail ascends 2,000 feet in 2.4 miles. The trailhead is easily accessible to the public, located adjacent to a major highway and in close proximity to several Adirondack communities including Lake Placid, Saranac Lake, and Keene. On a nice summer day, several hundred visitors can be seen on the peak’s high elevation, bald summit.

Decision-making within the Adirondack Park is partially guided by the High Peaks Unit Management Plan. This document was developed by the primary management agency for Cascade, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, to help protect the wilderness character of the High Peaks region (Porter et al. 2010). In addition to providing a set of guidelines concerning ecologically sensitive resources such as alpine vegetation, bodies of water, wetlands, and forests, a portion of the plan focuses on the social and ecological dimensions of visitor use. More specifically, the plan directs attention to potential conflicts and environmental degradation caused by large groups of visitors using trails and campsites.

This paper addresses several related concerns surrounding visitor use within the High Peaks region. A survey of visitors to Cascade was conducted in the summer and fall of 2008. Survey questionnaires were administered to a representative sample of visitors on the summit of Cascade and on several occasions at the trailhead to the summit. Survey dates were stratified by day of the week (weekend vs. weekday) and time of the day (a.m. vs p.m.). During the sample periods, visitors were approached by a trained survey administrator and asked to complete the study questionnaire. One adult visitor was selected from each group by identifying the person with the most recent birthday. All encounters were recorded in an on-site contact log, along with the time, date, survey ID, group size, group type, gender of the respondent, number of children present, and the reason for refusal if applicable. At the onset of the survey, the administrator gave instructions on how to complete the questionnaire and provided the respondent with a nine-page questionnaire.

This paper drew on three constructs to examine the visitor experience on Cascade, including perceived environmental impacts, visitor crowding, and EUH. First, visitors’ perceptions of environmental impacts were assessed by asking respondents “Did you notice any damage to soils and/or vegetation on the summit of this mountain due to people walking off designated trails?” If respondents noticed degradation, they were asked to characterize the damage as “slight,” “moderate,” or “severe.” Second, perceived crowding was measured using the nine-point crowding scale described earlier ranging from 1, “not at all crowded,” to 9 “extremely crowded.” Finally, EUH was measured with two survey items that assessed the number of visits made to Cascade in the previous 12 months and the number of years passed since the respondent’s first visit. A score was created for each survey respondent by calculating the average of the two measures (Hammitt et al. 2004). This score indicated the level of EUH among survey respondents such that higher values indicated greater experience.

Data analysis involved two phases that assessed perceived impacts of outdoor recreation. First, descriptive statistics assessed perceived environmental impacts, visitor crowding and EUH. Second, analytical procedures tested the effect of EUH on perceived outdoor recreation impacts. More specifically, ordinary least squares regression analyses were employed to test the relationships between the dependent variables of perceived environmental impact and visitor crowding, and the independent variable of EUH.

Results

A response rate of 88% was achieved, resulting in 198 completed questionnaires. Non-response bias was assessed for respondents and non-respondents using socio-demographic information collected in on-site contact logs. No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of personal group size and gender [1].

The average length of time that visitors spent on the summit of Cascade was approximately an hour and a half (82 minutes), the average group size was between three and four people, and the majority (87%) hiked to the summit with friends and/or family group types. The majority of visitors were well-educated, over 30 years of age, Caucasian, male, and living in the U.S. When asked which racial and ethnic groups respondents identified with, the majority was white, 3% American Indian or Alaska Native, 1% Black or African American, 3% Asian, and a small portion identified with a Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Nearly three-quarters of visitors were from the U.S. and of the remaining respondents who reported their country of residence, most were from Canada. Just over half of all visitors were from New York.

Half (50%) of respondents reported noticing environmental impacts to soil and/or vegetation. Of the respondents who did perceive such impacts, just over half (51%) reported this damage as “slight”, just under half (46%) reported “moderate” damage, and a small percentage (3%) reported “severe” damage (Figure 1). The average score of visitors’ perceived levels of environmental degradation was 1.52 on a scale that ranged from 1 to 3.

