The Effects of Local Ecological Knowledge, Minimum-Impact Knowledge, and Prior Experience on Visitor Perceptions of the Ecological Impacts of Backcountry Recreation

The Effects of Local Ecological Knowledge, Minimum-ImpactKnowledge, and Prior Experience on Visitor Perceptionsof the Ecological Impacts of Backcountry Recreation

Ashley D’Antonio • Christopher Monz •

Peter Newman • Steve Lawson • Derrick Taff

Received: 20 April 2011 / Accepted: 25 June 2012 / Published online: 20 July 2012

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract An on-site visitor survey instrument was

developed to examine visitor perceptions of resource

impacts resulting from backcountry hiking activities. The

survey was conducted in the Bear Lake Corridor of Rocky

Mountain National Park, CO and examined visitor char-

acteristics that may influence visitor perceptions of specific

resource conditions. Findings indicate that visitors are

more perceptive of recreation-related resource impacts that

are the result of undesirable behavior and, while visitors do

perceive resource impacts, visitors tend to be more affected

by crowding. Factors such as local ecological knowledge

and knowledge of minimal-impact practices positively

influence visitor perceptions of resource impacts. These

findings support the use of visitor education on ecological

knowledge and minimum-impact as a means of increasing

visitor awareness of recreation impact issues.

Keywords Visitor perceptions � Recreation resource

impacts � Structural equation modeling � Prior experience �Local ecological knowledge

Introduction

The ever-increasing demand for outdoor recreation in parks

and protected areas worldwide continues to present a

considerable challenge for managers. Although outdoor

recreation provides numerous societal benefits, these

activities inevitably lead to some level of resource change.

Managers of parks and protected areas are often charged

with the dual task of both managing resources sustainably

while providing quality visitor experiences. Therefore, it is

important for managers to not only understand the bio-

physical consequences of resource change but the social

consequences as well.

Recreation research suggests that visitors may have

thresholds of acceptability for perceived recreation impacts

to resources (Hammitt and Cole 1998; Manning and others

2004). When these threshold conditions are exceeded,

resource damage has the potential to affect the overall

quality of visitor experiences in a park or protected area.

Previous recreation management studies have examined

how visitors believe these perceived impacts influence

attributes of the recreation setting, such as solitude and/or

scenic appeal, and whether visitors judge conditions as

desirable or undesirable within a particular setting (e.g.,

Farrell and others 2001; Leung and Marion 2000; Monz

2009). For managers, understanding what visitors perceive,

how they judge impacts, and what effect, if any, their

perceptions have on visitors’ overall experience can help

inform management decisions related to the visitor expe-

rience. Understanding which impacts are perceived can

provide managers with a better understanding of the types

of impacts that can then be used as indictors of the quality

of visitor experiences (Farrell and others 2001).

The literature on this topic suggests two lines of thought

about visitor perceptions of recreation resource impacts.

A. D’Antonio (&)

Environment and Society, Utah State University, 5215 Old Main

Hill, Logan, UT 84322, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

C. Monz

College of Natural Resources, Utah State University, 5205 Old

Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-5205, USA

P. Newman � D. Taff

Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources,

Colorado State University, 233 Forestry Building, Campus

Delivery 1480, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA

S. Lawson

Resource Systems Group, Inc., 55 Railroad Row, White River

Junction, White River Junction, VT 05001, USA

123

Environmental Management (2012) 50:542–554

DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9910-x

One view is that visitors do perceive resource impacts, they

form judgments about these impacts, and their experience

is affected by impacts (Lynn and Brown 2003; Roggenbuck

and others 1993). The second line of thought is that visitor

experiences are not significantly affected by impacts, with

the exception of impacts resulting from obvious, inappro-

priate behavior such as litter and vandalism (White and

others 2001). Reported study results provide support for

both of these conclusions. White and others (2008) have

suggested that the divergent findings in the perceptions

research may be attributed to methodological differences

between recent studies. For example, some studies have

used open-ended interview techniques while others have

closed-ended survey instruments with phrasing that may be

leading to social desirability bias (White and others 2008).

Consequently, instead of using negative language like

‘‘offensiveness’’, some recent research has developed

scales which measure the degree to which visitors agree or

disagree with neutral statements related to impacts (Kac-

zensky and others 2004; Muller and Job 2009). This

application of attitudinal statement scales in perceptions

research may provide a better reflection of visitor percep-

tions by reducing the social desirability bias resulting from

negative phrasing (White and others 2008).

Two additional trends in recreation and related research

are also of note—the examination of visitor characteristics

that may influence the perception of resource impacts and

specific resource conditions most relevant to visitors. First,

related work in conservation science examining attitudes

towards endangered species or species causing ecological

disturbance has successfully explored the effect of influen-

tial factors on visitor perceptions and attitudes (Kaczensky

and others 2004; Karlsson and Sjostrom 2007; Muller and

Job 2009). These variables, which have not been extensively

examined in the recreation literature, include subjective

knowledge of a topic, national park affinity, and prior

experience (Hammitt and others 2004; Muller and Job

2009). Second, some studies have examined more specific

questions about visitor perceptions of resource impacts. For

example, Monz (2009) illustrated the importance of exam-

ining specific types of impacts (e.g., vegetation loss on sites,

informal trail formation) as various ecological impacts may

not be perceived uniformly by visitors.

Although some visitor perceptions research has shown

that visitors do in fact perceive certain recreation resource

impacts and do make value judgments about them, few

studies have been successful in finding factors that influence

visitor perceptions. White and others (2008) were able to

demonstrate that visitors prior experience to the Molalla

River Recreation Corridor and Table Rock Wilderness does

influence visitor perceptions of environmental impacts. As

experience in an area is gained, visitors may also gain

knowledge and become more sensitive to recreation

resource impacts (van Riper and Manning 2011). However,

experience has also been shown to have no significant

influence on visitor perceptions of impacts (Lynn and Brown

2003; Monz 2009). Other recent perceptions studies (Farrell

and others 2001; Monz 2009) have indicated that visitors

may be more accepting of impacts which are viewed as

having an amenity value. For example, visitors are more

accepting and less perceptive of vegetation loss when the

resulting bare ground increases the functionality of an area,

such as at a campsite (Farrell and others 2001).

