- Email: [email protected]
A framework for managing quality in the tourist experience
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 14, pp. 390-404, 1987
Printed in the USA.All rightsreserved.
0160-7383/87 $3.00 + .00 ~) 1987 PergamonJournals l.td and J. Jafari
A FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING Q U A L I T Y IN T H E T O U R I S T EXPERIENCE A l a n R. Graefe Pennsylvania State University, USA
Jerry j. Vaske Honeywell Information
System Inc., USA
Abstract: While the impacts of tourism have received considerable attention, relatively little research has focused on the impacts of tourism from the perspective of the tourists themselves. This paper examines the impacts of tourism on the quality of the tourist's experience. A synthesis of previous research identifies an interrelated series of experiential impacts related to tourist activity. The resulting understanding of the factors that threaten the quality of the tourist experience provides the basis for a management framework aimed toward protecting quality recreation/tourist experiences. The suggested management framework focuses on the identification of undesirable impacts on the tourist experience, the determination of causal factors related to these impacts, and the selection of potential management strategies for ameliorating the undesirable impacts. Keywords: tourism impacts, carrying capacity, limits of acceptable change.
R+snm+: Un cadre pour g~rer des exp6riences touristiques de bonne qualit6. Bien qu'ont ait pr~t6 une attention consid6rable aux impacts du tourisme, on a concentr6 relativement peu de recherches sur les impacts du tourisme du point de vue des touristes eux-m~mes. Le pr6sente article examine les impacts du tourisme sur la qualit6 de l'exp6rience du touriste. Une synth6se de la recherche ant6rieure identifie une s6rie en corr61ation d'impacts empiriques relatifs ~il'activit~ touristique. La compr6hension qui en r6sulte des facteurs qui menacent la qualit~ de l'exp6rience touristique forme une base pour un cadre de gestion qui pourrait prot+ger la qualit~ des exp6riences touristiques et r6cr6ationnelles. Le cadre de gestion que l'on sugg6re se concentre sur l'identification des impacts ind6sirables sur I'exp~rience touristique, la d6termination des facteurs causaux relatifs/t ces impacts et la s61ection des strat6gies de gestion qui pourraient corriger les impacts ind~sirables. Mots clef: impacts du tourisme, capacit6, limites acceptables de changement.
INTRODUCTION Assessments of the consequences of increasing numbers of tourists have been concerned with the social and psychological impacts on local communities (Brougham and Butler 198 1; Pizam and Pokela 1985), the economic
Alan Graefe (Department of Recreation and Parks, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park PA 16802) and Jerry Vaske have co-authored papers on recreation carrying capacity and visitor impact management. Both have taught courses in recreation resource planning. 390
ALAN GRAEFEANDJERRY VASKE
391
significance of tourism (Mescon and Vozikis 1985; Var and Quayson 1985), the implications for the natural environment (Pilgram 1980), and the physical limits of services and facilities (Hall 1974). Less research has focused on the capacity of tourists to tolerate other tourists and other impacts on their experience (Walter 1982; Getz 1983). Several explanations for this reluctance to apply social carrying capacity management to tourism planning can be identified in the literature. First, capacity models often fail to provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating the numerous components of the tourist experience, focusing instead on the imposition of use quotas (Stynes 1977). Second, the emphasis on limiting growth is difficult to implement and expensive to operate at many tourist attraction sites (Gunn 1979). Finally, and probably most basic, is the belief that any potential growth should never be limited because of the economic consequences to dependent populations (Getz 1983). Recognizing these shortcomings, Getz (1983) proposed a general planning approach which assumes no a priori limits on usage or growth. The purpose of this paper is to build upon the work of Getz by summarizing current understanding of the factors that influence individuals' perceptions of a quality recreation/tourist experience and by integrating this understanding with a management process aimed towards protecting quality recreation/tourist experiences. In doing so, the goal is to highlight the interrelationships between the Getz model for assessing capacity in tourism planning and recent developments in carrying capacity and visitor impact management in natural resource settings (Graefe et al 1987; Stankey et al 1985). Backcountry recreationists and tourists alike are affected by a series of interrelated impacts resulting from their behaviors. The most important factors affecting the occurrence and severity of various types of impacts, however, are not directly predictable from numbers of visitors encountered but are influenced by several important individual, activity, and site-specific variables. The management framework described here provides a sequential process for assessing and managing these impacts on the recreationist/tourist experience. UNDERSTANDING PERCEPTIONS Understanding how people perceive a recreation/tourist experience requires an initial understanding of recreation participation and motivation. Studies of tourist motivation suggest that people engage in activities with the expectation that their action will lead to certain rewards (McIntosh and Goeldner 1984; Pearce 1982). The specific expectations people have for a given experience are influenced by individual and environmental factors such as the amount and type of previous experience, the degree of communication with others, situational variables, and personality characteristics (Lawler 1973). Most people participate in recreation activities to satisfy multiple expectations (Dann 1978; Pizam et al 1978). In evaluating their experiences, tourists compare the outcomes they actually experienced with the rewards they expected or wanted to receive from the experience (Martilla and James 1977). The overall evaluation of a given situation is influenced by the degree to which the perceived experience
392
MANAGING QUALITY TOURIST EXPERIENCE
agrees with the expected or desired o u t c o m e for each relevant aspect o f the e x p e r i e n c e (Peterson 1974). Increasing use levels can affect perceptions o f quality by interfering with the achievement o f tourists' motivations. Previous studies show that there is no single predictable response o f tourists to varying use levels (Kaur 1979). Rather, tourists are affected by a series o f inter-related impacts which result from recreational use o f the area (Figure 1). Increasing recreational use leads most directly to tangible outcomes like having to wait in line or impacts on the natural e n v i r o n m e n t (e.g., litter). T h e s e social and natural impacts lead to a variety o f perceptual and behavioral responses by tourists such as r e d u c e d satisfaction, increased crowding, or changes in trip plans. Several studies o f natural resource based recreation have evaluated factors related to either visitor satisfaction or perceptions o f crowding to d e t e r m i n e the social impacts o f varying levels o f use. Traditional capacity models suggest that use level influences the n u m b e r o f contacts between visitors which in turn increases perceptions o f crowding and decreases visitor satisfaction. Summaries o f this literature (Graefe et al 1984; Manning 1985; Shelby and Heberlein 1986), however, d o c u m e n t that even in natural e n v i r o n m e n t s where solitude is a motivating factor for many visitors, increased contacts do not always result in a lower quality experience. Recreationists generally r e p o r t high levels o f satisfaction regardless o f the density levels e n c o u n t e r e d (Lucas 1980; McCool and Petersen 1982; Vaske et al 1982). O t h e r s (e.g., Hall 1974) note that for some tourist activities crowding may be a positive attribute or at least not a detracting factor. T h e i m p o r t a n t distinction between density and crowding has been recognized by several authors (Gramann 1982; Heberlein 1977; Manning 1985). Density refers to the n u m b e r o f visitors in a particular setting. Crowding is a negative evaluation o f a certain density, a value j u d g m e n t which specifies that there are too many people. Negative evaluations occur when the presence o f o t h e r tourists in a setting interferes with goal achievement or creates a level o f social stimulation that exceeds that de-
INumberofTourists[ I
I
I
IContactsBetweenVisiturs [ResourceImpocts~ I I I I I I I Preor~ve~i Vnegd iI I Oissatisfoction II Perceil~ndpaRce;Oorce] I Conflicts[ !
i
I
IVisit°rOisplacement[
]
I
I
I
IExperiential Change 1
Figure 1. Impacts o f T o u r i s m on the Tourist Experience
ALAN GRAEFEANDJERRY VASKE
393
sired by the individual (Gramann 1982). Whether or not an area is crowded is a subjective judgment of an individual, not an objective fact. Consequently, it will vary across individuals depending on a variety of social and psychological factors. Although previous research has emphasized perceptions of crowding and satisfaction, other impacts on the tourist experience have also been associated with increasing use levels. A tourist's experience may be influenced more by the perception of human impacts on the environment, for example, than by the presence of large numbers of other visitors (Stankey 1973). Lucas (1979) suggests there are two aspects to impact perception: the perceived importance of impact conditions relative to other aspects of the setting, and the evaluation of a given condition as desirable or undesirable. Simple recognition of an impact condition might be added as a third component which is prerequisite to the evaluation of importance and desirability. Resource impacts may be recognized or unnoticed by the tourist (Barkham 1973; Cole and Benedict 1983). If recognized, the effects may be minimal when the condition is not regarded as undesirable. Even if an undesirable impact is noted, it may have little effect on the tourist's perceptions or enjoyment when the condition is unimportant to the individual. Previous studies suggest that individuals are more sensitive to clear evidence of other humans (e.g., litter) than to other perhaps more serious impacts on site conditions such as eroded, rutted trails (Stankey 1973). Lowenthal (1962) indicates that landscape perceptions are influenced by individual beliefs about the origin of the observed condition. Thus, visitors may respond to a resource condition more negatively if they attribute the cause to be human disturbance as opposed to natural processes. On the other hand, tourists' perceptions may be related to their own style of use. The impacts associated with stock use or motorized vehicles, for example, may be more acceptable to horsemen and cyclists than to hikers (Lucas 1979). The potential for conflict between tourists also increases with increasing use levels. Conflict represents a special case of dissatisfaction where the tourist attributes the source of goal interference to the behavior of other individuals (Jacob and Schreyer 1980). The extent of conflict varies according to the importance of the goal being obstructed and the degree to which various groups perceive each other as different. Most previous discussions of conflict in outdoor recreation have focused on the relationships between activity groups, particularly between individuals using motorized versus non-motorized equipment (Adelman et al 1982; Shelby 1980). In the tourism literature, emphasis has been placed on potential conflicts between tourists and host populations (Getz 1983; Smith 1977). Perceptions of conflict, however, may not always occur because tourists' responses to a given situation depend on their individual expectations and norms. Norms are standards that individuals use for evaluating activities or environments as good or bad, better or worse (Vaske et al 1986). Previous research suggests that people may modify their normative standards as a means of reducing the negative effects of visitor densities (Gramann 1982; Shelby et al 1984). When tourists modify their normative definition of a situation to compensate for increasing use levels, the end result is a change in the character of the experience to be found in the area.
