Shelas Test Page

Visitor Satisfaction Website

Rudy Schuster

1.0 What is recreation satisfaction?

#1 The overall goals of recreation management are to match the on-site recreation opportunity that is provided by management with the expectations of the visitor; and to provide a quality recreation experience. Recreation Satisfaction is often used an indicator of quality of the outdoor recreation experience and management. Visitor satisfaction has been intensely studied (Williams, 1989) since the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) reports of 1962 documented the need to provide recreation opportunities for the American public. However, the application of satisfaction as an indicator of quality has changed since the ORRRC reports of 1962.

#2The early focus of outdoor recreation provision and research was primarily interested in developed recreation facilities such as campgrounds and picnic areas. In these settings the expectation of service quality was prominent (Williams, 1989). Satisfaction was conceptualized as a function of physical attributes of the setting. This application of satisfaction defined recreation as a product or commodity analogous to other products delivered by resource mangers (e.g. timber, water, grazing).

#3 The commodity metaphor became less functional as recreation in general forest areas and wilderness became more popular. Assessing recreation satisfaction in these areas did not function in association with market forces and pricing. The physical attributes of a general forest area or wilderness are not managed in the same way as a campsite or boat launch on a lake; nor are they experienced in the same manner by the recreationist. Recreation satisfaction acquired a more complex definitions (link to #4) and management implications.

#3aA major advancement in understanding and applying satisfaction in a management context was the result of changes in how satisfaction questions were asked (link to #38). In the mid 1970’s the move was made from single indicator measures of satisfaction to a multiple satisfaction approach. The single indicator approach simply asked the visitor overall, how satisfied were you with your experience at National Forest X? The multiple satisfaction approach asks the visitor to provide information about multiple attributes of the experience and site. The multiple satisfaction approach provides more detailed and functional information. Understanding satisfaction provides an indication of how well a manger is providing the setting or conditions desired by the recreation user.

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

***********************new page***************

1.1   Definition of Recreation Satisfaction

            #4 While the overall goal of satisfaction research in outdoor recreation provision has remained to provide a quality recreation experience, the approach to measuring satisfaction has changed. Recreation satisfaction research has been developed using psychological motivation-need models (link to # 7), consumer satisfaction research, (link to #14), and applied facility assessment tools (link to #19).  

#5 In general terms satisfaction has been defined in relation to dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction refers to negative reactions developed in response to on-site conditions (Manning & Cali, 1980). This definition has been put into practice in relation to recreation crowding. Dissatisfaction has been measured as discomfort, stress, or anxiety that results when a setting is more crowded than the recreationist might desire. Satisfaction has also been represented by the degree of discrepancy (link to #15) between what a visitor expects and the actual experience (Schreyer & Roggenbuck, 1978). In the case of crowding, visitors are asked to report the number of people they would prefer to see and the actual number of people seen.    

            #6 Satisfaction has also been used to measure quality of the recreation experience by targeting the product of the activity. Original applications in this context assumed that satisfaction was a function of success; for example, bagging game while hunting (Stanky, Lucas, & Ream, 1973). The idea was that recreation is directed toward accomplishing an obvious goal. However, the success-satisfaction relationship was not easily understood. For example, satisfaction was maintained at consistent levels despite trends within hunting showing lower success ratios. This caused researchers to re-examine traditional beliefs about the relationship between success and satisfaction.

#6a This re-examination was not localized to the activity of hunting. Activities such as hiking or floating did not fit the activity-success framework. Floating a river or hiking a trail might not have overt goals that represent success. Because many recreation activities occur in undeveloped areas (link to #2 or #3) and often do not have overt goals researchers sought a different means of quantifying satisfaction. The use of a model that framed satisfaction using psychological-needs and motivation for participation (link to #7) was used. Other approaches to satisfaction measurement included consumer satisfaction (link to #14) and applied facilities development tools (link to #19).

#6b Visitor satisfaction is a subjective, evaluation of the recreation setting (link to #26) and the on-site experience. It is subjective because the evaluation is made individually by each person. Each person may choose different aspects of the setting or experience to evaluate when making their evaluation. and can vary among different people.

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

***************new page***************

1.2 Expectancy Theory, Needs, & Motivation

            #7 Wagar (1966) offered the idea that quality is dependent on the fulfillment of personal needs that the recreationist is seeking. According to this logic, the personal needs and motivations of the recreationist must be understood when attempting to assess the quality of a recreation experience. Personal needs and motivations represent a series of latent goals that a person is attempting to fill when selecting a recreation activity and setting. If these goals are fulfilled the recreationist should be satisfied. Needs (latent goals) represent elements of the recreation experience and/or setting that are important to the visitor. For example, if a recreationist has a need for solitude, then a quite setting is important. Management will be better able to prescribe management objectives to insure a satisfying, quality recreation experience by addressing the specific needs of the visitor. The specific needs also represent the attributes that are used to create the variety of questions used in the multiple satisfaction approach (link to #43). The needs-motivation model was based on expectancy theory in the field of social psychology and the concept that recreationists received personal benefits as a result of participating in recreation.