Given the existing literature on this topic, it is clear that

numerous questions remain. Visitor perceptions research is

valuable to management because it can provide an under-

standing of the types of impacts that visitors are sensitive to

and how resource impacts influence the visitor experience.

Findings from perceptions studies can highlight visitor char-

acteristics that may influence whether a visitor perceives

impacts. Only a few visitor perceptions studies have examined

a variety of specific types of recreation resource impacts, such

as trampled vegetation and off-trail use, and the overall

influence of these impacts on the visitor experience.

This study explores the relationship between the visitor

characteristics of experience and knowledge, and visitor

perceptions of specific resource impacts and examines how

visitor perceptions of resource impacts influence day use

visitors’ experiences. Visitor characteristic measures were

chosen based on those which have been used in conser-

vation attitudes research but have not been fully examined

in the park management literature (Muller and Job 2009).

Additionally, this study examines the development of new

scales using attitudinal statements as a means of measuring

visitor perceptions of resource impacts.

All of the visitor characteristics and visitor perceptions

variables were conceived as constructs being measured

indirectly using manifest variables. Therefore, structural

equation modeling was chosen as the most appropriate

multivariate analysis to accurately model the relationships

between visitor characteristics and visitor perceptions which

are both latent and unobservable variables. Overall, the

results of this study furthers the methodology for how per-

ceptions are measured in recreation research, highlights the

recreation resource impacts that visitors are perceiving, and

explores how these impacts influence the visitor experience.

Methods

Study Site

Surveys were collected in the Bear Lake Road Corridor of

Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. Rocky

Mountain National Park is located in north central Colo-

rado, approximately 160 km from the Denver metropolitan

Environmental Management (2012) 50:542–554 543

123

area. Rocky Mountain National Park receives over 3 mil-

lion visitors per year (National Park Service 2010). One of

the most popular destinations within the park is the Bear

Lake Corridor which provides access to many alpine lakes

and is a popular destination for day use.

This study focused on the Bear Lake Road Corridor as

part of a larger study investigating the social and resource

consequences of visitor use and transportation in the park

(Gamble and others 2007). Due to the elimination of

parking constraints to visitor use along Bear Lake Road

through the implementation of a shuttle bus system, the

Bear Lake Road Corridor trail system has seen increased

visitor use levels, especially day use. Anecdotal informa-

tion from park managers suggest that this increased day use

has led to increases in associated social and resource

impacts. Based on an assessment of resource conditions

associated with visitor use, the specific resource impacts

examined in this paper are prolific throughout the entire

Bear Lake Road Corridor trail system and especially pro-

nounced at popular destination sites (D’Antonio 2010).

Two popular trails within the Bear Lake Road Corridor

were selected for data collection using a self-administered,

on-site visitor survey: the Bear Lake/Emerald Lake trailhead

and the Glacier Gorge trailhead (Fig. 1). The Glacier Gorge

trail and the Bear Lake/Emerald Lake trail receive an

average of approximately 1,300 and 1,000 visitors per day

respectively (Newman and others 2010). Both trailheads are

serviced by the Bear Lake Road shuttle bus and provide

access to the majority of the Bear Lake Road Corridor trail

system. The Bear Lake trailhead provides access to popular

hiking destinations such as Bear Lake, Emerald Lake, and

Lake Hiayaha. The Glacier Gorge trailhead provides access

to Alberta Falls, Mills Lake, and Sky Pond. Visitors were

approached for participation in the study as they exited the

Bear Lake or Glacier Gorge trailheads.

Data Collection

Visitor surveys were handed out during July and August of

2009. Visitors were intercepted at the completion of their

hike and asked to voluntarily participate in the study. Each

trailhead was sampled for 8 days and sampling days were

stratified by day of week and time of day. Sampling only

occurred at one trailhead per sampling period. Visitors

were intercepted at random time intervals, spaced equally

over an hour, to allow for an even distribution of surveys

throughout the overall sampling period.

Variables

The survey instrument included questions regarding visitor

characteristics that could potentially influence visitor per-

ceptions of recreation resource impacts. Prior experience,

also referred to as experience use history in some studies (van

Riper and Manning 2011), was measured as a multidimen-

sional construct using three indicators. Visitors were asked to

report (1) the total number of visits that they have made to

Rocky Mountain National Park, (2) the total number of visits

to the Bear Lake Road Corridor, and (3) the total number of

visits to their primary hiking destination (Hammitt and

Fig. 1 Study site location with

sampled trailheads, Bear Lake

and Glacier Gorge, marked withstars

544 Environmental Management (2012) 50:542–554

123

others 2004; White and others 2008). Muller and Job (2009)

found that national park affinity had a significant influence

on German national park tourists’ attitudes towards moun-

tain pine beetles. In this study, national park affinity was

measured on a five point Likert-type scale of how important

Rocky Mountain National Park was to the visitor (1 = not

important, 5 = highly important) (Muller and Job 2009).

Visitors self-rated their knowledge of the natural history

and management issues of Rocky Mountain National Park

as a measure of local ecological knowledge (1 = no

knowledge, 2 = some knowledge, 3 = proficient knowl-

edge). Leujak and Ormond (2007) used self-rated measures

of local knowledge to examine visitor perceptions of rec-

reation resource impacts by examining both ecological

impacts and social impacts. Natural history topics exam-

ined in this study included wildlife, plant life, insects,

water, geology, and alpine ecology as they relate to Rocky

Mountain National Park. Management topics or issues

included elk management, vegetation management, fire

management, air quality issues, water quality issues,

mountain pine beetle, and non-native species.

Leujak and Ormond (2007) showed that visitor knowledge

of recreation rules and regulations influences visitor percep-

tions of resource impacts. However, in the Bear Lake Road

Corridor, management focuses on educating visitors about

low-impact practices rather than specific rules and regulations

to reduce visitor impact. Therefore, for this study, knowledge

of low-impact practices was examined as a visitor charac-

teristic. Knowledge of low-impact practices was measured

using multiple choice questions formulated from the front-

country principles of Leave No Trace. Each question, and the

corresponding correct answer, was based on one of the seven

principles of outdoor ethics for frontcountry use as developed

by the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics (Leave No

Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics 2010).