Figure 1. Frequency distribution for perceived environmental degradation (n = 193).

Overall, respondents felt relatively crowded on the summit of Cascade, reporting a mean value of 4.5 on the perceived crowding scale (Figure 2). A strong majority (79%) reported at least some degree of crowding.

Figure 2. Frequency distribution for perceived crowding (n = 193).

Over one-third (36%) of visitors had previously been to the summit and the majority (77%) of those visits had occurred prior to the previous 12 months. On average, respondents had been visiting for approximately four years. The average value of the EUH score among survey respondents was 0.78 on a scale that ranged from 0 to 1.

Figure 3. Frequency distribution for mean score for EUH (n=190).

The relationships between EUH and perceived impacts of outdoor recreation involved two bivariate regression analyses. The first regression examined the effect of EUH on visitors’ perceived levels of environmental impact. Results indicated a significantly positive relationship, in that as EUH increased, visitors rated impacts as more severe [2].

The second regression tested the effect of EUH on perceived crowding. Findings suggested that as visitors gained experience, their perceptions of crowding did not increase to a statistically significant degree [3].

Discussion

The summit of Cascade is one of the most easily accessible and popular of the 46 four thousand foot mountains in the Adirondack Park. Consequently, there has been growing concern over impacts to fragile soils and vegetation and crowding. This survey of visitors to the summit of Cascade in the summer and fall of 2008 found that about half of visitors noticed environmental damage on the summit due to visitor use. Of course, the converse of this finding is that about half did not notice such damage. Of the visitors who noticed environmental impact on the summit, about half judged this impact to be “slight.”

These findings are in stark contrast to more objective measures of environmental conditions. The visitor survey reported in this paper is part of a larger study on Cascade that included an environmental assessment of the summit area (Goonan 2009). This portion of the study found extensive informal trail networks caused by visitors walking off trails, and this has led to large areas of trampled vegetation and compacted and eroded soils. Therefore, we must conclude that most visitors to Cascade are not highly perceptive of the impacts they are causing and that self-reports of outdoor recreation visitors are probably not a reliable measure of environmental conditions.

However, we also conclude that visitors may be growing more perceptive of environmental impacts associated with outdoor recreation. This is consistent with the literature described at the beginning of this paper. Early studies in outdoor recreation found that visitors reported seeing little environmental impacts associated with outdoor recreation, but more recent studies have found that visitors are more perceptive of this issue. This may be due to increasing levels of outdoor recreation and the cumulative impacts associated with it. It may also be due to visitors who have gained more experience in outdoor recreation and who have become increasingly sensitive to associated environmental impacts. Our study findings – that there is a statistically significant positive relationship between experience and perceived environmental impacts of outdoor recreation – offer evidence for the latter hypothesis.

Visitors to Cascade are perceptive of crowding. Nearly all respondents reported some level of perceived crowding and the average crowding score of 4.5 (on the nine point response scale) is relatively high when compared to studies elsewhere (Vaske and Shelby 2008). By definition, visitor reports of perceived crowding are a probably a reliable report of at least one dimension of the quality of the visitor experience. No relationship between experience and perceived crowding was found in this study. The relatively high level of perceived crowding on Cascade may be especially troubling given that several studies have shown that visitors who feel too crowded cope with this by a process of “displacement” (Kuentzel and Heberlein 1992; Manning and Valliere 2001). Spatial displacement means that visitors may choose not to return to Cascade because it does not provide the type of experience they wish, while temporal displacement means the visitors may choose to hike on Cascade only during off-peak periods. Visitors who are displaced are replaced by visitors who are less sensitive to crowding, and this process can result in fewer opportunities for recreation experiences characterized by some degree of solitude.