            #8 Expectancy theory (Atkinson & Birch, 1972; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974; Lawler, 1973), posits that people engage in specific behaviors with the understanding that certain psychological outcomes will result. Expectancy theory frames behavior as goal directed; recreationists have specific needs that they wish to fulfill, these needs motivate the individual to select specific setting-activity combinations that are expected to fulfill those needs. This foundation was used to create the needs-motivation model (link to #10) of satisfaction. The recreationist should be satisfied with the experience if expectations are met and personal needs are fulfilled. Benefits are received when personal needs are fulfilled. In recreation management, the word benefit is used to denote a desirable change or state; it is a specific improved condition or state of an individual or a group of individuals, of a society, or even of nonhuman organisms (Driver, Nash, & Haas, 1987). For example, a family may experience the benefit of positive family bonding after a hiking and camping trip that allowed them to solve problems together as a group.

#9 The concept of managing recreation based on maximizing the benefits received by the people participating in the activities (benefits based management, BBM) became popular in the mid 1970’s. BBM works in harmony with the needs-motivation model (link to #10). Through a rigorous research agenda, BBM concepts were integrated into formal process of land management (Driver, 1976, 1990, 1996; Driver & Brown, 1975, 1983; Driver, Brown, & Peterson, 1991).       

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

*************new page************

1.2.1 Motivation Model and Explanation

#10 The motivation model based on expectancy theory posits that recreation behavior is goal directed and that people have expectations concerning the recreation experience. A forest recreationist does not select their destination randomly. The recreationist has specific expectations concerning the attributes of the site, how those attributes can serve their needs, and what benefits will be received from the setting activity combination. The figure below illustrates the model components.

Antecedents

Motivators

Intervening Variables

Personal Satisfaction

Personal Benefits

Feedback Loop B

 

Figure 1 Model based on recreation needs, motivation, and benefits research (Driver, 1976, 1990, 1996; Driver & Brown, 1975, 1983; Driver et al., 1991)

            #11 Antecedents occur in everyday life and are anything that leads to a need state. Antecedents create needs and needs create the driving force that motivates a person to engage in a recreation activity. For example, a stressful week at work might create a need to relax; the need to relax might generate the motivation to paddle a canoe on a calm lake. Being away from one’s home during working hours might create the need to spend quality time with one’s family. The need for family time might motivate a family to go camping together. After a need is created, the individual begins the cognitive process of selecting a recreation activity and setting that are expected to satisfy that need.

            #12 After the individual is motivated and arrives on the recreation site; intervening variables affect the fulfillment of needs. Intervening variables are anything that works for or against fulfilling needs. For example, the family going camping could experience a warm sunny weekend in a quiet campground (facility and weather as positive intervening variables). Or, the family could experience a rainy weekend and a loud-crowded campground (negative intervening variables). The crowded campground could cause more stress on the family and feedback to contribute to increased need to spend time together.

            #13 If the individual’s needs are fulfilled during the experience they should be satisfied with the experience. Using this model, the motivating reasons behind participation can be used as indicators of satisfaction. Motivations such as seeking reduced social contact, convenient facilities, family camping facilities, or challenging trails are attributes that can be managed to provide a quality-satisfying experience. Multiple methods (link to #38) have been developed to use these indicators. Finally benefits, in the previous examples, are received in the form of stress-reduction or enhanced family bonds after camping. If benefits are received and needs satisfied, the recreationist learns to expect that the activity-setting combination will function similarly in the future.     

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

************new page*************

1.3 Consumer Satisfaction Approach

#14 The consumer satisfaction model treats recreation management and provision as a commodity that is provided to the public. Williams (1989) posits that “employing a commodity analogy of satisfaction in recreation resource management has been attractive because managers of natural resources have a tendency to define recreation as a product like timber, water, and wildlife. But, despite the popularity of the consumer satisfaction metaphor, recreation in wildland settings may not fit easily into the commodity oriented production models that resource management has been based on for the past century” (p. 422).  The commodity approach results in trying to use market prices to value non-market goods such as scenic beauty or peace and quiet. Using market pricing is difficult because managers cannot observe market behavior in relation to wildland recreation as they can with timber or water. For example, there is a known cost for producing timber and the price of timber varies with supply and demand. There is no actual cost for a sunrise or the solitude of an alpine meadow.   