In order to measure visitor perceptions of recreation

resource impacts, visitors responded to attitudinal statements

related to specific types of impacts on a five point Likert-type

scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The spe-

cific recreation resource impacts examined were common in

the study area and would likely be experienced by visitors.

These included erosion, trampled vegetation, visitor-created

trails, off trail use, tree damage (D’Antonio 2010). The social

impact variable of solitude/degree of crowding was also

included. Trampled vegetation and erosion, although com-

ponents of visitor-created trails, were examined separately as

these impacts can also occur at visitor-created sites and along

lakeshores and river banks. The concept of perception was

further specified as whether visitors noticed, expected to

experience, and were affected by the specific type of recrea-

tion resource impact. Resource impact attitudinal statements

were grouped so that visitors could respond separately to the

impacts that they were exposed to during their hike and while

at their primary hiking destination. Visitors responded to

questions regarding the effect (added, no effect, or detracted)

of recreation resource conditions on their overall experience

and whether or not they felt that the specific recreation

resource impacts were ‘‘a problem’’.

Data Analysis

All statistical tests were conducted using SPSS software

(SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Data for all variables were

screened for outliers prior to data analysis. Following ini-

tial analysis of variables, exploratory structural equation

modeling (SEM) using AMOS software was used to

examine the effect of visitor characteristics on components

of visitor perceptions of resource impacts while hiking.

Visitor characteristics and perceptions are constructs that

can be measured using observed variables. Therefore, SEM

was used as it was deemed the most appropriate and

accurate approach for modeling the relationship between

multiple constructs (latent variables). Each latent variable

was modeled using multiple observed (measured) vari-

ables. No established theories exist in the literature relating

to visitor perceptions and therefore exploratory methods

were used when building the structural equation model.

The prior experience variable was slightly skewed and

therefore analysis was run for both a maximum likelihood

estimation model and a bootstrapping maximum likelihood

(ML) model; both analyses yielded identical results. Reported

here are the results from the bootstrapping ML in order to

compensate for the non-normal distribution of the prior

experience variables. Total scores were calculated for the

variables of knowledge of natural history topics and man-

agement issues. The total scores were combined into a single

latent variable of local ecological knowledge. A total score for

knowledge of low-impact practices (i.e., knowledge of Leave

No Trace) was included as a measured variable. The three

prior experience variables were combined into a single latent

variable. National park affinity was found to be a less sensitive

measure than anticipated, possibly due to social desirability

bias, and was left out of the SEM. The perception components

of noticing impacts and being affected by impacts were

modeled with visitor characteristics. Consistency of the per-

ceptions scales was assessed using Cronbach’s a and the

perceptions components were combined into two latent vari-

ables; noticing and being affected by resource impacts.

Results

Socio-Demographic Profile

A total of 408 usable surveys were collected with an

overall response rate of 60 %; response rates were similar


123

for both trailheads. Survey logs were checked for non-

response bias and no obvious bias was found. The average

age of respondents was 47 years of age; males comprised

52 % of the participants. The majority of respondents had a

college degree with 35.6 % of the total participants having

a graduate degree and 32.4 % having a Bachelor’s degree.

Visitor Experience and Knowledge

All 408 survey respondents rated Rocky Mountain National

Park as important or highly important to them. The

majority of respondents, 70 %, rated the park as highly

important. On average, visitors had been to Rocky Moun-

tain National Park 37.7 times (median of 3) with 32.3 %

visiting the park for the first time and 28 % of the visitors

having visited the park 10 or more times (Table 1). For

45.9 % of participants, it was their first visit to the Bear

Lake Corridor with 21.9 % having visited 10 times or

more; the average number of reported visits to Bear Lake

Corridor was 17.8. Over 68 % of the participants were

visiting their primary hiking destination for the first time

with the average number of previous visits to their primary

hiking destination being 7.2.

Visitor knowledge of natural history topics was self-

rated by participants (Table 2). Visitors were most

knowledgeable about wildlife and water. Visitors indicated

that they had some knowledge about plant life, geology,

and alpine ecology but were least knowledgeable about

insects. Visitors also self-ranked how informed they were

of management topics or issues germane to Rocky Moun-

tain National Park (Table 2). Visitors were most informed

about mountain pine beetle. Management topics and issues

that visitors reported being somewhat informed included

elk management, vegetation management, fire manage-

ment, air quality issues, and water quality issues. Visitors

were least informed about non-native species. For all nat-

ural history topics and management issues, 19 % or less of

respondents reported themselves as having proficient

knowledge.

Visitors appear highly knowledgeable of Leave No

Trace practices for frontcountry settings according to sur-

vey responses. Slightly more than half (52 %) of all visitors

answered all minimum-impact questions correctly and

40 % missed only one question. The question that visitors

most often answered incorrectly was related to where vis-

itors should rest along the trail during a hike to reduce their

impact to other visitors and surrounding resources. Almost

all (99 %) visitors answered the questions relating to

picking wildflowers, frontcountry campfires, interacting

with wildlife, and trail etiquette correctly. About 5 % of

visitors answered each question related to the following

topics incorrectly; trip preparation, staying on the desig-

nated trail, and disposal of trash.

Visitor Perceptions

Attitudinal statements were used to gauge visitor percep-

tions of recreation resource impacts. Paired t-tests were

performed to compare visitor perceptions while hiking to

visitor perceptions while at their primary hiking destination

(Tables 3, 4). Overall, visitors were less perceptive of all

types of resource impacts examined, with the exception of

off-trail use and solitude (the two more experiential

impacts examined), at their primary hiking destination than

while hiking. The percentage of visitors agreeing or

strongly agreeing with the perceptions attitudinal state-

ments were less for when visitors were at their primary

hiking destination than while the visitors were hiking

(Tables 3, 4); illustrating that visitors were less perceptive

while at their primary hiking destination.