394
MANAGING QUALITY TOURIST EXPERIENCE
T h u s , c u r r e n t visitors o f a heavily used area may be as satisfied as visitors 5 or 10 years ago when use levels were lower, but they are receiving a different type o f e x p e r i e n c e (Shelby et al 1986). Tourists may also change their behavior patterns to compensate for rising density levels (Manning and Power 1984). Behavioral changes may involve simply revising the pattern o f participation within a given area. Some individuals, for example, may alter their frequency o f participation or may choose to visit when the probability o f lower density levels is greatest. People who are most sensitive to user densities may stop visiting a tourist attraction entirely when o t h e r behavioral or perceptual adjustments fail to bring about the desired experience. A shift in behavior patterns in response to changes occurring in the e n v i r o n m e n t has been called recreational displacement (Anderson 1981; Becker 1981; Nielsen and Endo 1977; S c h r e y e r 1979). Schreyer (1979) suggests that such a change in behavior results when the individual perceives that the desired outcomes o f an e x p e r i e n c e are not attained, and when he does not wish to re-emphasize o t h e r aspects o f that experience. T h e s e displaced tourists may seek out an alternative setting and be displaced by tourists who are m o r e tolerant o f rising use levels. Research on all types o f impacts depicted in Figure 1 shows that the effects o f increasing use levels on the r e c r e a t i o n / t o u r i s t e x p e r i e n c e can be explained only partially, at best, as a function o f use level. Some o f the variables that mediate the relationships between use levels and the various impacts on the r e c r e a t i o n / t o u r i s t e x p e r i e n c e are summarized in the paragraphs to follow. This discussion centers on individual variation in tolerances to impacts and activity-and site-specific influences. Individuals vary in their responses to increasing use levels. Non-mechanized users are generally m o r e sensitive to the presence and behavior o f others than are mechanized tourists ( J a c o b and Schreyer 1980). Individuals in larger groups are generally m o r e tolerant than people participating in smaller groups (Lime 1972; Stankey 1973). Environmental perceptions may be influenced by when the individual first visited the area (Vaske et al. 1980), or by the f r e q u e n c y o f visitation (Bryan 1979). Tourists' motivations for participation also affect their sensitivity to contacts with others (Pearce 1982). In essence, a given use level may enhance the tourist experience for some individuals, p r o d u c e dissatisfaction for others, and have no effect whatsoever on o t h e r tourists. Given a basic tolerance level, the response o f individuals to contacts with others may also vary according to the types o f activities and behaviors the person e n c o u n t e r s and the setting in which they take place. T h e criteria used to d e t e r m i n e how many is too many depends on the desired experience in a particular situation. I f a Disneyland a t m o s p h e r e is desired, visitor density may only b e c o m e an issue when the facilities can no longer handle the influx o f people or when waiting in line becomes intolerable. Tourists to such areas expect and can tolerate large n u m b e r s o f o t h e r individuals. A n o r m o f extensive social interaction partially defines the character o f the experience. At the o t h e r e x t r e m e , visitors to a wilderness area may hold an opposite set o f expectations and norms. Encounters with a relatively small n u m b e r o f o t h e r individuals may change the nature o f the situation and diminish the perceived quality o f the experience. T o some extent, planning for either e x t r e m e - - the Disneyland experi-
ALAN GRAEFEAND JERRY VASKE
395
ence or the wilderness experience--represents the simple cases. The degree of shared values between decision maker and tourist concerning what is to be provided and what is expected is potentially greater for the extreme cases. Unfortunately, few areas can be defined so precisely. Most tourist attraction sites represent a blend of different types of experiences. Inconsistencies between management objectives and user norms in such situations may lead to conflict. Moreover, not all recreation groups share the same set of normative standards (Vaske et al 1986). For many attraction sites then, the effects of contacts on tourist evaluations of the setting are complex. A FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT The preceding discussion illustrates that recreation/tourism quality is a multifaceted concept that can be threatened by a number of interrelated types of impacts. It also indicates that the various impacts to a tourist's experience vary considerably in extent and severity. The following section describes an approach for tourism management that incorporates this understanding within a process aimed at reducing or controlling the impacts that threaten the quality of a tourist's experience. Similar to the models proposed by Getz (1983) and others (Hendee et al 1978; Shelby and Heberlein 1986; Stankey 1980), the approach here is built on the recognition that any effective management strategy involves both scientific and evaluative (judgmental) considerations. The scientific component focuses on documenting the relationships within the system and thereby provides the data needed to predict the impacts of different planning alternatives (for example, doubling the use of a ski area will increase the average wait at the lift line from 8 to 20 minutes per run). The evaluative component is concerned with the desirability of different management alternatives and the associated levels and types of impact on the experience. Effective management goes beyond establishing use limits. While use quotas represent one potential strategy for reducing impacts, previous research suggests often only a weak relationship exists between impacts to the experience and overall use levels. In such instances, establishing capacities or limits may do little to resolve the impact problems they were intended to solve, whereas other management strategies may be quite effective for reducing impact conditions. Examination of causal mechanisms and interrelationships within the tourism system is needed to identify planning/management alternatives that solve existing problems without creating new problems (Getz 1983). The management framework proposed here includes an eight step sequential process for assessing and managing tourism impacts (Figure 2). The steps in this process are designed to facilitate dealing with three basic issues inherent to impact management: the identification of problem conditions (or unacceptable impacts to the tourist experience); the determination of potential causal factors affecting the occurrence and severity of the unacceptable impacts; and the selection of potential management strategies for ameliorating the unacceptable impacts. These basic issues may be applicable in situations ranging from the management of site-specific, localized instances of overcrowding, to the
396
MANAGING QUALITY TOURIST EXPERIENCE
STEPS[] PROCESS I PreassessmenlData BaseRet~ew
tparison of Standnzds and F.xistiig Condi~ns
Review of legislative and po]icy direction
Id assessment of sociaI and ecological ~act mdicators duct Determination ot consistency or discrepancy ~ t h selected standards
previous research and area data base Product
Summary ot exasllng situation
DiscrepQnc y
Review of Management Objec~ves
t
Hemew existing obiectives for consistency with legislative m a n d a t e a n d policy direction Specify visitor experience and resource m a n a g e m e n t obiectives Product Clear statement ot specific a~ea obiectives
Identify Probese Catuussof Impacts mine use patterns and other poter, tJal ~rs a ~ e c t m g occurrence a n d severity aacceptable impacts tuct Description oJ causal factors for m a n a g e m e n t attention Sofecfi0n of Key impact Inc~cat0rs ldentdy measurable social and ecological variables Select ~or examination those most pertinent to area m a n a g e m e n t objectives Product List ot indicators and umts of measurement
Identify Idanagemznt Stmlegbs Examine lull r a n g e of Oarect a n d indLrect m a n a g e m e n t strategies dealing wrth probable causes o~ visitor i m p a c t s Product Matrix ot a h e m a t w e m a n a g e ment strategms
_[ Selection of Studmds for Key Iil~a Indicators Bestatement of m a n a g e m e n t objectives m terms of desired conditions tor selected mlpact indicators Product Quanhtative statements oi desired conditions
d ! j /
U
~ m
hoplementatien
BASIC.~.PPROAC]J~Systemahc process for identification ot impact problems, their causes and effective m m i a g e m e n t strategies Dr reduction of Visitor impacts CONDITIONSFOR USE--Integrated with other plamalng frameworks or as m a n a g e m e n t tool for [ocahzed impact problems
Figure 2. Management/Planning Process
broader planning o f future development and use o f large tourism areas or regions. T h e first five steps in the process are devoted to the important, yet often slighted, task o f d o c u m e n t i n g problem conditions. This basic issue has been separated into several steps to highlight the various decisions that must be made in assessing the current situation. These steps use the concepts o f objectives, indicators, and standards which are also the central elements of current frameworks for o u t d o o r recreation resource management (Graefe et al 1987; Stankey et al 1985).
ALAN GRAEFEANDJERRY VASKE
397
Step One This step, the preassessment data base review, involves compiling and reviewing pertinent information. The amount of relevant material will vary from situation to situation, but there will always be some background information that can be used to establish an initial perspective on the problem. Planning documents, for example, may include useful data as well as management guidance or constraints. Area records and previous tourist surveys may provide baseline data on tourist characteristics, motivations, and participation patterns within the area. The objective of Step One is to identify and summarize what is already known about the situation so that existing information can be put to its best use as the process continues. Management decisions can then be based on the best available understanding of the overall tourism system.