#15 The consumer satisfaction approach uses the motivation model in that the goal is to evaluate how well the experience satisfies the specific goals of the recreationist. This approach uses models and methods borrowed from consumer behavior research. Specifically, satisfaction is defined as a process that compares the degree to which expectations, needs, goals, values, desires, wishes, beliefs or some other expected condition are fulfilled or not fulfilled. This definition relies on expectancy theory (link to #7). Two primary theories used to assess the discrepancy between expectations and actual experiences are contrast theory (link to #15) and consistency theory (link to #17).

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

************new page***************

1.3.1 Contrast Theory 

#16 Contrast theory is an approach to evaluating satisfaction that establishes a reference point using the individual’s expectations of a product’s performance prior to using the product and compares that with a post-use measure of actual-performance. Satisfaction is a function of the discrepancy between the two points. This assumes that the recreationist regularly compares what they experienced on-site with pre-determined expectations about the site. When performance exceeds expectations positive disconfirmation occurs and the recreationist is satisfied. Negative disconfirmation occurs when performance does not meet expectations and results in dissatisfaction.

#16a In recreation, multiple attributes of the setting and experience are used as indicators for satisfaction. A survey might include attributes such as cleanliness of bathrooms, knowledge of staff, condition of trails, number of other people seen, or informational signs. Individual discrepancies and disconfirmations are summed across multiple attributes to get an overall satisfaction score.

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

************new page***********

1.3.2 Consistency Theory

#17 Consistency theory assumes that some sort of distortion takes place after the product is received to make performance perceptions consistent with expectations. Based on cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) this research is aimed at identifying the magnitude and direction of cognitive changes that reduce the inconsistency created by disconfirmed expectations (Williams, 1989). Expectations about product performance are still the reference point for comparison to actual performance. However, the theory states that if the discrepancy is not too large (e.g. expectations are only slightly higher than actual performance or expectations are only slightly lower than performance) expectation “assimilation” occurs and the consumer will the not report accurately. Only if the discrepancy between expectations and performance is high will the consumer be able to report accurate contrasts.  

            #18 The assimilation concept has been used to explain why recreationists often report high levels of satisfaction on surveys when objective observations show declining conditions. Assimilation could be considered a denial mechanism by which recreationists might raise the perception of performance to be consistent with expectations. Rationalization is believed to be a mechanism used to justify substantial personal investments made in the activity after performance expectations are not met. Rationalization, or coping with unacceptable conditions is accepted as a component of the satisfaction appraisal process (link to #32).

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

*****************new page***************

1.4 Applied Assessment Tools

#19 Applied assessment tools are typically used to determine the quality of tangible services provided by management at recreation facilities. Two examples of applied assessment tools include Total Quality Management (TQM) (Jaten & Driver, 1998) and SERVQUAL (Parauraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985, 1994). Practitioners believe that applied tools are useful because “assessing the quality of facilities and the outcomes for those who participate is necessary for the attainment of managerial goals and objectives” (Cavnar et al., 2004)

#20 SERVQUAL is based on expectation disconfirmation as explained in contrast theory (link to #15). A SERVQUAL questionnaire asks the consumer (recreationist) three questions concerning each attribute being used as a quality indicator. First it asks the level of service expected. The second question is focused on the level of service quality actually received. Finally, the third asks the consumer to rate the importance of each attribute. A measure of service quality is calculated by subtracting the expectation rating from the performance rating. Thus, a SERVEQUAL score of zero means expectations were met, a positive number indicates that expectations were exceeded; and a negative number indicates that expectations were not met.

#21 The unique aspect of SERVQUAL is that five distinct aspects of service quality are defined. Tangibles are the physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel on the site. Reliability is the ability to perform or provide the services dependably and accurately. Assurance is the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and confidence in the consumer. Responsiveness is the willingness of recreation providers to help customers and provide prompt service. Finally, empathy is the individualized attention that the recreation manager provides to the customer.   

#22 Total Quality Management (TQM) is a system that incorporates a variety of approaches to providing overall service quality. Satisfaction assessment of facilities is one component of the system. TQM incorporates three foundational elements: 1) the need to use a customer approach to management; 2) high quality recreation opportunities should be provided for all types of customers using a facility; and 3) the development and measurement of clear quality objectives. TQM does not rely on the expectancy model. Using the customer approach, clear quality indicators are found in the tangible aspects of the facility. For example, Carvnar et al. (2004) used condition of features and facilities, maintenance of sports fields, tennis courts, etc., and the safety of the facilities equipment. Respondents were simply asked whether or not services were considered acceptable.