While hiking, the most noticed recreation resource

impacts were visitor-created trails, off trail use, and tree

damage. The same impacts were also the most noticed

impacts at the visitor’s primary hiking destination. Both

while hiking and while at their primary hiking destination,

visitors were less likely to notice erosion, trampled vege-

tation, and a lack of solitude. While hiking, visitors

expected to experience visitor-created trails, off trail use, a

lack of solitude, and tree damage. Erosion and trampled

vegetation were the least expected types of impacts. At

their primary hiking destination visitors most expected to

experience a lack of solitude. At their primary hiking

destination, less than half of the respondents expected to

experience erosion, trampled vegetation, visitor-created

trails, off trail use, or tree damage. Both while hiking and

while at their primary hiking destination, visitors were

Table 1 Frequencies of responses and means of responses for prior experience variables

Prior experience Frequency (%) Mean SE

1st visit 2nd visit 3–10 visits [10 visits

Total number of visits to Rocky Mountain NP 32 16 24 28 37.75 7.75

Total number of visits to Bear Lake Corridor 46 11 21 22 17.82 2.21

Total number of visits to primary hiking destination 69 7 17 7 7.21 2.29

n = 408


123

Table 2 Frequencies and means of responses for self-rated knowledge of local topics and issues

Frequencies (%) Mean SE

No knowledge Some knowledge Proficient knowledge

Knowledge of natural history

Wildlife 10 75 15 2.06 0.03

Plant life 22 71 7 1.85 0.26

Insects 39 57 4 1.64 0.03

Water 24 65 11 1.88 0.03

Geology 24 66 10 1.85 0.28

Alpine ecology 29 63 8 1.78 0.28

Knowledge of management issues

Elk management 58 30 12 1.53 0.03

Vegetation management 54 39 7 1.53 0.03

Fire management 42 47 11 1.69 0.03

Air quality issues 52 40 8 1.56 0.03

Water quality issues 51 40 9 1.59 0.03

Mountain pine beetle 31 50 19 1.88 0.04

Non-native species 66 29 5 1.39 0.03

n = 408. Scale from 1 (no knowledge) to 3 (proficient knowledge)

Table 3 Frequencies and means of responses for visitor perceptions of resource impacts while hiking

Perceptions while hiking Frequency (%) Mean SE

Strongly disagree/disagree Neutral Strongly agree/agree

Perceptions of erosion

Noticed 37 20 43 3.00 0.06

Expected to see 31 26 43 3.09 0.06

Affected by 55 31 14 2.36 0.06

Perceptions of trampled vegetation

Noticed 38 17 45 3.00 0.06

Expected to see 41 23 36 2.89 0.06

Affected by 48 28 24 2.57 0.06

Perceptions of visitor-created trails

Noticed 19 9 72 3.70 0.06

Expected to see 26 22 52 3.28 0.06

Affected by 38 31 31 2.81 0.06

Perceptions of off trail use

Noticed 35 12 53 3.22 0.07

Expected to see 29 21 50 3.21 0.06

Affected by 46 27 27 2.68 0.06

Perceptions of tree damage

Noticed 21 9 70 3.76 0.06

Expected to see 28 21 51 3.31 0.06

Affected by 30 22 48 3.25 0.07

Perceptions of solitude

Experienced 42 14 44 3.04 0.07

Expected to experience 34 16 50 3.25 0.06

Affected by crowding 30 25 45 3.17 0.06

n = 408. Scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)


123

most affected by tree damage and crowding. Visitors were

least affected by erosion, trampled vegetation, visitor-cre-

ated trails, and off trial use.

Visitors were asked whether the specific recreation

resource impacts examined in this study detracted from

their experience, added to their experience, or had no effect

on their experience. The majority of visitors felt that ero-

ded trails (79 %), trampled vegetation (63 %), off trail use

(63 %), and visitor-created trails (57 %) did not affect the

visitor experience. For tree damage, approximately half of

the visitors reported tree damage having no effect on their

experience and slightly less than half, 45 %, reporting that

tree damage detracted from their experience. The degree of

crowding experienced was reported by 60 % of participants

as detracting from their experience.

Visitors were asked to rate whether or not they agreed or

disagreed with statements saying that specific recreation

resource impacts were problems (Table 5). In general, visi-

tors felt that erosion was not a problem or reported a response

of ‘neutral’. For trampled vegetation, the proliferation of

visitor-created trails, and people hiking off trail responses

were almost evenly split between disagreeing that these

impacts are a problem, reported neutral, or agreeing that

these impacts are a problem. Half of the visitors felt that tree

damage was a problem in Rocky Mountain National Park

with the other half of responses being split between dis-

agreeing and neutral. Approximately half of the visitors felt

that the lack of opportunities for solitude was a problem in

Rocky Mountain National Park with the remaining responses

split between disagreement and neutrality.

Structural Equation Modeling

For the latent variable of ‘‘noticing ecological resource

impacts’’, reliability analysis indicated that the five mea-

sured variables showed acceptable reliability (a = 0.66).

Higher internal consistency was found for the statements

related to participants being affected by ecological resource

impacts (a = 0.85). Exploratory SEM techniques resulted

in the following model (Fig. 2). A comparative fit index

Table 4 Frequencies and means of responses for resource impacts while at primary hiking destination

Perceptions at primary hiking destination Frequency (%) Mean SE


Perceptions of erosion

Noticed 47 23 30 2.90* 0.06

Expected to see 35 31 34 2.90* 0.06

Affected by 55 32 13 2.30 0.06

Perceptions of trampled vegetation

Noticed 43 20 37 2.85* 0.06

Expected to see 40 30 30 2.81* 0.06

Affected by 48 31 21 2.52* 0.06

Perceptions of visitor-created trails

Noticed 23 17 60 3.46* 0.06

Expected to see 29 25 46 3.16 * 0.06

Affected by 39 32 29 2.77 0.06

Perceptions of off trail use

Noticed 34 16 50 3.20 0.07

Expected to see 30 23 47 3.18 0.06

Affected by 46 31 23 2.65 0.06

Perceptions of tree damage

Noticed 30 13 57 3.43* 0.07

Expected to see 32 22 46 3.16* 0.07

Affected by 35 26 39 3.06* 0.07

Perceptions of solitude

Experienced 41 15 44 3.04 0.07

Expected to experience 31 16 53 3.31 0.06

Affected by crowding 33 27 40 3.04 0.06


* Statistically significantly different from ‘‘while hiking’’ values from Table 3 based on a paired t test (a = 0.05)


123

(CFI) [ 0.95 and a root mean square error of approxima-

tion (RMSEA) \ 0.05 indicate a good model fit as does an

insignificant chi-square value or Bollen–Stine P-value.