Step Two The second step in the process is to review planning objectives pertinent to the situation at hand. In recent years, several authors have emphasized the importance of clear and specific planning objectives (Getz 1983; Shelby and Heberlein 1986). "A major shortcoming in most . . . management plans is the lack of specific objectives that allow managers to explicitly state the conditions they seek and to measure performance with regard to achieving these objectives" (Hendee et al 1978:80). Getz (1983) further suggests that the objectives must be prioritized, since any single objective may lead to potentially conflicting goals. To be effective, planning objectives need to define the type of experience to be provided in terms of appropriate environmental and social conditions (Graefe et al 1987; Stankey 1980). The definition of the type of experience to be provided in a given area requires a decision selecting certain type(s) of tourists over competing groups seeking different types of experiences. While planners are often reluctant to make such decisions explicitly, it is important to recognize that this judgment is inherent to the management of visitors and will occur by default if it is not made deliberately. Avoidance of a specific experience definition essentially allows those activities which can preempt other opportunities to determine the recreational character of the area (Schreyer 1976). The question of the type of experience to be provided can be difficult. The decision, however, can be guided and defended by a variety of criteria compiled during Step One, including institutional or policy mandates, alternative opportunities available in the area, and tourist preferences.
Step Three This step involves identifying measurable indicators for the pertinent planning objectives. Once objectives have described the particular type of experience to be provided, this step prescribes how the specified experience will be measured. The specific decision required here is the selection of the most important variables or experiential attributes to serve as indi-
398
MANAGING QUAI.ITY TOURIST EXI'ERIENCE
cators of the target experience. T h e tourism impacts examined in the first section of this paper are examples of the types of" indicators that might be used to represent certain experiences. It is important to recognize that there is no single indicator or set of indicators that is appropriate for all situations. T h e choice of indicators depends upon the particular type of impact under consideration and the specific characteristics of the situation. Several criteria can be used, however, to evaluate the potential usefulness of alternative indicators. Useful indicators will include those that are directly observable, relatively easy to measure, directly related to the objectives for the area, sensitive to changing use conditions, and amenable to management.
Step Four This step adds an additional layer of specificity by providing standards for the previously selected impact or experience indicators. It calls for a restatement of planning objectives in quantitative terms. Standards differ from planning objectives by specifying the appropriate levels or acceptable limits for the impact indicators designated in Step Three. T h e standards selected become the basis against which the existing situation is evaluated. Thus, this step serves the important function of describing the type of experience to be provided in units of measurement which are compatible with available measures of the situation that currently exists. Recent literature illustrates how indicators and standards can be used to specify the type of experience one is trying to provide. Shelby and Heberlein (1986) suggest that standards be expressed for impact indicators like n u m b e r of encounters with groups of a particular size or type, percent time waiting in ski lift lines, or n u m b e r of people encountered at attraction sites. For use in the Flathead Wild and Scenic River Management Plan, Stokes et al (1984) suggested such standards as 80 percent probability of encountering no more than two floater parties (or six shore parties) per day, and no more than an average of four occurrences of litter viewable from the watercraft per m a n a g e m e n t unit. Standards of this nature demonstrate the importance of selecting units of analysis and indicators that are tangible, observable, and measureable qualities of a recreation experience. Such statements also reflect the site- and activity-specific influences that have been shown to be important variables affecting the quality of the recreation experience. Normative information makes a vital contribution to Steps Two t h r o u g h Four. At a general level, it is necessary to decide what type of experience is to be offered. Findings reported by Shelby (1981) illustrate how the norms specified by different user groups assist in this definition process. At a more specific level, norms are evaluative standards which define the important aspects of a particular experience. Data reported by Vaske et al (1986) identifies numerous ways in which norms define experiences in terms of encounters at various locations with various kinds of groups.
Step Five After the first four steps have clarified the desired conditions for a given area, the existing situation can be compared to this desired state (Step
ALAN GRAEFE AND JERRY VASKE
399
Five). This step requires an assessment of current conditions for those impact indicators that were selected in Step Three. Step Five does not necessarily imply elaborate and costly studies. What is necessary, however, is a level of observation and measurement that provides for a reasonable comparison of existing conditions and their corresponding standards. If current measures of pertinent indicators are consistent with standards, one needs only to monitor the situation for future changes. In this instance, the area is currently providing the type of experience that has been defined as appropriate for the area. The monitoring that is done, however, should include both the impact indicators that are most susceptible to future changes and the use patterns that may lead to changes in the status of these indicators. Such a monitoring program would provide a basis for evaluating probable causes of impacts which reach an unacceptable level at some future time. I f measures for certain indicators do not meet the standards for the area, a problem situation is documented. It is then appropriate to move on to the identification of probable causes of the unacceptable impacts to the tourist experience.
Step Six Because of the many potential factors that may contribute to impact conditions, the challenge of Step Six is to isolate the most important cause(s) of the problem situation. This task involves examining the relationships between tourist use patterns and the impact indicators that have exceeded their respective standards. When evaluating potential causal factors, it is important to consider the full range of specific aspects of tourist use that may influence the situation, including type of use, length of stay, size of groups, time of use, concentration of use, frequency of peak use periods, overall amount of use, and behavior of tourists. Such use/impact relationships are often complex and mediated by site characteristics and consequently will vary for different times and places (Runyan and Wu 1979).
Step Seven With some understanding of how the number, type, and distribution of people using a given area affect the quality attributes of the experience, it is possible to identify a range of alternative management strategies (Step Seven). Just as many aspects of use may contribute to the problem, numerous alternatives are available for dealing with the problem (Cohen 1978; Hudman 1978). At this phase, the focus is on the probable causes of the tourist impacts rather than on the impact conditions themselves. It is also important to recognize that one may never have a complete understanding of the causes underlying certain tourist impacts, nor can one predict exactly how a given planning action will affect a particular problem situation. Figure 3 provides a classification of management strategies that might be considered tools for controlling tourist impacts. The strategies include direct approaches that regulate or restrict visitor activities and indirect approaches that attempt to achieve the desired outcome by influencing tourist behavior. Selecting the best approach for any given situation is
400
MANAGING
QUALITY
TOURIST
EXPERIENCE
INDIRECT
I)IRECT
I'hysical Alterations
Enforcement
Jlllj)rove Access Nelzlect Access
Inl'ormation Dispersal Advertise Area Attributes hlentif~ S u r r o u n d i n g Opportunities .A.d~ertise Use Patterns
Economic Constraints Increase Prices Decrease Prices Charge l)ifferential Prices
Increase Surveillance Increase EnfiJrcelnent uf Rules
Zoning Separate Incompatible Uses Separate Visitors By Experience Level Tenlporal Zoning
Rationing Use Limit Entry To Area l.imit Numl)er Of Visas Issued
Restricting Activities Restrict Type of Use l.imit Size Of Group Limit I,ength ()f Stay Prohibit Use At Certain Time (adaptcd from llcndcc el al. 1978)
Figure 3. Classification of Visitor Management Strategies
difficult because of the wide range of potential alternatives and the difficulty of predicting all of the outcomes that can result from the various options. Planning techniques aimed at reducing a particular impact problem may adversely affect other aspects of the experience or may introduce other problems. For this reason, a matrix approach for evaluating alternative management strategies is recommended (Figure 4). This approach provides a vehicle for evaluating the range of planning alternatives against a set of selection criteria. The suggested criteria cover a variety of issues related to any implementation program. A given option may seem desirable for some criteria, but less appropriate from other perspectives. A strategy with high probability of producing the desired outcome may be impractical due to the difficulty or cost of implementation, or because it causes problems related to tourist freedom a n d / o r other experience indicators. In general, there are no right or wrong answers for dealing with tourist impacts. The goal is to strive for a balance among criteria when selecting a particular technique.
Step eight The selected management strategies should be implemented as soon as possible for those situations where impacts to the quality of the experience are most severe. Because the nature and causes of impacts are highly variable, management programs designed to deal with these impacts should be flexible and quick to respond to changing conditions.