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************   

2.0 Management attributes that contribute to satisfaction level

#23 Two important recreation resource management structures that are associated with visitor satisfaction are the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) (link to #24) and the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) (link to #25). The ROS and LAC are used to provide clear objectives for classifying land and designing management actions/plans. Visitor satisfaction is linked to how well management meets planning objectives. For example, the Linville Gorge Wilderness (link to http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/recreation/linville.pdf) may be classified as a primitive area according to the ROS. An LAC indicator may the number of contacts that occur with other people in one day while camping. A satisfaction indicator may be associated with the number of people seen in the wilderness. In another example, the Canebreak Horse Camp (link to http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/recreation/canebreak.pdf) may be managed as an Overnight Use Developed Site (OUDS) in a Roaded Modified area. An OUDS has bathrooms, parking, and horse hitching facilities. Satisfaction indicators may be associated with the quality of these facilities.

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

2.1 The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

#24 The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) (link to http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr098.pdf) is a management and planning framework developed by the Forest Service in 1979. The ROS provides a scheme for designating recreational resources into seven different land classifications: Urban, Rural, Roaded, Modified, Roaded Natural, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and Primitive. The ROS describes a given piece of land according to its social, managerial, natural resource characteristics. The description of the setting provides a framework for management to begin the planning process and set broad goals. The ROS designation provides a qualitative description of the intended outcome of management actions. For example, is the intended outcome a primitive setting with limited social interaction and difficult travel? Or, is the intended outcome of management actions a rural setting with high likelihood of social interaction and easy vehicle access?   

#25 The ROS has been updated and modified since its inception in 1979 to include varying environments. For example, the ROS was originally written as a tool for managing federally owned lands in the western United States. Since then it has been updated to be used in non-federal lands in the northeastern United States (link to http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2003/gtrne309.pdf).

2.1.2 Using the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum to develop satisfaction measures

#26 The following six factors are used to determine a recreation opportunity setting. Examples (link to # 27) of ROS setting definitions and indicators of the resource quality provided on the next page. The factors listed below and the examples are used to develop the goals that management intends to achieve. The objective of recreation management is to provide quality recreation experiences. The ROS description provides a definition of the setting that is to be provided. The ROS description factors can be used to develop questions that are asked of visitors to determine the quality to the setting provided.

Type of Access

The type of access is defined by the mode of travel and difficulty of travel. An urban site will have easy vehicular access and a primitive site will require difficult cross country travel using pack stock and/or foot travel.

Other non recreational uses

Other non recreational uses include uses such as mining, grazing, dams, and hydroelectric facilities.

Onsite management

Onsite management includes the presence of human representatives of the management agency as well as facility design. For example, campgrounds are designed to subtly influence visitor using well placed walkways, picnic tables, and bathroom facilities. Onsite management is almost absent in primitive or semi-primitive area. These areas are often void of management presence to the point that trail may not exist. Onsite management includes structures such as lean-tos, parking facilities, and visitor centers.

Social interaction

Social interaction refers to the number of people seen and/or actually interacted with. In some cases it refers to hearing people without actually seeing them. For example, a camper may hear noisy campers on the other side of a lake, but not actually see them.

Acceptability of visitor impacts

Visitor impact refers to how visitors use the resource. A setting that allows motorized off highway vehicle use will have a higher level of acceptable visitor impacts than a primitive wilderness area.   

Acceptable level of regimentation

This refers to the amount of regulation imposed on visitors in a given setting. Typically, a highly developed facility is thought to have more regimentation than a primitive, less developed setting. For example, a developed campground provides each user with a specified amount of space in the campsite, a limit of two cars per site, quiet hours after 10pm, a designated location for garbage, and a campground host patrols the area and interacts with each camper. While a primitive area may ban fires, require that hikers stay in designated sites, and carry out trash; these areas are thought of as having less regimentation.

2.1.3 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum setting description and indicator examples

#27 The following tables provide example descriptions of a few ROS setting designations. The descriptions can be used to identify indicators of resource quality and subsequently derive satisfaction measures. These descriptions may vary at different locations. For example a social indicator for the primitive setting is listed as encountering less than six other parties during the day. The management agency may determine that 15 encounters are appropriate in a different area.

Primitive (P)

Semi-primitive Non-motorized (SPNM)

Semi-primitive Motorized (SPM)

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

2.2 Limits of Acceptable Change Process

#28 The ROS provides a framework for classifying land and the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) (Stankey, Cole, Lucan, Peterson, & Frissell, 1985) provides a process for making management decisions. The LAC was originally written in 1985 and since then has been embraced by the Forest Service as an important recreation planning tool. Numerous LAC workshops (link to http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/trails/cdnst/carrying_capacity/proceedings_lac_int_gtr_371_1997.pdf#xml=http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/texis/searchallsites/search.allsites/xml.txt?query=limits+of+acceptable+change&db=allsites&id=424a22ad0) have been conducted to train Forest Service and other land managers in the LAC process. LAC is used to determine how current levels of recreation use and impacts compare to management specifications. The LAC process also helps managers decide when management action is necessary to respond to on-site problems.