However, due to the large sample size of the data set

([200), CFI, RMSEA, and the Bollen–Stine P-value are

better measures of fit than a chi-square value. The P-value

(0.225) from the Bollen–Stine bootstrap indicates a good

model fit. The CFI value of 0.991 and RMSEA value of

0.025 also indicate that the model is a good fit.

The relationship between prior experience and noticing

or being affected by ecological resource impacts was not

significant. However, both local ecological knowledge and

knowledge of low-impact practices had a significant,

direct, positive effect on noticing ecological resource

impacts. A significant, direct, positive effect was also

found for visitors being affected by ecological resource

impacts (Table 6). Overall the model explained 16 % of

the variance in visitors noticing ecological resource

impacts and 11 % of the variance in visitors being affected

by ecological resource impacts.

Table 5 Frequencies and means of responses for resource impacts being a problem

Frequency (%) Mean SE


Problem

Erosion of trails 38 37 25 2.85 0.05

Trampling of vegetation 36 34 30 2.91 0.05

Proliferation of visitor-created trails 33 32 35 3.02 0.05

People hiking off trail 33 31 36 3.04 0.05

Tree damage 24 25 51 3.45 0.06

Lack of opportunities of solitude 28 27 45 3.25 0.06


Table 6 Parameter estimates for structural model

Independent variables Dependent variables

Noticed Affected

Prior experience 0.05 0.08

Local ecological knowledge 0.36* 0.27*

Low-impact knowledge 0.13* 0.13*

R2 0.16 0.11

n = 408, *P \ 0.05

.39

Noticed Resource Impacts

ResourceImpacts

Affected by

Low-impact Knowledge

Local Ecological Knowledge

Prior Experience

.13 .13

.36 .27

.05

.08

Fig. 2 Structural equation

model with standardized

parameter estimates. Dottedlines are insignificant

relationships


123

Discussion

Overall, the results of this study highlight some important

aspects in understanding visitor perceptions of resource

impacts. The study developed new scales to evaluate the

influence of visitor experience and knowledge variables on

visitor perceptions by using attitudinal statements in an

attempt to decrease the social desirability bias that may be

present in some past perceptions studies. The survey design

incorporated visitor characteristics that were previously

unexamined in the visitor perceptions literature. Addi-

tionally, unlike past studies, visitor perceptions of very

specific types of resource and social impacts were exam-

ined. The use of structural equation modeling provided

additional techniques for investigating visitor perceptions

and exploring the relationships between multiple latent

variables of visitor characteristics and visitor perceptions.

Visitor Experience and Knowledge

In terms of prior experience, a few generalizations can be

made. For visits to Rocky Mountain National Park itself, it

appears as if two groups of visitors emerge; those who are

first time visitors to the park and those who are frequent

visitors (visiting 10 or more times) (Table 1). The emer-

gence of two categories of visitors resulted in the overall

mean of total visits to Rocky Mountain National Park

(37.7) to appear high; however the distribution is reflective

of a bimodal population of visitors in the Bear Lake Road

Corridor. Many of the participants were visiting the Bear

Lake Road Corridor for the first time and, even with the

large number of repeat visitors, many were visiting their

primary hiking destination for the first time.

Although some of the visitors may be familiar with Rocky

Mountain National Park as a whole, they may be experi-

encing the resources, levels of use, and levels of impacts, or

their primary hiking destination for the very first time. First

time visitors may not be expecting or anticipating the level

of resource impacts or crowding that will be experienced at

their primary hiking destination. Expectations have the

potential to influence the overall quality of the visitor

experience. Visitor expectations are often formed by past

experiences in that park or similar areas. Visitors often

compare current conditions to conditions present during

previous experiences when making judgment about resource

conditions (Laven and others 2005).

Overall, participants believed that Rocky Mountain

National Park is very important to them based on the

measure of national park affinity. No participant ranked the

park as being unimportant and there were no neutral rat-

ings. In other studies, national park affinity has been used

successfully to stratify respondents by high affinity and low

affinity (Muller and Job 2009). However, in this study the

measure proved to be less sensitive than anticipated.

Therefore, the measure of national park affinity was the

only visitor characteristic left out of the structural equation

model analysis and is not viewed as an influential visitor

characteristic on visitor perceptions in this study.

Local ecological knowledge was measured using a self-

rated system which does have drawbacks but was the most

feasible gauge of local understanding. Other studies have

successfully used subjective measures of knowledge to

better understand and model respondent attitudes (Ericsson

and Heberlein 2003; Leujak and Ormond 2007; McFarlane

and others 2006; Muller and Job 2009). This study was

successful in using self-rated measures of ecological

knowledge in a modeling effort; however there are

opportunities in future work for the further development of

these scales (Table 2). It may be possible to measure

ecological knowledge using a quiz-like format such as that

used to measure knowledge of minimum-impact practices.

For local ecological knowledge, participants did not feel as

if they had proficient knowledge in any of the knowledge

topics. Findings indicate that visitors were more familiar

with natural history topics than management topics, with

over half of visitors reporting no knowledge of all but for

one management topic. The one exception to this finding

is the mountain pine beetle—the management topic for

which participates rated themselves as having the most

knowledge.