ALAN GRAEFE AND JERRY VASKE
CONSlSTENCV
401
COST OR
PROBABILITY
OIVFICULTY
OF ACHIEVING
POTENTIRL
POTENTIAL
CESlREb
UISITOR
PROBLEMS
MANAGEMEMT
WITH
STRATEGY
MRMROEMENT
TO
OBJECTIUES
InPLEMENT
OUTCOME
BESISTRNCE
CREATED
Physical
Alterations Information Dispersal
Economic Constraints
Enforcement
Zoning
? Rationing Use
::
Restricting Activities
Figure 4. Matrix for Evaluation of Alternative Management Strategies
The task of managing tourist impacts is not over when a management program has been implemented. Monitoring of key impact indicators is critical to determine whether the management actions are producing the desired outcomes without altering other experiential characteristics. CONCLUSION This paper describes an approach for tourist management that incorporates scientific considerations within a process designed to reduce or controI the impacts that threaten the quality of the tourist experience. The framework is based on the concept that tourist impact management is most effective when it is based on the best available understanding of the nature of, the interrelationships between, and causes of unacceptable impacts; and when it is approached through a systematic, step by step process that isolates the necessary planning decisions and suggests appropriate sources of input for the key decisions. This paper has focused on factors that threaten the quality of the tourist's experience because this aspect of tourism impacts appears to have received relatively little attention in the tourism literature. It is important to recognize, however, that the management framework suggested is also applicable to other types of impacts associated with the activity of tourists (such as environmental impacts or impacts on host communities). The generic applicability of the suggested process may in fact be its most significant feature, since it incorporates the interrelationships between the major
402
MANAGING Q U A L I T Y T O U R I S T EXPERIENCE
components of the tourism system and provides a uniform framework for e v a l u a t i n g a n d m a n a g i n g t h e v a r i o u s t y p e s o f i m p a c t s o f t o u r i s t s . [] [] REFERENCES Adelman, B.J., T.A. Heberlein, and T. M. Bonnicksen 1982 Social Psychological Explanations for the Persistence of a Conflict Between Paddling Canoeists and Motorcraft Users in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences 5:45-62. Anderson, D.H. 1981 The Effect of User Experience on Displacement. In Proceedings of Applied Geography Conference, pp. 272-278. Tempe, Arizona. Barkham, J. 1973 Recreational Carrying Capacity: A Problem of Perception. Area 5:218- 222. Becker, R.H. 1981 Displacement of Recreational Users Between the Lower St. Croix and Upper Mississippi Rivers. Journal of Environmental Management 13:259 - 267. Brougham, J.E., and R.W. Butler 1981 A Segmentation Analysis of Residential Attitudes to the Social Impact of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 8:569-590. Bryan, H. 1979 Conflict in the Great Outdoors: Toward Understanding and Managing for Diverse User Preferences. Bureau of Public Administration, Sociological Studies No. 4, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Cohen, E. 1978 The Impact of Tourism on the Physical Environment. Annals of Tourism Research 5:215-237. Cole, D., and J. Benedict 1983 Wilderness Campsite Selection: What Should Users be Told. Park Science 3:5-7. Dann, G. 1978 Tourist Satisfaction: A Highly Complex Variable. Annals of Tourism Research 5:440-443. Getz, D. 1983 Capacity to Absorb Tourism: Concepts and Implications for Strategic Planning. Annals of Tourism Research 10:239 - 263. Graefe, A.R., J.J. Vaske, and F.R. Kuss 1984 Social Carrying Capacity: An Integration and Synthesis of Twenty Years of Research. Leisure Sciences 6:395 - 431. Graefe, A.R., F.R. Kuss, andJ.J. Vaske 1987 Recreation Impacts and Carrying Capacity: A Visitor Impact Management Framework. Washington DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. Gramann, J. H. 1982 Toward a Behavioral Theory of Crowding in Outdoor Recreation: An Evaluation and Synthesis of Research. Leisure Sciences 5:109-126. Gunn, C. ! 979 Tourism Planning. New York:Crane Russak. Hall, J. 1974 The Capacity to Absorb Tourists. Built Environment 8(3):392-397. Heberlein, T.A. 1977 Density, Crowding, and Satisfaction: Sociological Studies for Determining Carrying Capacities. In Proceedings of River Recreation Management and Research Symposium, pp. 6 7 - 7 6 , Report NC-28. Minneapolis MN: USDA Forest Service. Hendee, J.C., G.H. Stankey, and R.C. Lucas 1978 Wilderness Management, Publication No. 1365. Washington DC: USDA Forest Service. Hudman, L. 1978 Tourist Impacts: The Need for Regional Planning. Annals of Tourism Research 5:112-125. Jacob, G.R., and R. Schreyer 1980 Conflict in Outdoor Recreation: A Theoretical Perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 12:368-380.
ALAN GRAEFE AND JERRY VASKE
403
Kaur, J, 1979 Re-examining Tourist Capacity of Naintal. In Studies in the Geography of Tourism and Recreation. Vol. 2. K. Sinnhuber and F. Jung, eds., pp. 108 - 114. Vienna: Weiner Geographische Schriften. Lawler, E.E. 1973 Motivation in Work Organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Lime, D.W. 1972 Large Groups in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area: Their Numbers, Characteristics and Impact, Report NC-142. St. Paul MN: USDA Forest Service. Lowenthaf, D. 1962 Not Every Landscape Pleases: What is Our Criterion for Scenic Beauty? Landscape (Winter):19- 23. Lucas, R.C. 1979 Perceptions of Non-Motorized Recreational Impacts: A Review of Research Findings. In Proceedings of Recreational Impact on Wildlands, pp. 2 4 - 3 1 . Seattle WA: USDA Forest Service. Lucas, R.C. 1980 Use Patterns and Visitor Characteristics, Attitudes and Preferences in Nine Wilderness and Other Roadless Areas, Report INT-253. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service. Manning, R.E. 1985 Crowding Norms in Backcountry Settings: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Leisure Research 17:75 - 89. Manning, R.E., and L.A. Power 1984 Peak and Off-Peak Use: Redistributing the Outdoor Recreation/Tourism Load. Journal of Travel Research 23:25 - 31. Martilla, J.A., and J.C. James 1977 Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing 41:77- 79. McCool, S.F., and M. Petersen 1982 An Application of the Two Factor Theory of Satisfaction to Recreational Settings. Forestry Sciences Laboratory Report. Missoula Montana: USDA Forest Service. Mclntosh, R.W., and C.R. Goeldner 1984 Tourism: Principles, Practices and Philosophies. Columbus OH: Grid, Inc. Mescon, T.S., and G.S. Vozikis 1985 The Economic Impact of Tourism at the Port of Miami. Annals of Tourism Research 12:515-528. Nielsen, J.M., and R. Endo 1977 Where have the Purists Gone? An Empirical Examination of the Displacement Hypothesis in Wilderness Recreation. Western Sociological Review 8:61 -75. Pearce, P.L. 1982 The Social Psychology of Tourist Behavior. New York:Pergamon Press. Peterson, G.L. 1974 Evaluating the Quality of the Wilderness Environment: Congruence Between Perception and Aspiration. Environment and Behavior 6:169-193. Pilgram, J.J. 1980 Environmental ImplicationsofTourism Development. AnnalsofTourism Research 7:555-583. Pizam, A., andJ. Pokela 1985 The Perceived Impacts of Casino Gambling on a Community. Annals of Tourism Research 12:147 - 165. Pizam, A., Y. Neumann, and A. Reichel 1978 Dimensions of Tourism Satisfaction with a Destination Area. Annals of Tourism Research 5:314 - 322. Runyan, D., and C. Wu 1979 Assessing Tourism's More Complex Consequences. Annals of Tourism Research 6:448-463. Schreyer, R. 1976 Sociological and Political Factors in Carrying Capacity Decision Making. In Proceedings of the Third Resources Management Conference, pp. 2 2 8 - 258. Ft. Worth, TX: USDI National Park Service. Schreyer, R. 1979 Succession and Displacement in River Recreation. Paper prepared for River Recreation Project. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service.
404
MANAGING Q U A L I T Y T O U R I S T EXPERIENCE
Shelby, B. 1980 Contrasting Recreational Experiences: Motors and Oars in the Grand Canyon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 35:129- 131. Shelby, B. 1981 Encounter Norms in Backcountry Settings: Studies of Three Rivers. Journal of Leisure Research 13:129 - 138. Shelby, B., and T.A. Heberlein 1986 Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. Shelby, B., T.A. Heberlein, J.J. Vaske, and G. AIfano 1984 Expectations, Preferences and Feeling Crowded in Recreation Activities. Leisure Sciences 6:1 - 14. Shelby, B., N.S. Bregenzer, and R. Johnson 1986 Product Shift as a Result of Increased Density: Empirical Evidence from a Longitudinal Study. Paper presented at the First National Symposium on Social Science in Resource Management, Corvallis, Oregon. Smith, V., ed. 1977 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Stankey, G.H. 1973 Visitor Perception of Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity, Report INT-142. Ogden UT: USDA Forest Service. 1980 A Comparison of Carrying Capacity Perceptions Among Visitors to Two Wildernesses, Report INT-242. Ogden UT: USDA Forest Service. Stankey, G.H., Dn. N. Cole, R.C. Lucas, M.E. Petersen, and S.S. Frissell 1985 The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning, (Report INT-176). Ogden UT: USDA Forest Service. Stokes, G.L., R. DesJardins, G. Walker, R. Hurd, F. Flint, M. Childress, M. Weesner, and L. Reesman 1984 Planning and Maintaining a River Recreation Spectrum: The Flathead Wild and Scenic River. In Proceedings of 1984 National River Recreation Symposium, Baton Rouge Louisiana. Stynes, D. 1977 Recreational Carrying Capacity and the Management of Dynamic Systems. Paper presented at the National Recreation and Park Association Congress. Las Vegas. Var, R., andJ.J. Quayson 1985 The Multiplier Impact of Tourism in the Okanagan. Annals of Tourism Research 12:497-514. Vaske, J.J., M.P. Donnelly, and T.A. Heberlein 1980 Perceptions of Crowding and Resource Quality by Early and More Recent Visitors. Leisure Sciences 3:367- 381. Vaske, J.J., M.P. Donnelly, T.A. Heberlein, and B. Shelby 1982 Differences in Reported Satisfaction Ratings by Consumptive and Nonconsumptive Recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research 14:195-206. Vaske,J.J., B. Shelby, A.R. Graefe, and T.A. Heberlein 1986 Backcountry Encounter Norms: Theory, Method and Empirical Evidence.Journal of Leisure Research 18:137- 153. Walter, J.A. 1982 Social Limits of Tourism. Leisure Studies 1:295 - 304. Article submitted 10 November 1986 Revised version submitted 21 January 1987 Accepted 13 February 1987 Refereed anonymously
Printed in the USA.All rightsreserved.