#29 Step 3 (link to #30) of the LAC process is to select resource and social indicators to be used for monitoring resource conditions. These indicators provide specific and tangible indicators of the recreation setting quality. The resource and social indicators can be used to create questions answered by recreation visitors concerning their satisfaction with the recreation experience. For example, an LAC indicator may be the depth of erosion gullies along hiking trails or campsite availability. Recreational visitors can be asked their satisfaction levels with trail condition and ability of finding campsites. LAC related satisfaction questions are highly applicable to management actions since they are derived directly from management objectives. LAC indicators are more specific than indicators used in the Recreation Opportunity Setting (link to #24) descriptions. LAC indicators, by definition, have an allowable limit beyond which quality is perceived to deteriorate.   

#30 The LAC is a nine step process which requires managers to define desired conditions and to undertake actions to maintain or achieve those conditions. The LAC does NOT prevent human-induced change. However, it is used to decide how much, where, and what actions are necessary for control of change in resource conditions. LAC acknowledges that change in inevitable and that impact from recreation and human use will always occur. The goal of LAC is to monitor resource indicators in order to determine if carrying capacity has been exceeded. Resource impacts that exceed acceptable limits are indicative of the resources inability to carry the amount of current use. The Forest Service primarily uses the LAC process. The National Park Service employs a similar process referred to as Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (link to http://planning.nps.gov/document/verphandbook.pdf) 

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

2.2.1  Nine steps of the LAC process

#31 The nine steps of the LAC process are outlined below.

Step 1 Identify Area Issues and Concerns

•      Identify public issues and managerial concerns that relate to:

•    Distinctive features and characteristics of the wilderness

•    The relationship of the individual area to other units of the wilderness system and to other local areas

•      Helps management

•    Deal with site-specific issues

•    Identify values of the area and its role in the region and in the wilderness system

•    Maximizes the diversity of resource and social conditions provided by the system

Step 2—Define & Describe Opportunity Classes

•      Use ROS to identify Opportunity Classes

•    All ROS criteria for setting definition

•      A Qualitative description of the kinds of resource, social, and management conditions acceptable for the class

•      One area can have multiple classes (zones)

Step 3—Select Indicators of Resource & Social Conditions

•      Specific variables that are taken as indicative of the condition of the opportunity class

•      Allow managers to:

•    Unambiguously define desired conditions

•    Assess the effectiveness of various management practices

•      Indicators must be accurate and capable of being measured in a cost effective way

•      Have relationship to the amount and type of use occurring

•      Social indicators should be related to user concerns of crowding

•      Condition of indicator must be responsive to management control

Step 4—Inventory Existing Resource and Social Conditions

•      Use indicators from Step 3 to assess/inventory the resource

•      Critical step in determining what and where management is needed

Step 5—Specify Standards for Resource and Social Indicators

•      Assign Quantitative measures to indicators (from Step 3)

•      Provide a BASELINE against which conditions can be judged acceptable or not

•      Judgmental process, but logical, traceable, and subject to public review

Step 6— Identify Alternative Opportunity Class Allocations

•      Decide what resource and social conditions are to be achieved in specific areas of the wilderness

•      Balance desired conditions with REALITY

•      Create Zones based on impacts

•      May represent a diversity of opportunity classes

Step 7— Identify management Actions for Each Alternative

•      Identify differences between current conditions (step 4) and the standards (step 5)

•      When conditions exceed standards there is no need for management

•      When conditions are close to or worse than standards management is necessary!

•      Design a few management schemes for the area

Step 8—Evaluation and selection of a Preferred Alternative

•      Selections is made by managers and concerned citizens

•      What user groups are affected and how?

•      What values are promoted or diminished?

•      Does the alternative contribute to wilderness system diversity?

•      What is feasible (personnel, budget…)?

Step 9—Implement Actions & Monitor Conditions

•      Systematic feedback on how well management actions are working

•      Identify trends in conditions that require new actions

•      Trends indicate where problems are

•      Show what type of management actions solve what type of problems

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

3.0 A model of Recreation Satisfaction

#32 The model below outlines the basic process of arriving at an overall satisfaction evaluation for a recreation experience. The model begins before the person arrives at the recreation site and continues through the visit. The manager must understand that she/he does not have control over all the variables in the model. However, all variables influence the perception of the experience. The purpose of this illustration is to show that the final satisfaction rating provided by a recreation visitor may not be exclusively a function of management actions. Other factors influence the satisfaction rating and should be considered when interpreting survey results and better yet, accounted for in the survey!  (link titles in the circles to the corresponding paragraphs on the pages below)

Pre-Arrival Influences

On-site Situational Influences

Coping Response to On-site Conditions

Satis-faction

Motivations

Expectations

Travel-to Experience

Resource Conditions

Social Conditions

Managerial Conditions

Response to Dis-Satisfaction

 

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

3.1 Pre-Arrival Influences

            #33The manager does not have control of the motivations (link to #10) and the experience visitors have while traveling to the site. The manager has some control over the expectations of the visitor prior to arrival. Visitor expectations are more likely to be accurate if the manager provides accurate information to the public concerning opportunities available. Matching visitor expectations with the on-site experience is one of the primary goals of outdoor recreation management (link to #1) and is an intended purpose of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (link to #24). However, the plethora of information sources available today provides the potential recreation visitor plenty of opportunity to form inaccurate expectations of available opportunities.   