The mountain pine beetle population in Rocky Mountain

National Park is causing significant tree kill resulting in

management actions that are directly influencing visitors,

such as the closing of campgrounds for tree removal. The

fact that participants rated themselves as being most

knowledgeable about the mountain pine beetle manage-

ment issue may indicate that, in general, visitors are more

aware of management practices that have a direct effect on

their experience in a park or protected area. In support of

this concept, participants rated themselves as very knowl-

edgeable about the natural history of wildlife and plants in

the park. However, knowledge of elk management and

plant management were rated as being low. Both elk and

plant management practices may not be obviously noticed

by the visitor. Results from self-rated local ecological

knowledge, besides from being used as a variable in

modeling, may also have implications for interpretive

programs. Participants’ self-rated, perceived level of

knowledge can be used by managers of parks and protected

areas to highlight where interpretive programs may be

lacking. In particular, based on these findings, park and

protected area interpretive plans could be changed to

improve and focus on the communication of information

related to park management plans and actions.

Overall, participants were very knowledgeable about

minimum-impact practices. The majority of participants


123

answered the multiple-choice quiz with 100 % accuracy.

Therefore, most participants know what the correct

behaviors are for minimizing their impacts. It is important

to note that visitor knowledge of low-impact practices does

not necessarily translate into visitor action (Fishbein and

Ajzen 1975; Leung and Attarian 2003)—they may still act

in a depreciative manner. These results have implications

for interpretation and outreach in that they highlight the

minimum-impact principles which visitors may not be

aware of or as familiar with. For example, results indicate

that visitors may not know the best place to rest or stop (on

the designated trail, on a social trail, or on a rock) during

the middle of their hike. However, visitors are aware that

they should not pick wildflowers and should minimize

direct interactions with wildlife. Therefore, future inter-

pretive efforts could emphasize proper trail etiquette and

protocol but may have already developed effective mini-

mum-impact communication related to wildlife and leaving

what you find.

Visitor Perceptions

Visitors appear to be more perceptive of resource impacts

while hiking than while at their primary hiking destination

(Tables 3, 4). While hiking, visitors may be more percep-

tive of the trail itself and their overall surroundings.

However, once visitors reach their destination they may be

focused on the particular feature of that destination (lake,

waterfall, or view). Also, at their destination, visitors may

become preoccupied with taking photographs, resting, or

eating a meal, making them less perceptive of the resource

impacts around them. Finally, the destinations in this par-

ticular study site are often subalpine lakes with rocky

shorelines where visitors disperse. Therefore, resource

impacts that are more diffuse in nature may be less obvious

to visitors. These results highlight that setting characteris-

tics can have a significant influence on visitor perceptions

of recreation-related resource impacts.

Despite the difference in magnitude, the same types of

resource impacts were perceived by participants both while

they were hiking and while at their primary hiking desti-

nation. Visitors noticed and expected to see the same types

of impacts: tree damage, lack of solitude, off-trail use, and

visitor-created trails (Tables 3, 4). The findings support

previous work done in Rocky Mountain National Park

indicating that visitors are perceptive of visitor-created

trails and the presence of visitors off of the designated trail

(Brooks and Titre 2003). These results also support pre-

vious findings that visitors are most perceptive of visitor

impacts resulting from inappropriate or unacceptable

behaviors, or in the case of off trail use, the inappropriate

behavior itself (Dorwart and others 2010; Farrell and others

2001; Monz 2009; White and others 2001). Visitors may be

most familiar with impacts that are the result of inappro-

priate behavior and therefore more perceptive of impacts

that they are accustomed to experiencing. Visitors were

also perceptive of the social impact of not finding solitude,

and alternatively, experiencing crowding.

Visitors do not seem to be as perceptive of prevalent and

widespread resource impacts, such as erosion and trampled

vegetation. Recent work by van Riper and Manning (2011)

found that only half of sampled visitors to Cascade

Mountain in New York noticed soil and vegetation

impacts. These results may indicate that recreation visitors

may not understand or recognize erosion or vegetation

impacts. Trampled vegetation and erosion are often more

subtle and can be caused by natural forces such as water (in

the case of erosion) and wildlife (in the case of trampled

vegetation).

However, erosion and trampled vegetation are occa-

sionally the result of inappropriate behavior especially

within areas that receive high levels of recreation use.

These impacts are not as obvious as the results of other

depreciative behaviors such as tree carving and large webs

of interconnecting visitor-created trails. Visitors seemed to

be responding to and perceiving the more aesthetic impacts

which may be less ecologically significant than impacts

such as erosion and trampled vegetation. Results from the

structural equation model indicate that visitors may

become more sensitive to these subtle impacts (erosion and

trampled vegetation) as their knowledge of low-impact

practices and local ecological knowledge increases. First

time visitors to a park or protected area may not recognize

impacts such as erosion and trampled vegetation but

more knowledgeable visitors may learn to distinguish the

difference between visitor-caused impact and natural

processes.

Overall, the degree of crowding visitors experienced had

the greatest effect on the overall visitor experience.

Crowding may have affected visitors the most due to vis-

itor expectations. Less than half of the participants reported

experiencing solitude either while hiking or while at their

primary hiking destination but the majority of participants

expected to experience solitude during phases of their trip.

The fact that actual conditions did not meet visitor

expectations may have influenced how the impact affected

the visitor. The same concept applies to tree damage; the

second most reported impact affecting the participants. Past

research, using normative theory, has shown a strong

relationship between encounter expectations and measure-

ments of perceived crowding (Manning 2011). Individuals

who expect fewer encounters than they experienced are

more likely to feel crowded. However, still slightly less

than half of visitors reported being affected by crowding

and tree damage indicating that overall impacts may not be

having a great affect on the majority of visitors.


123

Influence of Perceptions on Visitor Experience

Participants were asked whether the specific types of

impacts added, detracted, or had no effect on their overall

experience. Most impacts did not affect the overall visitor

experience, even the impacts which visitors reported as

noticing such as visitor-created trails and off trail use.

However, tree damage, which may be the impact most

blatantly resulting from inappropriate behavior, was

reported by almost half of the participants as detracting

from their overall experience. Also, the social impact of

crowding was reported by over half of visitors as detracting

from their overall experience. The same types of impacts

that affected visitors also detracted from their overall

experience indicating that, again, visitor expectations may

play an important role in understanding how perceived

impacts influence the overall visitor experience.