0160-7383/87 $3.00 + .00 ~) 1987 PergamonJournals l.td and J. Jafari
A FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING Q U A L I T Y IN T H E T O U R I S T EXPERIENCE A l a n R. Graefe Pennsylvania State University, USA
Jerry j. Vaske Honeywell Information
System Inc., USA
Abstract: While the impacts of tourism have received considerable attention, relatively little research has focused on the impacts of tourism from the perspective of the tourists themselves. This paper examines the impacts of tourism on the quality of the tourist's experience. A synthesis of previous research identifies an interrelated series of experiential impacts related to tourist activity. The resulting understanding of the factors that threaten the quality of the tourist experience provides the basis for a management framework aimed toward protecting quality recreation/tourist experiences. The suggested management framework focuses on the identification of undesirable impacts on the tourist experience, the determination of causal factors related to these impacts, and the selection of potential management strategies for ameliorating the undesirable impacts. Keywords: tourism impacts, carrying capacity, limits of acceptable change.
R+snm+: Un cadre pour g~rer des exp6riences touristiques de bonne qualit6. Bien qu'ont ait pr~t6 une attention consid6rable aux impacts du tourisme, on a concentr6 relativement peu de recherches sur les impacts du tourisme du point de vue des touristes eux-m~mes. Le pr6sente article examine les impacts du tourisme sur la qualit6 de l'exp6rience du touriste. Une synth6se de la recherche ant6rieure identifie une s6rie en corr61ation d'impacts empiriques relatifs ~il'activit~ touristique. La compr6hension qui en r6sulte des facteurs qui menacent la qualit~ de l'exp6rience touristique forme une base pour un cadre de gestion qui pourrait prot+ger la qualit~ des exp6riences touristiques et r6cr6ationnelles. Le cadre de gestion que l'on sugg6re se concentre sur l'identification des impacts ind6sirables sur I'exp~rience touristique, la d6termination des facteurs causaux relatifs/t ces impacts et la s61ection des strat6gies de gestion qui pourraient corriger les impacts ind~sirables. Mots clef: impacts du tourisme, capacit6, limites acceptables de changement.
INTRODUCTION Assessments of the consequences of increasing numbers of tourists have been concerned with the social and psychological impacts on local communities (Brougham and Butler 198 1; Pizam and Pokela 1985), the economic
Alan Graefe (Department of Recreation and Parks, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park PA 16802) and Jerry Vaske have co-authored papers on recreation carrying capacity and visitor impact management. Both have taught courses in recreation resource planning. 390
ALAN GRAEFEANDJERRY VASKE
391
significance of tourism (Mescon and Vozikis 1985; Var and Quayson 1985), the implications for the natural environment (Pilgram 1980), and the physical limits of services and facilities (Hall 1974). Less research has focused on the capacity of tourists to tolerate other tourists and other impacts on their experience (Walter 1982; Getz 1983). Several explanations for this reluctance to apply social carrying capacity management to tourism planning can be identified in the literature. First, capacity models often fail to provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating the numerous components of the tourist experience, focusing instead on the imposition of use quotas (Stynes 1977). Second, the emphasis on limiting growth is difficult to implement and expensive to operate at many tourist attraction sites (Gunn 1979). Finally, and probably most basic, is the belief that any potential growth should never be limited because of the economic consequences to dependent populations (Getz 1983). Recognizing these shortcomings, Getz (1983) proposed a general planning approach which assumes no a priori limits on usage or growth. The purpose of this paper is to build upon the work of Getz by summarizing current understanding of the factors that influence individuals' perceptions of a quality recreation/tourist experience and by integrating this understanding with a management process aimed towards protecting quality recreation/tourist experiences. In doing so, the goal is to highlight the interrelationships between the Getz model for assessing capacity in tourism planning and recent developments in carrying capacity and visitor impact management in natural resource settings (Graefe et al 1987; Stankey et al 1985). Backcountry recreationists and tourists alike are affected by a series of interrelated impacts resulting from their behaviors. The most important factors affecting the occurrence and severity of various types of impacts, however, are not directly predictable from numbers of visitors encountered but are influenced by several important individual, activity, and site-specific variables. The management framework described here provides a sequential process for assessing and managing these impacts on the recreationist/tourist experience. UNDERSTANDING PERCEPTIONS Understanding how people perceive a recreation/tourist experience requires an initial understanding of recreation participation and motivation. Studies of tourist motivation suggest that people engage in activities with the expectation that their action will lead to certain rewards (McIntosh and Goeldner 1984; Pearce 1982). The specific expectations people have for a given experience are influenced by individual and environmental factors such as the amount and type of previous experience, the degree of communication with others, situational variables, and personality characteristics (Lawler 1973). Most people participate in recreation activities to satisfy multiple expectations (Dann 1978; Pizam et al 1978). In evaluating their experiences, tourists compare the outcomes they actually experienced with the rewards they expected or wanted to receive from the experience (Martilla and James 1977). The overall evaluation of a given situation is influenced by the degree to which the perceived experience
392
MANAGING QUALITY TOURIST EXPERIENCE
agrees with the expected or desired o u t c o m e for each relevant aspect o f the e x p e r i e n c e (Peterson 1974). Increasing use levels can affect perceptions o f quality by interfering with the achievement o f tourists' motivations. Previous studies show that there is no single predictable response o f tourists to varying use levels (Kaur 1979). Rather, tourists are affected by a series o f inter-related impacts which result from recreational use o f the area (Figure 1). Increasing recreational use leads most directly to tangible outcomes like having to wait in line or impacts on the natural e n v i r o n m e n t (e.g., litter). T h e s e social and natural impacts lead to a variety o f perceptual and behavioral responses by tourists such as r e d u c e d satisfaction, increased crowding, or changes in trip plans. Several studies o f natural resource based recreation have evaluated factors related to either visitor satisfaction or perceptions o f crowding to d e t e r m i n e the social impacts o f varying levels o f use. Traditional capacity models suggest that use level influences the n u m b e r o f contacts between visitors which in turn increases perceptions o f crowding and decreases visitor satisfaction. Summaries o f this literature (Graefe et al 1984; Manning 1985; Shelby and Heberlein 1986), however, d o c u m e n t that even in natural e n v i r o n m e n t s where solitude is a motivating factor for many visitors, increased contacts do not always result in a lower quality experience. Recreationists generally r e p o r t high levels o f satisfaction regardless o f the density levels e n c o u n t e r e d (Lucas 1980; McCool and Petersen 1982; Vaske et al 1982). O t h e r s (e.g., Hall 1974) note that for some tourist activities crowding may be a positive attribute or at least not a detracting factor. T h e i m p o r t a n t distinction between density and crowding has been recognized by several authors (Gramann 1982; Heberlein 1977; Manning 1985). Density refers to the n u m b e r o f visitors in a particular setting. Crowding is a negative evaluation o f a certain density, a value j u d g m e n t which specifies that there are too many people. Negative evaluations occur when the presence o f o t h e r tourists in a setting interferes with goal achievement or creates a level o f social stimulation that exceeds that de-
INumberofTourists[ I
I
I
IContactsBetweenVisiturs [ResourceImpocts~ I I I I I I I Preor~ve~i Vnegd iI I Oissatisfoction II Perceil~ndpaRce;Oorce] I Conflicts[ !
i
I
IVisit°rOisplacement[
]
I
I
I
IExperiential Change 1
Figure 1. Impacts o f T o u r i s m on the Tourist Experience
ALAN GRAEFEANDJERRY VASKE
393
sired by the individual (Gramann 1982). Whether or not an area is crowded is a subjective judgment of an individual, not an objective fact. Consequently, it will vary across individuals depending on a variety of social and psychological factors. Although previous research has emphasized perceptions of crowding and satisfaction, other impacts on the tourist experience have also been associated with increasing use levels. A tourist's experience may be influenced more by the perception of human impacts on the environment, for example, than by the presence of large numbers of other visitors (Stankey 1973). Lucas (1979) suggests there are two aspects to impact perception: the perceived importance of impact conditions relative to other aspects of the setting, and the evaluation of a given condition as desirable or undesirable. Simple recognition of an impact condition might be added as a third component which is prerequisite to the evaluation of importance and desirability. Resource impacts may be recognized or unnoticed by the tourist (Barkham 1973; Cole and Benedict 1983). If recognized, the effects may be minimal when the condition is not regarded as undesirable. Even if an undesirable impact is noted, it may have little effect on the tourist's perceptions or enjoyment when the condition is unimportant to the individual. Previous studies suggest that individuals are more sensitive to clear evidence of other humans (e.g., litter) than to other perhaps more serious impacts on site conditions such as eroded, rutted trails (Stankey 1973). Lowenthal (1962) indicates that landscape perceptions are influenced by individual beliefs about the origin of the observed condition. Thus, visitors may respond to a resource condition more negatively if they attribute the cause to be human disturbance as opposed to natural processes. On the other hand, tourists' perceptions may be related to their own style of use. The impacts associated with stock use or motorized vehicles, for example, may be more acceptable to horsemen and cyclists than to hikers (Lucas 1979). The potential for conflict between tourists also increases with increasing use levels. Conflict represents a special case of dissatisfaction where the tourist attributes the source of goal interference to the behavior of other individuals (Jacob and Schreyer 1980). The extent of conflict varies according to the importance of the goal being obstructed and the degree to which various groups perceive each other as different. Most previous discussions of conflict in outdoor recreation have focused on the relationships between activity groups, particularly between individuals using motorized versus non-motorized equipment (Adelman et al 1982; Shelby 1980). In the tourism literature, emphasis has been placed on potential conflicts between tourists and host populations (Getz 1983; Smith 1977). Perceptions of conflict, however, may not always occur because tourists' responses to a given situation depend on their individual expectations and norms. Norms are standards that individuals use for evaluating activities or environments as good or bad, better or worse (Vaske et al 1986). Previous research suggests that people may modify their normative standards as a means of reducing the negative effects of visitor densities (Gramann 1982; Shelby et al 1984). When tourists modify their normative definition of a situation to compensate for increasing use levels, the end result is a change in the character of the experience to be found in the area.