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

3.2 On-Site Situational Influences

            #34 The on-site situational influences are the same variables used to define the Recreation Opportunity Setting (link to #24). These represent the components of the system that the manager does typically have control over. When the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum is used to develop satisfaction measures (link to #26) specific indicators that are indicative of the setting are selected for evaluation. These indicators should be responsive to management control. For example, cleanliness of bathroom facilities, available parking, and level of visitor crowding are responsive to management action. Asking a visitor for their perceived quality of the sunset would not be useful. Things also happen on-site that are out of management control, but influence the quality of the experience. For example, visitors may have undesirable encounters with other rude visitors. Rude visitors may lower the quality of the experience and result in a low satisfaction rating that is not attributable to factors within management control. Often, these on-site influences are not captured in satisfaction surveys.

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

3.3 Coping Response to On-Site Conditions

            #35The coping reaction suggests that the recreation visitor reacts to on-site conditions that are not exactly as was expected or desired. The recreationist may make a cognitive adjustment to realign actual site conditions and their expectations. This phenomenon is discussed as part of the consumer satisfaction approach (link to #14) to assessing satisfaction. In some situations, recreation visitors may appraise a dissatisfying situation as a problem that can be corrected. In this case the recreation enacts coping behaviors to solve the problem and create a satisfying setting. For example, if the source is dissatisfaction is noise from other people the an unhappy camper may attempt to confront the noisy group and talk them into being quieter.            

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

3.4 Satisfaction

            #36The recreation participant is ready to make a satisfaction appraisal after setting personal expectations, traveling to the site, having the recreation experience, comparing the experience with expectations, and coping with settings that were not as anticipated. Satisfaction is a function of all components of the model combined.

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

3.5 Response to Dissatisfaction

            #37Coping responses may also be used in response to dissatisfying recreation settings. These coping responses include displacement, attempting to modify the dissatisfying environment, and abandoning the site completely (non-participation). Displacement occurs both temporally and spatially. Temporal displacement means that the displeased recreationist engages in the same activity at the same site, however, they select a different time to engage in the activity in order to avoid undesirable conditions. For example, a camper may avoid a popular lakeshore campground during the month of August to avoid summer campers. If a recreationist is spatially displaced they engage in the same activity, but in a location other than the original, unsatisfactory setting. For example, a hiker may avoid a popular-easier hiking trail and choose a more difficult trail that might have fewer people on it. Finally, a recreationist may decide that conditions are so unacceptable that the best alternative is to abandon (leave) the site completely and not return. Managers should be aware of how recreation visitors are responding to dissatisfaction, both on and off-site.

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

4.0 Satisfaction Measurement

            #38 The purpose of this section is to provide an explanation of methods used to determine recreation satisfaction. Brief explanations are provided for:

• Global Satisfaction Measures (link to #39)
• Multi-Attribute Measures (link to #43)
• Importance-Performance Indicators (link to #46)
• Real-time versus Post-Hoc methods (link to #49) 

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

4.1 Global Satisfaction Measures

            #39Global satisfaction measures use a single question to assess a recreation visitor’s overall appraisal of an experience. Global measures are considered a composite of all the components of the satisfaction model (link to #32). Global measures allow the manager to create average scores based on criteria such as all visitors, settings, or periods of time. Global satisfaction measures are the fastest and easiest satisfaction measures to use.  

#40Arguments against using global satisfaction measures are that they are not detailed enough to provide usable information to managers. An aggregate measure does not indicate which components of the recreation experience were acceptable and which were not acceptable. For example, a visitor may be highly satisfied with the condition of the natural resources but not happy with the amount of other users in the area. This might result in a low level of satisfaction with the recreation experience and the manager would not be able to determine which component of the experience was the cause.

#41 listed below are examples of global satisfaction measures.

Example One

Overall how satisfied were you with your recreation experience today? (circle one)

Example Two

#42The Forest service measures both overall forest satisfaction with a global measure and recreation site specific satisfaction using multiple-attribute measures as part of the National Visitor Use Monitoring Project (link to http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/).   The global measure is listed below.  

Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this visit to the White Mountain National Forest, using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means very satisfied and 5 means very satisfied.