High levels of environmental impact and perceived crowding at Cascade suggest that more intensive management of outdoor recreation is needed. There are several management approaches that might be used (Manning 2011). For example, the number of visitors to Cascade might be limited by appropriately sizing trailhead parking. Visitor education programs might be used to sensitize hikers to the impacts they cause when walking off trail and encourage them to stay on designated trails. Trails and viewing areas might be “hardened” by a higher level of maintenance, surfacing with rocks and other materials, or installation of scree walls or other barriers on the margins of trails and related areas.

Contemporary approaches to park and outdoor recreation management employ a management-by-objectives framework in which management objectives and associated indicators and standards are formulated (Stankey et al. 1986; National Park Service 1997; Manning 2001; Manning 2007). Management objects might prescribe what level of resource protection should be maintained on the summit of Cascade and what type of visitor experience should be provided? Indicators and standards are then developed as measurable, manageable proxies for these objectives. For example, an indicator for resource conditions might be the percentage reduction of natural vegetation and a standard might be no more than 10 percent. An indicator for social conditions might be the number of visitors at one time on the summit and a standard might be no more than 30. Once management objectives and associated indicators and standards have been formulated, indicators are monitored and management actions are taken to maintain standards.

Conclusion

The accessibility and popularity of Cascade has led to resource and social impacts in the form of trampled vegetation, soil compaction and erosion, and perceived crowding. Visitors are more sensitive to crowding than environmental impacts. Cascade should probably be managed more intensively to address resource and social impacts. Management should be guided by a management-by-objectives framework and might best be incorporated into the five-year review and revision of the High Peaks Wilderness Management Plan.

Notes

1. There were no significant differences between respondents and non-respondents based on group size (F = 0.62, df = 10, p = 0.797) and gender (chi-square = 0.602, df = 1, p = 0.438).

2. Results from bivariate regression analysis of EUH on perceived environmental impact (n=101): Coefficient = 0.902 (SE = 0.27); t-value = 3.32 (significant at p-value < 0.01); adj-R2 = 0.091 (significant at f-value < 0.05); Root MSE = 0.532.

3. Results from bivariate regression analysis of EUH on perceived crowding (n=189): Coefficient = 1.802 (SE = 0.90); t-value = 1.82 (significant at p-value < 0.01); adj-R2 = 0.012 (significant at f-value < 0.05); Root MSE = 2.102.

Authors

Carena van Riper is a recent graduate of the masters program in the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, and currently a doctoral student in the Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences at Texas A&M. She can be contacted at cvanripe@tamu.edu.  Robert Manning is Professor and Director of the Park Studies Laboratory at the Rubenstein School.  Nathan Reigner is currently a doctoral student in the Rubenstein School.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Northeastern States Research Cooperative. The authors thank Christopher Monz and Kelly Goonan of Utah State University for their assistance with this research, and Michael Farrell of Cornell University for his support during the field season.

References

Arnberger, A., and Mann, C. 2008. Crowding in European forests: A review of recent research and implications for forest management and policy. Forestry 81(4): 559–571.

Absher, J. D., and Lee, R. G. 1981. Density as an incomplete cause of crowding in backcountry settings. Leisure Sciences 4(3): 231–247.

Backlund, E. A., Hammitt, W. E., and Bixler, R. D. 2006. Experience use history and relationship to the importance of substitute stream attributes. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11(6): 411–412.

Belsley, D. A. 1991. Conditioning diagnostics: Collinearity and weak data in regression. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bryan, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: The case of trout fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research 9(3): 174–187.

Budruk, M., Wilhem Stanis, S. A., Schnieder, I. E., and Heisey, J. J. 2008. Crowding and experience-use history: A study of the moderating effect of place attachment among water-based recreationists. Environmental Management 41(4): 528–537.

Budruk, M., Schneider, I. E., Andreck, K. L., and Virden, R. J. 2002. Crowding and satisfaction among visitors to a built desert attraction. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 20(3): 1–17.