394
MANAGING QUALITY TOURIST EXPERIENCE
T h u s , c u r r e n t visitors o f a heavily used area may be as satisfied as visitors 5 or 10 years ago when use levels were lower, but they are receiving a different type o f e x p e r i e n c e (Shelby et al 1986). Tourists may also change their behavior patterns to compensate for rising density levels (Manning and Power 1984). Behavioral changes may involve simply revising the pattern o f participation within a given area. Some individuals, for example, may alter their frequency o f participation or may choose to visit when the probability o f lower density levels is greatest. People who are most sensitive to user densities may stop visiting a tourist attraction entirely when o t h e r behavioral or perceptual adjustments fail to bring about the desired experience. A shift in behavior patterns in response to changes occurring in the e n v i r o n m e n t has been called recreational displacement (Anderson 1981; Becker 1981; Nielsen and Endo 1977; S c h r e y e r 1979). Schreyer (1979) suggests that such a change in behavior results when the individual perceives that the desired outcomes o f an e x p e r i e n c e are not attained, and when he does not wish to re-emphasize o t h e r aspects o f that experience. T h e s e displaced tourists may seek out an alternative setting and be displaced by tourists who are m o r e tolerant o f rising use levels. Research on all types o f impacts depicted in Figure 1 shows that the effects o f increasing use levels on the r e c r e a t i o n / t o u r i s t e x p e r i e n c e can be explained only partially, at best, as a function o f use level. Some o f the variables that mediate the relationships between use levels and the various impacts on the r e c r e a t i o n / t o u r i s t e x p e r i e n c e are summarized in the paragraphs to follow. This discussion centers on individual variation in tolerances to impacts and activity-and site-specific influences. Individuals vary in their responses to increasing use levels. Non-mechanized users are generally m o r e sensitive to the presence and behavior o f others than are mechanized tourists ( J a c o b and Schreyer 1980). Individuals in larger groups are generally m o r e tolerant than people participating in smaller groups (Lime 1972; Stankey 1973). Environmental perceptions may be influenced by when the individual first visited the area (Vaske et al. 1980), or by the f r e q u e n c y o f visitation (Bryan 1979). Tourists' motivations for participation also affect their sensitivity to contacts with others (Pearce 1982). In essence, a given use level may enhance the tourist experience for some individuals, p r o d u c e dissatisfaction for others, and have no effect whatsoever on o t h e r tourists. Given a basic tolerance level, the response o f individuals to contacts with others may also vary according to the types o f activities and behaviors the person e n c o u n t e r s and the setting in which they take place. T h e criteria used to d e t e r m i n e how many is too many depends on the desired experience in a particular situation. I f a Disneyland a t m o s p h e r e is desired, visitor density may only b e c o m e an issue when the facilities can no longer handle the influx o f people or when waiting in line becomes intolerable. Tourists to such areas expect and can tolerate large n u m b e r s o f o t h e r individuals. A n o r m o f extensive social interaction partially defines the character o f the experience. At the o t h e r e x t r e m e , visitors to a wilderness area may hold an opposite set o f expectations and norms. Encounters with a relatively small n u m b e r o f o t h e r individuals may change the nature o f the situation and diminish the perceived quality o f the experience. T o some extent, planning for either e x t r e m e - - the Disneyland experi-
ALAN GRAEFEAND JERRY VASKE
395
ence or the wilderness experience--represents the simple cases. The degree of shared values between decision maker and tourist concerning what is to be provided and what is expected is potentially greater for the extreme cases. Unfortunately, few areas can be defined so precisely. Most tourist attraction sites represent a blend of different types of experiences. Inconsistencies between management objectives and user norms in such situations may lead to conflict. Moreover, not all recreation groups share the same set of normative standards (Vaske et al 1986). For many attraction sites then, the effects of contacts on tourist evaluations of the setting are complex. A FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT The preceding discussion illustrates that recreation/tourism quality is a multifaceted concept that can be threatened by a number of interrelated types of impacts. It also indicates that the various impacts to a tourist's experience vary considerably in extent and severity. The following section describes an approach for tourism management that incorporates this understanding within a process aimed at reducing or controlling the impacts that threaten the quality of a tourist's experience. Similar to the models proposed by Getz (1983) and others (Hendee et al 1978; Shelby and Heberlein 1986; Stankey 1980), the approach here is built on the recognition that any effective management strategy involves both scientific and evaluative (judgmental) considerations. The scientific component focuses on documenting the relationships within the system and thereby provides the data needed to predict the impacts of different planning alternatives (for example, doubling the use of a ski area will increase the average wait at the lift line from 8 to 20 minutes per run). The evaluative component is concerned with the desirability of different management alternatives and the associated levels and types of impact on the experience. Effective management goes beyond establishing use limits. While use quotas represent one potential strategy for reducing impacts, previous research suggests often only a weak relationship exists between impacts to the experience and overall use levels. In such instances, establishing capacities or limits may do little to resolve the impact problems they were intended to solve, whereas other management strategies may be quite effective for reducing impact conditions. Examination of causal mechanisms and interrelationships within the tourism system is needed to identify planning/management alternatives that solve existing problems without creating new problems (Getz 1983). The management framework proposed here includes an eight step sequential process for assessing and managing tourism impacts (Figure 2). The steps in this process are designed to facilitate dealing with three basic issues inherent to impact management: the identification of problem conditions (or unacceptable impacts to the tourist experience); the determination of potential causal factors affecting the occurrence and severity of the unacceptable impacts; and the selection of potential management strategies for ameliorating the unacceptable impacts. These basic issues may be applicable in situations ranging from the management of site-specific, localized instances of overcrowding, to the
396
MANAGING QUALITY TOURIST EXPERIENCE
STEPS[] PROCESS I PreassessmenlData BaseRet~ew
tparison of Standnzds and F.xistiig Condi~ns
Review of legislative and po]icy direction
Id assessment of sociaI and ecological ~act mdicators duct Determination ot consistency or discrepancy ~ t h selected standards
previous research and area data base Product
Summary ot exasllng situation
DiscrepQnc y
Review of Management Objec~ves
t
Hemew existing obiectives for consistency with legislative m a n d a t e a n d policy direction Specify visitor experience and resource m a n a g e m e n t obiectives Product Clear statement ot specific a~ea obiectives
Identify Probese Catuussof Impacts mine use patterns and other poter, tJal ~rs a ~ e c t m g occurrence a n d severity aacceptable impacts tuct Description oJ causal factors for m a n a g e m e n t attention Sofecfi0n of Key impact Inc~cat0rs ldentdy measurable social and ecological variables Select ~or examination those most pertinent to area m a n a g e m e n t objectives Product List ot indicators and umts of measurement
Identify Idanagemznt Stmlegbs Examine lull r a n g e of Oarect a n d indLrect m a n a g e m e n t strategies dealing wrth probable causes o~ visitor i m p a c t s Product Matrix ot a h e m a t w e m a n a g e ment strategms
_[ Selection of Studmds for Key Iil~a Indicators Bestatement of m a n a g e m e n t objectives m terms of desired conditions tor selected mlpact indicators Product Quanhtative statements oi desired conditions
d ! j /
U
~ m
hoplementatien
BASIC.~.PPROAC]J~Systemahc process for identification ot impact problems, their causes and effective m m i a g e m e n t strategies Dr reduction of Visitor impacts CONDITIONSFOR USE--Integrated with other plamalng frameworks or as m a n a g e m e n t tool for [ocahzed impact problems
Figure 2. Management/Planning Process
broader planning o f future development and use o f large tourism areas or regions. T h e first five steps in the process are devoted to the important, yet often slighted, task o f d o c u m e n t i n g problem conditions. This basic issue has been separated into several steps to highlight the various decisions that must be made in assessing the current situation. These steps use the concepts o f objectives, indicators, and standards which are also the central elements of current frameworks for o u t d o o r recreation resource management (Graefe et al 1987; Stankey et al 1985).
ALAN GRAEFEANDJERRY VASKE
397
Step One This step, the preassessment data base review, involves compiling and reviewing pertinent information. The amount of relevant material will vary from situation to situation, but there will always be some background information that can be used to establish an initial perspective on the problem. Planning documents, for example, may include useful data as well as management guidance or constraints. Area records and previous tourist surveys may provide baseline data on tourist characteristics, motivations, and participation patterns within the area. The objective of Step One is to identify and summarize what is already known about the situation so that existing information can be put to its best use as the process continues. Management decisions can then be based on the best available understanding of the overall tourism system.