1 very dissatisfied

2 somewhat dissatisfied

3 neither dissatisfied nor satisfied

4 somewhat satisfied

5 very satisfied                                                      

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

4.2 Multi-attribute Measures

            #43Multi-attribute measures ask specific questions about a variety of setting attributes (link to #44) or elements of the activity (link to #45). Thus, satisfaction information can be obtained for the quality of the facilities or the quality of the overall experience itself. Multiple-attribute measures were developed in response to the argument that global measures (link to #39) did not provide enough detail for management response. This approach gives the manger the ability to select attributes of the setting that are important indicators of resource quality. Quality indicators should also provide enough detail so management has the ability to target areas that need to be addressed.  Selection of indicators should be done in conjunction with the Limits of Acceptable Change Process and the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (link to #23). Most Applied Assessment Tools (link to #19) use a multiple attribute approach.

4.2.1 NVUM Multiple Satisfaction Attribute Indicators for a Specific Site

            #44As part of the National Visitor Use Monitoring (link to http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/) program, the Forest Service measures level of satisfaction for specific recreation sites.  The 14 attributes listed in the table below are used as indicators of satisfaction or setting quality for specific recreation sites on the forest being surveyed. All of the 14 attributes are in either direct or indirect management control. Management can respond to specific problems at the site. The 14 attributes may also be used to create a composite score for overall satisfaction.   

National Visitor Use Monitoring Program Satisfaction Attribute Questions

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

4.2.2 Multiple Satisfaction Attribute Indicators for a Specific Activity/Experience

            #45The purpose of satisfaction indicators relating to the experience is to determine overall quality of the actual recreation opportunity provided. These questions do not directly assess developed facilities or resources. Experience quality indicators relate to the activity. However, the quality of the experience may often be indirectly related to the facilities. Typically, experience quality indicators are combined with setting/facility quality indicators for a more comprehensive assessment. For example, Spencer and Spangler (1992) measured satisfaction levels of anglers on Lake Miltona, Minnesota using the indicators shown in the table below. Anglers were asked their level of agreement with the statement “I was satisfied today with the…” 

Combination of Setting and Activity Satisfaction Indicators for Anglers on Lake Miltona

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

4.3 Importance Performance Indicators

            #46The Importance-Performance method is borrowed from marketing research (Martella & James, 1977). Using an Importance-Performance method with recreation satisfaction data, the satisfaction indicators are considered analogous to performance indicators (Tarrant, Smith, & Cordell, 1999). In addition to satisfaction level for the setting attributes the visitor must be asked how important each attribute is to the experience. The figure below shows the framework used to plot the results.

Low Performance

High Performance

High Importance

Low Importance

Concentrate here

Keep up the good work

Low priority

Possible overkill

            #47 Results are plotted in one of the four quadrants shown on the figure above using the satisfaction and importance rating scale. Attributes that land in the ‘keep up the good work’ quadrant are ones that the visitor considers to be important and is satisfied with. The ‘possible overkill’ quadrant represents attributes that are satisfactory, but are not important to the visitor. This suggests that the manger may be concentrating too many resources in this area. The ‘low priority’ quadrant are attributes that the manager should be aware of, but do not require immediate attention. The ‘concentrate here’ quadrant represents the attributes that the manger needs to address. These attributes are important to the visitor and were not appraised as satisfactory. Suggestions such as reallocating resources from the ‘possible overkill’ quadrant to the ‘concentrate here’ quadrant can be made using this framework.  

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

4.3.1 NVUM Importance-Performance Indicators

            #48 As part of the National Visitor Use Monitoring (link to http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/) program, the Forest Service collects both Satisfaction and Importance data for 14 attributes for each forest recreation site. The attribute and importance question format is shown in the table below.

National Visitor Use Monitoring Program Satisfaction and Importance Attribute Questions

Return to Recreation Satisfaction main page (link)

Go to next page in series (link)

******************new page******************  

4.4 Real-Time Versus Post-Hoc Satisfaction

            #49A post-activity assessment of satisfaction is referred to as post-hoc satisfaction (PHS) and an assessment that is made during the activity or immediately afterward is referred to as real-time satisfaction (RTS) (Stewart & Hull, 1992). RTS measures are taken during or immediately after the recreation experience and are typically done while the recreationist is still on-site. PHS measures are often taken using mail-back surveys that the recreation visitor fills out at home some-time after leaving the site.

            #50Selection of the PHS or RTS method depends on the information desired. The RTS method isolates the on-site recreation experience more than the PHS. By asking a visitor to rate their satisfaction with the setting and/or experience during or immediately afterward and while still on-site the respondent is more likely to provide responses that are more closely tied to the actual experience. RTS surveys are often administered multiple times during the recreation experience (repeated measures). For example, a visitor might complete a survey instrument shortly after arriving on-site and two or four times during the day. This method allows more detailed assessment of the experience as it unfolds.