Downing, K. and Clark, R. N., 1979. Users and managers perceptions of dispersed recreation impacts: A focus on roaded forest lands. In: The recreational impact on wildlands conference proceedings, The US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Portland OR, pp. 18–23.

Farrell, T. A., and Marion, J. L. 2001. Identifying and assessing ecotourism visitor impacts at eight protected areas in Costa Rica and Belize. Environmental Conservation 28(3): 215– 225.

Flood, J. P., and McAvoy, L. H. (2000). The influence of wilderness restoration programs on visitor experience and visitor opinions of managers. In: Cole, D. N. McCool, S. F. Borrie, W. T. O’Loughlin, J. Wilderness science in a time of change conference-Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Goonan, K. A., van Riper, C. J., Manning, R., and Monz, C. 2007. Using science to manage Northern Forest tourism and recreation. Adirondack Journal of Environmental Studies, 14(2): 6.

Hammitt, W. E., and Cole, D. N. 1998. Wildland recreation: Ecology and management. New York: Wiley – Interscience.

Hammitt, W. E., Backlund, E. A., and Bixler, R. D., 2004. Experience use history, place bonding and resource substitution of trout anglers during recreation engagement. Journal of Leisure Research 36(3): 356–378.

Hammitt, W. E., and McDonald, C. D. 1983. Past on-site experience and its relationship to managing river recreation resources. Forest Science 29(2): 262–266.

Heberlein T. A., and Vaske, J. J. 1977. Crowding and visitor conflict on the Bois Brule River (Report WISC WRC 77-04). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Water Resource Center.

Helgath, S. F. 1975. Trail deterioration in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Research Note INT-193, 15 p. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.

Johnson, A. K., and Dawson, C. P. 2004. An exploratory study of the complexities of coping behavior in the Adirondack Wilderness. Leisure Sciences 26(3): 281–293.

Ketchledge, E. H., Leonard, R. E., Richards, N. A., Craul, P. F., and Eschner, A. R. 1985. Rehabilitation of Alpine Vegetation in the Adirondack Mountains of New York State (Research Paper NE-553). Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Knudson, D. M., and Curry, E. B. 1981. Campers’ perceptions of site deterioration and crowding. Journal of Forestry 79(2): 92–94.

Kuentzel, W. F., and Heberlein, T. A. 1992. Cognitive and behavioral adaptations to perceived crowding: A panel study of coping and displacement. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(4): 377.

Lucas, R. C., 1979. Perceptions of Non-Motorized Recreational Impacts: A Review of Research Findings. In: The Recreational Impact on Wildlands conference proceedings, The US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Portland OR, pp. 24–31.

Lynn, N. A., and Brown, R. D. 2003. Effects of recreational use impacts on hiking experiences in natural areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 64(1–2): 77–87.

Manning, R. 2001. Visitor experience and resource protection: A framework for managing the carrying capacity of national parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19(1): 93–108.

Manning, R. E. 2011. Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Manning, R. E., Lawson, S., Newman, P., Budruk, M., Valliere, W., and Laven, D. 2004. Visitor perceptions of recreation-related resource impacts. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism (Vol. 2, pp. 259–271). CABI Publishing.

Manning, R. E., and Valliere, W. 2001. Coping in outdoor recreation: Causes and consequences of crowding and conflict among community residents. Journal of Leisure Research, 33, 410-426.

Manning, R., Valliere, W., Minteer, B., Wang, B., and Jacobi, C. 2000. Crowding in parks and outdoor recreation areas: A theoretical, empirical, and managerial analysis. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 18(4): 57–72.

Marion, J. L., and Reid, S. E. 2007. Minimising visitor impacts to protected areas: The efficacy of low impact education programmes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(1): 5–27.

McFarlane, B. L., Boxall, P. C., and Watson, D. O. 1998. Past experience and behavioral choice among wilderness users. Journal of Leisure Research 30(2): 195–213.

Merriam, L. C., and Smith, C. K., 1974. Visitor impact on newly developed campsites in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Journal of Forestry 72(10): 627–630.