Step Two The second step in the process is to review planning objectives pertinent to the situation at hand. In recent years, several authors have emphasized the importance of clear and specific planning objectives (Getz 1983; Shelby and Heberlein 1986). "A major shortcoming in most . . . management plans is the lack of specific objectives that allow managers to explicitly state the conditions they seek and to measure performance with regard to achieving these objectives" (Hendee et al 1978:80). Getz (1983) further suggests that the objectives must be prioritized, since any single objective may lead to potentially conflicting goals. To be effective, planning objectives need to define the type of experience to be provided in terms of appropriate environmental and social conditions (Graefe et al 1987; Stankey 1980). The definition of the type of experience to be provided in a given area requires a decision selecting certain type(s) of tourists over competing groups seeking different types of experiences. While planners are often reluctant to make such decisions explicitly, it is important to recognize that this judgment is inherent to the management of visitors and will occur by default if it is not made deliberately. Avoidance of a specific experience definition essentially allows those activities which can preempt other opportunities to determine the recreational character of the area (Schreyer 1976). The question of the type of experience to be provided can be difficult. The decision, however, can be guided and defended by a variety of criteria compiled during Step One, including institutional or policy mandates, alternative opportunities available in the area, and tourist preferences.
Step Three This step involves identifying measurable indicators for the pertinent planning objectives. Once objectives have described the particular type of experience to be provided, this step prescribes how the specified experience will be measured. The specific decision required here is the selection of the most important variables or experiential attributes to serve as indi-
398
MANAGING QUAI.ITY TOURIST EXI'ERIENCE
cators of the target experience. T h e tourism impacts examined in the first section of this paper are examples of the types of" indicators that might be used to represent certain experiences. It is important to recognize that there is no single indicator or set of indicators that is appropriate for all situations. T h e choice of indicators depends upon the particular type of impact under consideration and the specific characteristics of the situation. Several criteria can be used, however, to evaluate the potential usefulness of alternative indicators. Useful indicators will include those that are directly observable, relatively easy to measure, directly related to the objectives for the area, sensitive to changing use conditions, and amenable to management.
Step Four This step adds an additional layer of specificity by providing standards for the previously selected impact or experience indicators. It calls for a restatement of planning objectives in quantitative terms. Standards differ from planning objectives by specifying the appropriate levels or acceptable limits for the impact indicators designated in Step Three. T h e standards selected become the basis against which the existing situation is evaluated. Thus, this step serves the important function of describing the type of experience to be provided in units of measurement which are compatible with available measures of the situation that currently exists. Recent literature illustrates how indicators and standards can be used to specify the type of experience one is trying to provide. Shelby and Heberlein (1986) suggest that standards be expressed for impact indicators like n u m b e r of encounters with groups of a particular size or type, percent time waiting in ski lift lines, or n u m b e r of people encountered at attraction sites. For use in the Flathead Wild and Scenic River Management Plan, Stokes et al (1984) suggested such standards as 80 percent probability of encountering no more than two floater parties (or six shore parties) per day, and no more than an average of four occurrences of litter viewable from the watercraft per m a n a g e m e n t unit. Standards of this nature demonstrate the importance of selecting units of analysis and indicators that are tangible, observable, and measureable qualities of a recreation experience. Such statements also reflect the site- and activity-specific influences that have been shown to be important variables affecting the quality of the recreation experience. Normative information makes a vital contribution to Steps Two t h r o u g h Four. At a general level, it is necessary to decide what type of experience is to be offered. Findings reported by Shelby (1981) illustrate how the norms specified by different user groups assist in this definition process. At a more specific level, norms are evaluative standards which define the important aspects of a particular experience. Data reported by Vaske et al (1986) identifies numerous ways in which norms define experiences in terms of encounters at various locations with various kinds of groups.
Step Five After the first four steps have clarified the desired conditions for a given area, the existing situation can be compared to this desired state (Step
ALAN GRAEFE AND JERRY VASKE
399
Five). This step requires an assessment of current conditions for those impact indicators that were selected in Step Three. Step Five does not necessarily imply elaborate and costly studies. What is necessary, however, is a level of observation and measurement that provides for a reasonable comparison of existing conditions and their corresponding standards. If current measures of pertinent indicators are consistent with standards, one needs only to monitor the situation for future changes. In this instance, the area is currently providing the type of experience that has been defined as appropriate for the area. The monitoring that is done, however, should include both the impact indicators that are most susceptible to future changes and the use patterns that may lead to changes in the status of these indicators. Such a monitoring program would provide a basis for evaluating probable causes of impacts which reach an unacceptable level at some future time. I f measures for certain indicators do not meet the standards for the area, a problem situation is documented. It is then appropriate to move on to the identification of probable causes of the unacceptable impacts to the tourist experience.
Step Six Because of the many potential factors that may contribute to impact conditions, the challenge of Step Six is to isolate the most important cause(s) of the problem situation. This task involves examining the relationships between tourist use patterns and the impact indicators that have exceeded their respective standards. When evaluating potential causal factors, it is important to consider the full range of specific aspects of tourist use that may influence the situation, including type of use, length of stay, size of groups, time of use, concentration of use, frequency of peak use periods, overall amount of use, and behavior of tourists. Such use/impact relationships are often complex and mediated by site characteristics and consequently will vary for different times and places (Runyan and Wu 1979).
Step Seven With some understanding of how the number, type, and distribution of people using a given area affect the quality attributes of the experience, it is possible to identify a range of alternative management strategies (Step Seven). Just as many aspects of use may contribute to the problem, numerous alternatives are available for dealing with the problem (Cohen 1978; Hudman 1978). At this phase, the focus is on the probable causes of the tourist impacts rather than on the impact conditions themselves. It is also important to recognize that one may never have a complete understanding of the causes underlying certain tourist impacts, nor can one predict exactly how a given planning action will affect a particular problem situation. Figure 3 provides a classification of management strategies that might be considered tools for controlling tourist impacts. The strategies include direct approaches that regulate or restrict visitor activities and indirect approaches that attempt to achieve the desired outcome by influencing tourist behavior. Selecting the best approach for any given situation is
400
MANAGING
QUALITY
TOURIST
EXPERIENCE
INDIRECT
I)IRECT
I'hysical Alterations
Enforcement
Jlllj)rove Access Nelzlect Access
Inl'ormation Dispersal Advertise Area Attributes hlentif~ S u r r o u n d i n g Opportunities .A.d~ertise Use Patterns
Economic Constraints Increase Prices Decrease Prices Charge l)ifferential Prices
Increase Surveillance Increase EnfiJrcelnent uf Rules
Zoning Separate Incompatible Uses Separate Visitors By Experience Level Tenlporal Zoning
Rationing Use Limit Entry To Area l.imit Numl)er Of Visas Issued
Restricting Activities Restrict Type of Use l.imit Size Of Group Limit I,ength ()f Stay Prohibit Use At Certain Time (adaptcd from llcndcc el al. 1978)
Figure 3. Classification of Visitor Management Strategies
difficult because of the wide range of potential alternatives and the difficulty of predicting all of the outcomes that can result from the various options. Planning techniques aimed at reducing a particular impact problem may adversely affect other aspects of the experience or may introduce other problems. For this reason, a matrix approach for evaluating alternative management strategies is recommended (Figure 4). This approach provides a vehicle for evaluating the range of planning alternatives against a set of selection criteria. The suggested criteria cover a variety of issues related to any implementation program. A given option may seem desirable for some criteria, but less appropriate from other perspectives. A strategy with high probability of producing the desired outcome may be impractical due to the difficulty or cost of implementation, or because it causes problems related to tourist freedom a n d / o r other experience indicators. In general, there are no right or wrong answers for dealing with tourist impacts. The goal is to strive for a balance among criteria when selecting a particular technique.
Step eight The selected management strategies should be implemented as soon as possible for those situations where impacts to the quality of the experience are most severe. Because the nature and causes of impacts are highly variable, management programs designed to deal with these impacts should be flexible and quick to respond to changing conditions.