#51The PHS method is an overall evaluation of the experience that occurs over a given period of time. A PHS survey might ask the respondent to evaluate a recreation experience that lasted a few hours or multiple days. The PHS survey accepts that the recreation visitor is completing the survey in an environment other than the actual recreation setting and might be influenced by factors such as the time since the recreation experience, being in a non-recreation setting (e.g. a kitchen), and simply forgetting details (recall bias). However, the PHS study has the strength of allowing the respondent time to think about and evaluate the experience and it provides a more comprehensive evaluation of the overall experience.  

5.0 Information Resources

            #51Links to additional recreation satisfaction report websites are listed below.  

5.1 USDA Forest Service

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/

5.2 Bureau of Land Management

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/fy00/SurveyQues.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/fy01/im2001-126,%20attachment%203.pdf

5.3 National Park Service

http://www.psu.uidaho.edu/vsc.htm

5.4 Army Corp of Engineers

http://corpslakes.usace.army.mil/employees/visitsatisf/visitsatisf.html

5.5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/generalInterest/pdfs/VSS_part1.pdf

5.6 California state Parks

http://www.parks.ca.gov/2004_Report/default.asp?section=10

5.7 Defining, Managing, and Monitoring Wilderness Visitor Experiences: An Annotated Reading List, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-79-volume 2, September 2001

 http://leopold.wilderness.net/resapp/pdfs/vol2.pdf

5.8 National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Socioeconomic Research and Monitoring Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS)

http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SocmonFK/FS3.pdf

Atkinson, J., & Birch, D. (1972). Motivation: The dynamics of action. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Cavnar, M. M., Kirtland, K. A., Evans, M. H., Wilson, D. K., Williams, J. E., Mixon, G. M., et al. (2004). Evaluating the quality of recreation facilities: Development of an assessment tool. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 22, 96-114.

Driver, B. (1976). Toward a better understanding of the social benefits of outdoor recreation participation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Southern STates Recreation Research Applications Workshop.

Driver, B. (1990). Focusing research on the benefits of leisure: Special issue. Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 93-98.

Driver, B. (1996). Benefits-driven management of natural areas. Natural Areas Journal, 16, 94-99.

Driver, B., & Brown, P. (1975). A socio-psychological definition of recreation demand, with implications for recreation resource planning. In Assessing Demand for Outdoor Recreation (pp. 62-88). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Driver, B., & Brown, P. (1983). Contributions of behavioral scientists to recreation resource managment. New York: Plenum.

Driver, B., Brown, P., & Peterson, G. (Eds.). (1991). Benefits of Leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Driver, B., Nash, R., & Haas, G. (1987). Wilderness benefits: A state of knowledge review, National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State of Knowledge, Future Directions (Vol. GTR-INT-220, pp. 294-319). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Satnford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes toward objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59-74.

Jaten, A., & Driver, B. L. (1998). Meaningful measures for quality recreation management. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(3), 43-57.

Lawler, E. (1973). Motivations in  work orginizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Manning, R. E., & Cali, C. P. (1980). Recreation density and user satisfaction: A further exploration of the satisfaction model. Journal of Leisure Research, fourth quater, 329-345.

Martella, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77-79.

Parauraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(fall), 41-50.

Parauraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Alternative scales for measuring service quality: A comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagonostic criteria. Journal of Retailing, 70, 201-230.

Schreyer, R., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1978). The influence of experience expectations on crowding perceptions and social-paychological carrying capacities. Leisure Sciences, 1, 373-394.

Spencer, P. D., & Spangler, G. R. (1992). Effect that providing fishing information has on angler expectations and satisfaction. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 12, 379-385.

Stankey, G. H., Cole, D. N., Lucan, R. C., Peterson, M. E., & Frissell, S. S. (1985). The limits of Acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning, General Technical Report INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Stanky, G. H., Lucas, R. C., & Ream, R. R. (1973, March 18-21). Relationships between hunting success and satisfaction. Paper presented at the Thirty-Eighth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.

Stewart, W. P., & Hull, R. B. (1992). Satisfaction of what? Post hoc versus real-time construct validity. Leisure Sciences, 14, 195-209.

Tarrant, M. A., Smith, E., & Cordell, H. K. (1999). Recreation visitor preferences for and perceptions of outdoor recreation setting attributes. In H. K. Cordell (Ed.), Outdoor recreation in American Life: A national assessment of demand and supply trends (pp. 412-431): Sagamore Publishing.

Wagar, J. A. (1966). Quality in Outdoor Recreation. Trends in Parks and Recreation, 3, 9-12.

Williams, D. R. (1989). Great expectations and the limits to satisfaction: A review of recreation and consumer satisfaction research (Vol. general technical report, pp. 422-438): United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service.