Moeller, G. H., Larson, R. G., and Morrison, D. A. 1974. Opinions of campers and boaters at the Allegheny Reservoir. Upper Darby, PA: USDA Forest Service.

Monz, C. A. 2000a. Recreation ecology and visitor impact research: Past, present and future. In D. Siegrist, Clivaz, C., Hunziker, M., and Iten, S. (Ed.), Exploring The Nature of Management: Proceedings from the Third International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas (pp. 98–100).

Monz, C. 2000b. Recreation resource assessment and monitoring techniques from mountain regions. In P. M. Godde, M. F. Price, and F. M. Zimmermann (Eds.), Tourism and Development in Mountain Regions (pp. 255-274). Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

National Park Service. 1997. VERP: the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework. A handbook for planners and managers. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Petrick, J. F. 2002. Experience use history as a segmentation tool to examine golf travellers’ satisfaction, perceived value and repurchase intentions. Journal of Vacation Marketing 8(4): 332–342.

Porter, W. F., Erickson, J. D., and Whaley, R. S. 2010. The Great Experiment in Conservation: Voices from the Adirondack Park. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Rabe-Hesketh, S., and Everitt, B. 2007. A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using STATA (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.

Schreyer, R., Lime, D. W., and Williams, D. R. 1984. Characterizing the influence of past experience on recreation behavior. Journal of Leisure Research 16(1): 34–50.

Schuster, R. M., Hammitt, W. E., and Moore, D. 2003. A theoretical model to measure the appraisal and coping response to hassles in outdoor recreation settings. Leisure Sciences 25(2): 277-299.

Shelby, B., Vaske, J. J., and Heberlein, T. A. 1989. Comparative analysis of crowding in multiple locations: Results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences 11(4): 269-291.

Shelby, L. B., and Vaske, J. J. 2007. Perceived crowding among hunters and anglers: A meta-analysis. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12(4): 241–261.

Stankey, G. H., Cole, D. N., Lucas, R. C., Peterson, M. E., and Frissell, S. S. 1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. General Technical Report INT 176. USDA Forest Service.

Solomon, M., and Hansen, E. 1972. Canoeists’ suggestions for stream management in the Manistee National Forest in Michigan. Forest Service Research Paper NC-77. USDA Forest Service.

Uyarra, M. C., Watkinson, A. R. and Cote, I. M. 2009. Managing dive tourism for the sustainable use of coral reefs: Validating diver perceptions of attractive site features. Environmental Management 43: 1–16.

van Riper, C. J. 2009. Tradeoffs among resource, social, and management conditions on mountain summits of the Northern Forest. Master Thesis. University of Vermont.

Vaske, J., Donnelly, M. P., and Heberlein, T. 1980. Perceptions of crowding and resource quality by early and more recent visitors. Leisure Sciences 3(4): 367–381.

Vaske, J. J., and Shelby, L. B. 2008. Crowding as a descriptive indicator and an evaluative standard: Results from 30 years of research. Leisure Sciences 30(2): 111–126.

Wagar, J. 1964. The carrying capacity of wild lands for recreation. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters.

Watson, A. E., and Niccolucci, M. J., 1992. Defining past-experience dimensions for wilderness recreation. Leisure Sciences 14: 89-103.

White, D. D., Hall, T. E., and Farrell, T. A. 2001. Influence of ecological impacts and other campsite characteristics on wilderness visitors’ campsite choices. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19(2): 83–97.

White, D. D., Virden, R. J., and van Riper, C. J. 2008. Effects of place identity, place dependence, and experience-use history on perceptions of recreation impacts in a natural setting. Environmental Management 42(4): 647-657.

Williams, D. R., Schreyer, R., and Knopf, R. C. 1990. The effect of the experience use history on the multidimensional structure of motivations to participate in leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research 22(1): 36-54.

No comments to display

Leave a Comment



You must be logged in to post a comment.