Despite the fact that the Bear Lake Corridor is highly

impacted by visitor use, results indicate that participants

were not sure whether or not the ecological resource

impacts were problems. There was no apparent consensus

about erosion, trampled vegetation, the proliferation of

visitor-created trails, or people hiking off trail (Table 5).

The only impacts with widespread agreement were tree

damage and the lack of opportunities for solitude. Inter-

estingly, tree damage does not appear to be as prevalent in

the Bear Lake Road Corridor with most carving being old

and healed and very little branch breaking occurring.

However, the tree damage that is present is often times

very obvious and frequently directly adjacent to designated

trails and prolific at destinations. Visitors may be more

aware of tree damage due to the obvious nature of the

impact, although other types of resource impacts, particu-

larly trampled vegetation and visitor-created trails may, in

reality, be a much larger problem in general in the Bear

Lake Corridor (Newman and others 2010). Participants

reporting that the lack of opportunities for solitude

appearing to be a problem supports the rest of the findings

in that visitors expected to experience solitude did not find

solitude, which affected them by detracting from their

overall visitor experience. Therefore it seems logical that

visitors would perceive visitor use levels as a problem.

It is possible that visitors do not view impacts such as

trampled vegetation and visitor-created trails as a problem

because these types of impacts are viewed as inevitable or

in certain situations, have an amenity value. There is sup-

port in the literature to suggest that functionality is

important to the visitor experience and decreased vegeta-

tion cover may increase the functionality of visitor sites

(Farrell and others 2001; Knudson and Curry 1981; Monz

2009). Trampled vegetation on visitor-created sites may

lead to sites which are more functional in terms of view

sites and spots for resting or eating. Additionally, visitor-

created trails may provide access to off-trail areas which

visitors find appealing such as water and rock features.

Some level of recreation-related resource impact may be

acceptable to visitors if the impact increases the enjoyment

of their experience (Monz 2009).

Structural Equation Modeling

Past research has found a relationship between prior

experience and visitor perceptions of environmental

impacts (Ibitayo and Virden 1996; van Riper and Manning

2011; White and others 2008). White and others (2008)

used structural equation modeling to examine the influence

of prior experience and place attachment on visitors’ per-

ceptions of ecological impact, depreciative behavior, and

recreation conflict. Results from White and others (2008)

indicated that prior experience had a significant positive

relationship with all measured components of visitor per-

ceptions. Van Riper and Manning (2011) found that prior

experience had a positive relationship with the level of

impact perceived by visitors. However, our results show

that when specific components of perceptions, noticing and

being affected by impacts, and other visitor characteristics

are measured that the relationship between experience and

perceptions is not significant. Our model indicates that the

number of times a visitor has visited a place is not as

important in terms of perceptions of impacts as the visitor’s

knowledge of the ecosystem and knowledge of low-impact

practices (Fig. 2; Table 6). These findings support previous

research showing that visitors with less local ecological

knowledge are generally more accepting of resource

impacts (Leujak and Ormond 2007).

A relationship was also found between prior experience

and local ecological knowledge. Each visit may result in

the visitor learning something new about the natural history

and/or management practices of a particular park or pro-

tected area. Therefore, the mechanism through which prior

experience influences visitor perceptions, and why past

studies which did not measure visitor knowledge have

found significant relationships, may be that with each

subsequent visit visitors are gaining more local ecological

knowledge. Our findings show that the more knowledge-

able a visitor is about the natural history and management

practices of the place the more likely they are to notice

ecological resource impacts and the more likely they are to

be affected by these impacts (Table 6). Knowledge of

minimum-impact practices also influences whether a visi-

tor notices or is affected by ecological resource impacts. A

visitor with more knowledge of low-impact practices is

more likely to notice and be affected by ecological

resource impacts.


123

Conclusions

The understanding of visitor perceptions of resource impacts

requires the consideration and evaluation of a variety of

influencing variables. What visitors perceive and their

judgments about resource impacts are influenced by many

factors including setting, the type of resource impact, visitor

characteristics, visitor expectations, and level of knowledge

(Dorwart and others 2010; Ibitayo and Virden 1996; Man-

ning 2011). This study used newly developed attitudinal

statements to examine the specific types of resource impacts

that visitors perceive and explored new, influential visitor

characteristics to produce a model of visitor perceptions.

Overall, results indicate that visitor perceptions of resource

impacts are a complicated construct and elucidation requires

detailed examination of many variables.

This study provides support for the idea that in general,

visitor experiences are not substantially affected by

resource impacts with the exception of those impacts

resulting from depreciative behavior. These results support

Dorwart and others (Dorwart and others 2009) who found

that evidence of depreciative behavior was universally

viewed as negative by visitors on the Appalachian Trail in

Great Smoky Mountain National Park and the only impact

that detracted from visitor experiences. A visitor’s per-

ception of resource impacts is influenced more by their

local ecological knowledge of the place and understanding

what behaviors are appropriate for the setting than by how

often an individual has visited a place, a phenomenon

initially suggested by Manning and others (2004). These

findings clarify other findings in the literature (White and

others 2008), by suggesting that the previously unmeasured

visitor use characteristics are important in understanding

visitor perceptions. Specifically, that local ecological

knowledge may be a proxy for prior experience and that

previous experience influences visitor perceptions by way

of gained knowledge.

Based on the results, despite being exposed to a high

level of recreation resource impacts, visitors do not

perceive there to be a management problem (with the

exception of crowding). Even in areas with prolific visitor-

created impacts, manager perceptions may greatly deviate

from visitor perceptions of recreation resource impacts. As

other studies have suggested, self-reported visitor percep-

tions may therefore not be accurate measures of current

recreation resource conditions (van Riper and Manning

2011). Visitors were most perceptive of impacts that were

easy to spot (visitor-created trails, tree carving, visitors

traveling off of the designated trail). However, these

impacts may be less significant from an ecological stand-

point as compared to erosion and highly trampled vegeta-

tion in visitor-created sites. Therefore, managers may not

want to base decisions related to resource protection and

mitigation solely on visitor perceptions and judgments as

this may lead to resource degradation. Recreation resource

impact assessments should be paired with visitor percep-

tions work to balance the management of both a quality

visitor experience and protecting recreation resources.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by funding from

the S.J. and Jessie S. Quinney Foundation and the Utah Agricultural

Experiment Station. The authors thank Larry Gamble and Judy Visty

of the National Park Service for their help with and support of this

research. We also thank Annie Weilier, Kevin Dombrock, and

Michael Czaja for help in administering the surveys.

