Towards A Human Dimensions Research Agenda For Parks
Payne casiopa2013
1. The Potentials and Pitfalls of Rapid Assessments for
Visitor Management
R.J. Payne
Lakehead University
Transforming Visitor Management - Improving the Understanding of Protected Area
Clientele with Declining Resources
Centre for Applied Science in Ontario Protected Areas (CASIOPA) Annual Meeting
Toronto, Ontario
January 31 – February 1, 2013
2. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Introduction
Context
Parks Canada
Ontario Parks
Terms
Assessment
Visitor Management
3. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Rapid Assessments
Visitor Impacts on Parks and Protected Areas
Parks Canada's Visitor Activity Profiles
Potentials and Pitfalls
Visitor Experiences in Parks and Protected Areas
Existing Data Sources in Parks Canada and Ontario
Parks
Potentials and Pitfalls
Social Media as Data
Potentials and Pitfalls
5. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Context
Science-based decision-making and evaluation is better than
alternatives
Parks Canada
National Parks
Ecological integrity – first consideration
Then, education and visitor experiences
NMCAs
Ecological sustainability, commemorative integrity
and visitor experiences
6. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Socio-political Pressures
Generate more revenue
Science under siege
Visitor Management Capacity
Reduced: 2/3 of social scientists cut, service centres
eliminated
Direction: Real, inspiring, memorable experiences
Oversight
Auditor-General of Canada (Commissioner for
Environment and Sustainable Development)
7. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Ontario Parks
Provincial Parks
Wilderness, natural environment classes →
ecological integrity
Waterway, nature reserve and recreation: not clear if
ecological integrity is the primary objective
Non-operating parks, not managed
Conservation Reserves
Beyond designation, not managed
8. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Socio-political Pressures
86% of operating budget from tourism-related
revenues (Eagles, 2012)
Fiscal restraint
Visitor Management Capacity
Limited
Direction: none
Oversight
Auditor-General of Ontario
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
9. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Terms
Assessment
= Evaluation
The Management
Effectiveness
Initiative (WCPA)
The Green List (WCPA)
Source: Hockings et al., 2006
10. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Source: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evallogicmodel.html
11. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Visitor Management
Definition: Visitor management is the practice of ensuring
that the visitor achieves a quality experience in an
environmentally sustainable manner.
Outputs: communication, interpretation, safety and
enforcement
Outcomes:
visitor impacts on natural environments
visitor experiences
WCPA work focuses on outputs rather than outcomes
12. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Rapid Assessments
Visitor Impacts on Parks and Protected Areas
Parks Canada's Visitor Activity Profiles
Legislation/policy basis
Identify socio-demographic characteristics, servicing
requirements and environmental impacts of
activities
Existing knowledge
Afford designation of “appropriate activities” based in
part on environmental impacts
13. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
An example: Hang Gliding
Deemed inappropriate
Likely environmental
impacts related to
servicing the activity
Parking, roads,
vegetation removal
Experiences PA related?
14. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Potentials
Existing information and knowledge
Supports ecological integrity part of mandate
Relatively quick
Pitfalls
Appropriateness has been contested
If appropriate, no determination of how much of the
activity
Activities are diverse (e.g., X-C skiing) and can change
If ecological integrity is NOT a management goal?
15. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Visitor Experiences in Parks and
Protected Areas
Existing Data Sources in
Parks Canada and
Ontario Parks
Parks Canada's “Visitor
Information
Program”
Pukaskwa 2006, 214 of
385 randomly
selected parties
16. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Frontcountry visitors
Purpose:
to gather information on the demographic characteristics of visitors,
to determine the visitor’s level of satisfaction with services and facilities at the site,
to determine the level of participation and satisfaction with interpretive programs and activities,
to determine the level of understanding of the site’s key messages, and
to understand more about the visitor’s trip to Pukaskwa National Park.
Potentials
Regular, randomized, protected area-level survey
Both quantitative and qualitative information
17. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Selected qualitative responses
“Scenery is something else; Great park; Great; It was a magical “AWAHEE”; all
was on or beyond our expectations; Less mosquitoes! My next visit will be in a
month of August. (I love it here); Lovely spot; Nothing at all its beautiful thanks;
The sun was shining. Scenery was breathtaking. Water was warm enough to
swim in today; c’est beau; tout y est magnifique!; too many mosquitos at the
campsite; We had a perfect visit/experience.”
Connections to “real”, “inspiring” and “memorable”, all emotional
terms
Experience → engagement?
18. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Pitfalls
Nothing about visitor experiences except qualitative
responses
Agency capacity for analysis?
At the national office
At the protected area
19. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Ontario Parks' Visitor
Survey (campers, day
use and backcountry
users)
Initiated in 1974, but
recently delivered
online
Potentials
35,000+ cases
20. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Data on origins, park(s) visited, activities, experiences,
expenditures and preferred management actions
Weighted data available on a park by park basis
Pitfalls
Analysis – limited capacity in Ontario Parks
Direction – none for visitor experiences
21. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Social Media as Data
Social media?
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Linkedin and so on
Both Parks Canada and Ontario Parks use social media
e.g., Pukaskwa National Park
e.g., Ontario Parks
Communication, promotion
Data capture
Parks and Protected Areas Research Group
22. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
“Listening” → towards “engagement” with visitors or
potential visitors
Social media analytics
e.g., Meltwater
e.g., Sentiment Metrics
Qualitative data about what people are saying about
a protected area
From a wide variety of social media platforms
23. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Banff National Park
Sentiments and Platforms
24. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Quetico Provincial Park
Sentiment and Platforms
25. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Potentials
Communicating AND listening
Connecting AND engaging
Agencies are involved in social media now
Pitfalls
Numbers (Banff NP vs. Pukaskwa NP)
Capacity, especially in Ontario Parks
Cost, but relatively small when compared to social research
26. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Conclusions
Potentials and pitfalls associated with all three possibilities for rapid
assessment
All are substitutes for quantitative and/or qualitative research
Pitfalls related to agency capacity to understand visitors, especially at
the protected area level
Social media offers high potential for understanding visitors'
experiences
New, but engaging and unobtrusive
27. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Selected References
Cole, David N. and Daniel, Terry C., 2003. The science of visitor management in parks and protected areas: from verbal reports to simulation
models. Journal for Nature Conservation, 11, (4), pp. 269–277.
Eagles, Paul, 2012. Budget implication of tourism finance of parks: Ontario Provincial Parks from 1996 to 2011. Paper presented at the 18 th
International Symposium on Society and Natural Resources, Edmonton, Alberta, June.
Ervin, J. (2003). WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology. WWF, Gland,
Switzerland.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. and Courrau, J., 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management
effectiveness of protected areas. (2nd edition) IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xiv + 105 pp.
Jurgens, P., 2012. Communities of communication: Making sense of the “social” in social media. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 30.
(3-4), pp. 186-203.
Mason, Peter, 2005. Visitor management in protected areas: From ‘hard’ to ‘soft’ approaches? Current Issues in Tourism, 8, (2-3), pp. 181-
194.
Meltwater Buzz, 2013. Listening Module [online at http://buzz.meltwater.com/products/listen-module/].
Secretariat, Convention on Biological Diversity, (n.d.) Protected Areas Management Effectiveness [online at
http://www.cbd.int/protected-old/PAME.shtml].
28. Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management
Sentiment Metrics, 2010. Social Media Monitoring. [online at http://www.sentimentmetrics.com/social-media-monitoring-tools/social-
media-monitoring.html].
University of Wisconsin – Extension, 2012. Program Development and Evaluation, [online at
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evallogicmodel.html].