ALAN GRAEFE AND JERRY VASKE
CONSlSTENCV
401
COST OR
PROBABILITY
OIVFICULTY
OF ACHIEVING
POTENTIRL
POTENTIAL
CESlREb
UISITOR
PROBLEMS
MANAGEMEMT
WITH
STRATEGY
MRMROEMENT
TO
OBJECTIUES
InPLEMENT
OUTCOME
BESISTRNCE
CREATED
Physical
Alterations Information Dispersal
Economic Constraints
Enforcement
Zoning
? Rationing Use
::
Restricting Activities
Figure 4. Matrix for Evaluation of Alternative Management Strategies
The task of managing tourist impacts is not over when a management program has been implemented. Monitoring of key impact indicators is critical to determine whether the management actions are producing the desired outcomes without altering other experiential characteristics. CONCLUSION This paper describes an approach for tourist management that incorporates scientific considerations within a process designed to reduce or controI the impacts that threaten the quality of the tourist experience. The framework is based on the concept that tourist impact management is most effective when it is based on the best available understanding of the nature of, the interrelationships between, and causes of unacceptable impacts; and when it is approached through a systematic, step by step process that isolates the necessary planning decisions and suggests appropriate sources of input for the key decisions. This paper has focused on factors that threaten the quality of the tourist's experience because this aspect of tourism impacts appears to have received relatively little attention in the tourism literature. It is important to recognize, however, that the management framework suggested is also applicable to other types of impacts associated with the activity of tourists (such as environmental impacts or impacts on host communities). The generic applicability of the suggested process may in fact be its most significant feature, since it incorporates the interrelationships between the major
402
MANAGING Q U A L I T Y T O U R I S T EXPERIENCE
components of the tourism system and provides a uniform framework for e v a l u a t i n g a n d m a n a g i n g t h e v a r i o u s t y p e s o f i m p a c t s o f t o u r i s t s . [] [] REFERENCES Adelman, B.J., T.A. Heberlein, and T. M. Bonnicksen 1982 Social Psychological Explanations for the Persistence of a Conflict Between Paddling Canoeists and Motorcraft Users in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences 5:45-62. Anderson, D.H. 1981 The Effect of User Experience on Displacement. In Proceedings of Applied Geography Conference, pp. 272-278. Tempe, Arizona. Barkham, J. 1973 Recreational Carrying Capacity: A Problem of Perception. Area 5:218- 222. Becker, R.H. 1981 Displacement of Recreational Users Between the Lower St. Croix and Upper Mississippi Rivers. Journal of Environmental Management 13:259 - 267. Brougham, J.E., and R.W. Butler 1981 A Segmentation Analysis of Residential Attitudes to the Social Impact of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 8:569-590. Bryan, H. 1979 Conflict in the Great Outdoors: Toward Understanding and Managing for Diverse User Preferences. Bureau of Public Administration, Sociological Studies No. 4, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Cohen, E. 1978 The Impact of Tourism on the Physical Environment. Annals of Tourism Research 5:215-237. Cole, D., and J. Benedict 1983 Wilderness Campsite Selection: What Should Users be Told. Park Science 3:5-7. Dann, G. 1978 Tourist Satisfaction: A Highly Complex Variable. Annals of Tourism Research 5:440-443. Getz, D. 1983 Capacity to Absorb Tourism: Concepts and Implications for Strategic Planning. Annals of Tourism Research 10:239 - 263. Graefe, A.R., J.J. Vaske, and F.R. Kuss 1984 Social Carrying Capacity: An Integration and Synthesis of Twenty Years of Research. Leisure Sciences 6:395 - 431. Graefe, A.R., F.R. Kuss, andJ.J. Vaske 1987 Recreation Impacts and Carrying Capacity: A Visitor Impact Management Framework. Washington DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. Gramann, J. H. 1982 Toward a Behavioral Theory of Crowding in Outdoor Recreation: An Evaluation and Synthesis of Research. Leisure Sciences 5:109-126. Gunn, C. ! 979 Tourism Planning. New York:Crane Russak. Hall, J. 1974 The Capacity to Absorb Tourists. Built Environment 8(3):392-397. Heberlein, T.A. 1977 Density, Crowding, and Satisfaction: Sociological Studies for Determining Carrying Capacities. In Proceedings of River Recreation Management and Research Symposium, pp. 6 7 - 7 6 , Report NC-28. Minneapolis MN: USDA Forest Service. Hendee, J.C., G.H. Stankey, and R.C. Lucas 1978 Wilderness Management, Publication No. 1365. Washington DC: USDA Forest Service. Hudman, L. 1978 Tourist Impacts: The Need for Regional Planning. Annals of Tourism Research 5:112-125. Jacob, G.R., and R. Schreyer 1980 Conflict in Outdoor Recreation: A Theoretical Perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 12:368-380.
ALAN GRAEFE AND JERRY VASKE
403
Kaur, J, 1979 Re-examining Tourist Capacity of Naintal. In Studies in the Geography of Tourism and Recreation. Vol. 2. K. Sinnhuber and F. Jung, eds., pp. 108 - 114. Vienna: Weiner Geographische Schriften. Lawler, E.E. 1973 Motivation in Work Organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Lime, D.W. 1972 Large Groups in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area: Their Numbers, Characteristics and Impact, Report NC-142. St. Paul MN: USDA Forest Service. Lowenthaf, D. 1962 Not Every Landscape Pleases: What is Our Criterion for Scenic Beauty? Landscape (Winter):19- 23. Lucas, R.C. 1979 Perceptions of Non-Motorized Recreational Impacts: A Review of Research Findings. In Proceedings of Recreational Impact on Wildlands, pp. 2 4 - 3 1 . Seattle WA: USDA Forest Service. Lucas, R.C. 1980 Use Patterns and Visitor Characteristics, Attitudes and Preferences in Nine Wilderness and Other Roadless Areas, Report INT-253. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service. Manning, R.E. 1985 Crowding Norms in Backcountry Settings: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Leisure Research 17:75 - 89. Manning, R.E., and L.A. Power 1984 Peak and Off-Peak Use: Redistributing the Outdoor Recreation/Tourism Load. Journal of Travel Research 23:25 - 31. Martilla, J.A., and J.C. James 1977 Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing 41:77- 79. McCool, S.F., and M. Petersen 1982 An Application of the Two Factor Theory of Satisfaction to Recreational Settings. Forestry Sciences Laboratory Report. Missoula Montana: USDA Forest Service. Mclntosh, R.W., and C.R. Goeldner 1984 Tourism: Principles, Practices and Philosophies. Columbus OH: Grid, Inc. Mescon, T.S., and G.S. Vozikis 1985 The Economic Impact of Tourism at the Port of Miami. Annals of Tourism Research 12:515-528. Nielsen, J.M., and R. Endo 1977 Where have the Purists Gone? An Empirical Examination of the Displacement Hypothesis in Wilderness Recreation. Western Sociological Review 8:61 -75. Pearce, P.L. 1982 The Social Psychology of Tourist Behavior. New York:Pergamon Press. Peterson, G.L. 1974 Evaluating the Quality of the Wilderness Environment: Congruence Between Perception and Aspiration. Environment and Behavior 6:169-193. Pilgram, J.J. 1980 Environmental ImplicationsofTourism Development. AnnalsofTourism Research 7:555-583. Pizam, A., andJ. Pokela 1985 The Perceived Impacts of Casino Gambling on a Community. Annals of Tourism Research 12:147 - 165. Pizam, A., Y. Neumann, and A. Reichel 1978 Dimensions of Tourism Satisfaction with a Destination Area. Annals of Tourism Research 5:314 - 322. Runyan, D., and C. Wu 1979 Assessing Tourism's More Complex Consequences. Annals of Tourism Research 6:448-463. Schreyer, R. 1976 Sociological and Political Factors in Carrying Capacity Decision Making. In Proceedings of the Third Resources Management Conference, pp. 2 2 8 - 258. Ft. Worth, TX: USDI National Park Service. Schreyer, R. 1979 Succession and Displacement in River Recreation. Paper prepared for River Recreation Project. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service.
404
MANAGING Q U A L I T Y T O U R I S T EXPERIENCE
Shelby, B. 1980 Contrasting Recreational Experiences: Motors and Oars in the Grand Canyon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 35:129- 131. Shelby, B. 1981 Encounter Norms in Backcountry Settings: Studies of Three Rivers. Journal of Leisure Research 13:129 - 138. Shelby, B., and T.A. Heberlein 1986 Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. Shelby, B., T.A. Heberlein, J.J. Vaske, and G. AIfano 1984 Expectations, Preferences and Feeling Crowded in Recreation Activities. Leisure Sciences 6:1 - 14. Shelby, B., N.S. Bregenzer, and R. Johnson 1986 Product Shift as a Result of Increased Density: Empirical Evidence from a Longitudinal Study. Paper presented at the First National Symposium on Social Science in Resource Management, Corvallis, Oregon. Smith, V., ed. 1977 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Stankey, G.H. 1973 Visitor Perception of Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity, Report INT-142. Ogden UT: USDA Forest Service. 1980 A Comparison of Carrying Capacity Perceptions Among Visitors to Two Wildernesses, Report INT-242. Ogden UT: USDA Forest Service. Stankey, G.H., Dn. N. Cole, R.C. Lucas, M.E. Petersen, and S.S. Frissell 1985 The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning, (Report INT-176). Ogden UT: USDA Forest Service. Stokes, G.L., R. DesJardins, G. Walker, R. Hurd, F. Flint, M. Childress, M. Weesner, and L. Reesman 1984 Planning and Maintaining a River Recreation Spectrum: The Flathead Wild and Scenic River. In Proceedings of 1984 National River Recreation Symposium, Baton Rouge Louisiana. Stynes, D. 1977 Recreational Carrying Capacity and the Management of Dynamic Systems. Paper presented at the National Recreation and Park Association Congress. Las Vegas. Var, R., andJ.J. Quayson 1985 The Multiplier Impact of Tourism in the Okanagan. Annals of Tourism Research 12:497-514. Vaske, J.J., M.P. Donnelly, and T.A. Heberlein 1980 Perceptions of Crowding and Resource Quality by Early and More Recent Visitors. Leisure Sciences 3:367- 381. Vaske, J.J., M.P. Donnelly, T.A. Heberlein, and B. Shelby 1982 Differences in Reported Satisfaction Ratings by Consumptive and Nonconsumptive Recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research 14:195-206. Vaske,J.J., B. Shelby, A.R. Graefe, and T.A. Heberlein 1986 Backcountry Encounter Norms: Theory, Method and Empirical Evidence.Journal of Leisure Research 18:137- 153. Walter, J.A. 1982 Social Limits of Tourism. Leisure Studies 1:295 - 304. Article submitted 10 November 1986 Revised version submitted 21 January 1987 Accepted 13 February 1987 Refereed anonymously