References

Brooks JJ, Titre JP (2003) A multi-method assessment of recreation

impacts at Rocky Mountain National Park. National Park Service

Report, Estes Park, Colorado

D’Antonio AL (2010) Recreation resource impacts in the Bear Lake

Road Corridor of Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado,

USU: an assessment of resource conditions and visitor percep-

tions. Thesis, Utah State University

Dorwart CE, Moore RL, Leung Y-F (2009) Visitors’ perceptions of a

trail environment and effects on experiences: a model for nature-

based recreation experiences. Leisure Sciences 32:33–54

Ericsson G, Heberlein TA (2003) Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the

general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back.

Biological Conservation 111:149–159

Farrell TA, Hall TE, White DD (2001) Wilderness campers’

perception and evaluation of campsite impacts. Journal of

Leisure Research 33:229–250

Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an

introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading

Gamble L, Lawson S, Monz CA, Newman PL (2007) Modeling the

effects of alternative transportation on resource protection and

visitor experiences in Rocky Mountain National Park. Alterna-

tive transportation in the parks and public lands program, project

proposal

Hammitt WE, Cole DN (1998) Wildland recreation: ecology and

management. Wiley, New York

Hammitt WE, Backlund EA, Bixler RD (2004) Experience use

history, place bonding, and resource substitution of trout anglers

during recreation engagements. Journal of Leisure Research

36:356–378

Ibitayo OO, Virdin RJ (1996) Visitor and manager perceptions of

depreciative behaviors in Urban Park settings. Journal of Park

and Recreation Administration 14:6–51

Kaczensky P, Blazic M, Gossow H (2004) Public attitude towards

brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Slovenia. Biological Conservation

118:661–674

Karlsson J, Sjostrom M (2007) Human attitudes towards wolves, a

matter of distance. Biological Conservation 137:610–616

Knudson DM, Curry EB (1981) Campers’ perception of site

deterioration and crowding. Journal of Forestry 79:92–94

Laven D, Manning R, Krymkowski DH (2005) The relationship

between visitor-based standards of quality and existing conditions

in parks and outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences 27:157–173

Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics (2010) Leave no trace—

outdoor ethics for frontcountry. http://www.lnt.org/programs/front

country.php. Accessed 1 Aug 2010

Leujak W, Ormond RFG (2007) Visitor perceptions and the shifting

social carrying capacity of South Sinai’s coral reeds. Environ-

mental Management 39:472–489


123

http://www.lnt.org/programs/frontcountry.php

http://www.lnt.org/programs/frontcountry.php

Leung Y, Attarian A (2003) Frontcountry visitor information/

education programs: are there lessons for wilderness? Interna-

tional Journal of Wilderness 9:32–33

Leung Y, Marion JL (2000) Recreation impact and management in

wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review. In: Cole DN, McCool

SF, Borrie WT, O’Loughlin J (eds) Proceedings of wilderness

science in a time of change conference, vol 5, wilderness

ecosystems, threats and management. Department of Agricul-

ture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden,

pp 23–48

Lynn NA, Brown RD (2003) Effects of recreational use impacts on

hiking experiences in natural areas. Landscape and Urban

Planning 64:77–87

Manning RE (2011a) Studies in outdoor recreation: search and

research for satisfaction. Oregon State University Press,

Corvallis

Manning RE, Lawson S, Newman P, Budrul M, Vallerie W, Laven D,

Bacon J (2004) Visitor perceptions of recreation-related resource

impacts. In: Buckley R (ed) The environmental impacts of

ecotourism. CABI, London, pp 259–271

McFarlane BL, Stumpf-Allen RCG, Watson DO (2006) Public

perceptions of natural disturbance in Canada’s national parks:

the case of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosaeHopkins). Biological Conservation 130:340–348

Monz CA (2009) Climbers’ attitudes toward recreation resource

impacts in the Adirondack Park’s Giant Mountain Wilderness.

International Journal of Wilderness 15:26–33

Muller M, Job H (2009) Managing natural disturbance in protected

areas: tourists’ attitude towards the bark beetle in a German

national park. Biological Conservation 142:283–375

National Park Service (2010) Visitor statistics [data file]. http://www.

nature.nps.gov/stats/. Accessed 15 Dec 2010

Newman P, Lawson S, Monz C (2010) Integrated approach to

transportation and visitor use management at Rocky Mountain

National Park. National Park Service Report, Estes Park,

pp 72–105

Roggenbuck JR, Williams DR, Watson AE (1993) Defining accept-

able conditions in wilderness. Environmental Management

17:187–197

van Riper C, Manning, RE (2011) Perceived impacts of outdoor

recreation on the summit of Cascade Mountain, New York.

Adirondack Journal of Environmental Studies, 16. http://www.

ajes.org/v16/vanriper2010.php

White DD, Hall TE, Farrell TA (2001) Influence of ecological

impacts and other campsite characteristics on wilderness

visitors’ campsite choices. Journal of Park and Recreation

Administration 19:83–87

White DD, Virden RJ, van Riper CJ (2008) Effects of place identity,

place dependence and experience-use history on perceptions of

recreation impacts in a natural setting. Environmental Manage-

ment 42:647–657


123

http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/

http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/

http://www.ajes.org/v16/vanriper2010.php

http://www.ajes.org/v16/vanriper2010.php

Documents

The Effects of Local Ecological Knowledge, Minimum-Impact Knowledge, and Prior Experience on Visitor Perceptions of the Ecological Impacts of Backcountry Recreation