Title:
Visitor Employed
Photography: Its Potential and Use in Evaluating Visitors’ Perceptions of
Resource Impacts in Trail and Park Settings.
Authors:
Catherine E. Dorwart – Dept. of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism
Management, NC State University
Roger L. Moore – North Carolina State University
Yu-Fai Leung – North Carolina State University
A qualitative
study conducted by North Carolina State University examined “visitors’
perceptions and to determine how their perceptions affected over all
recreational experiences along a 2.9 segment of the Appalachian Trail in the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park” (pg. 307).
The study consisted of three parts: “a trail impact assessment of the
target trail, a visitor employed photography (VEP) exercise, and a brief
post-trip interview”; however this specific portion of the paper focused on the
VEP exercise (pg. 307).
The paper begins by explaining how park and
trail managers are usually responsible for both protecting natural resources
and providing the appropriate public enjoyment of those resources. The authors address the responsibility of
understanding the visitor perceptions and experiences through surveying,
interviewing, and assessing written material.
Popular visual methods used in the study were photo elicitation, in which 35mm or computer modified photographs
are used to evaluate “visitors’ preferences, acceptability of impacts, or
standards of quality”; and VEP exercises,
to assess “visitors’ perceptions of parks and other recreation places…and to
explore the processes inherent in participants’ outdoor experiences (pg. 307). The authors support the use of these methods
by citing photo elicitation studies conducted by Kaplan and Kaplan (1989),
Manning et. al. (1996), Kim et al. (2003); and VEP work by Cherem and Driver
(1983), Cherem and Traweek (1977), Loeffler (2004), and Taylor et. al (1995). The
VEP portion of the “grounded theory study” conducted along “a high-use segment
of the Appalachian Trail (AT) in Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM)” with
the intention of focusing specifically on GRSM visitors and their recreational
experience (pg. 307). The site location
was selected because it “exhibited…a natural trail with a variety of resource
conditions, well-traveled, scenically beautiful, and allow[ed] for a variety of
uses” (pg. 309).
The second
part of the paper addresses the background of the study, noting that many
previous studies of people’s “evaluations, conceptualizations, and
relationships with the natural environment (in particular perception and
preference in relation to experiences of nature, landscape, and the
environment) have been guided by a landscape perception paradigm” (pg.
307). The authors argue that this
paradigm helps identify why certain things like scenic views, pathway design,
and social and environmental conditions are perceived as either negative or
positive to the overall experience ( pg. 307).
They support this idea by stating that Ndubisi (2002) clarified that the
study of landscape perception “seeks to understand human values and aesthetic
experience in order to take them into account in creating and maintaining landscapes
that are socially responsible and ecologically sound” (pg. 308). Essentially, the ideology of landscape
perception is a belief that people prefer settings that meet their needs,
function well, successfully interpreting their environment (Kaplan and Kaplan
1998). According to work by Taylor et.
al. (1995), it is also necessary in environmental perception research to accept
perception as a dynamic interaction between humans and the environment that is
intricately “linked to the whole psychology of the observer and immersed in the
environment that is experienced” (pg. 308).
In the third
section of the paper, the authors describe current methods of conducting the
study. They explain that even though a
majority of the study was employed on-site as open-ended interviews and
close-ended surveys, some of the data was collected off-site through mailed
questionnaires, post-trip interviews, written evaluations, photo elicitations,
and videos. The authors reveal that
on-site methods were the most advantageous because they “provided the most
realistic exposure to the impacts being evaluated” (pg. 308). They also noted that some respondents were
distracted by scenic views or other attributes that prevented them from
evaluating specific impacts. The authors
explain that using photos may keep the respondents more focused but it also
changes their perception of impacts because they cannot consider other
factors. Even though site visits may be
the most advantageous, photographic evaluations may be more economical and
convenient. The authors explain research
by Kellomaki and Savolainen (1984) and Shuttleworth (1980) that used
photographs extensively in landscape evaluation studies, confirmed photographs as
an adequate substitute for on-site visits.
However, they go on to reveal work by Zube et. al. (1974) found that
photographs cannot display non-visual impacts like sounds or feelings. Emotions associated with being on-site
cannot be assessed in photographic evaluations.
As an
alternative to photographic evaluations, the authors turned to VEP, which takes
the camera from the research and places it in the hands of the visitor to
capture the “dynamic perceptual interaction as it happens, without redefining
the visitors’ recreation experience” (pg. 309).
Researchers (Cherem and Driver 1976, 1983) have discovered that the
visitors’ responses directly relate to on-site visits. Research by Taylor et. al. (1995) also
revealed that VEP has the potential of significantly reducing experience
intrusion by other distractions.
In the VEP methods section of the paper the authors
explain that their methods were adapted from previous VEP studies by Kim et.
al. (2003), Lynn (2000), and Taylor et. al. (1995), to request that
participants take photographs along the trail, document the locations of photos
and experiences in a booklet, and participate in an interview upon completing
their trip. The goal of this method was
to capture the images of objects or locations in the environment that had the strongest
influence on the visitor’s experience (pg. 310). The log booklet provided the researchers with
the visitor’s intents regarding the elements that were photographed. The authors discuss how “Once the data sets
were compiled, the researchers began a process of constant comparative
analysis, which involved open
and axial coding” (pg. 310). They describe that the data was coded and
counted for each photograph to determine which qualities of the trail (i.e.
scenic vistas, trees, exposed roots, people, etc.) were photographed the
most. Once this data had been coded, it
was then categorized by attribute. The
results revealed that both sets of photographs (attributes visitors liked and
disliked) show similar perceptual themes —“nature-oriented details, scenic
values, management influences, presence of
other people, and depreciative behavior” (pg. 311).
Scenic values ranked second most important perceptual
theme in the study. According to the
results, it was evident that the main reason people went hiking on the Newfound
Gap trail was to appreciate the scenic views.
Previous research data supports this statement, revealing how
“visitors prefer scenic vistas, restorative settings, and sites along the
water’s edge. These elements seem to affect
the perception of visitors’ surroundings and of the trail environment or landscape.
Therefore, this was the second most
photographed element. One middle-aged male hiker—who had once visited this
trail many years ago—found joy in the “high altitude vistas” writing, “It’s one
of the reasons I chose this hike [for the] inspiration (hey I’m a pastor—inspiration
is my business).” An older gentleman agreed. It is the “vista with [the] clouds…
beautiful expansive views [I am] in awe…unfortunately you can hear the vehicles
on the road below” (pg. 312).
The authors continue by explaining the other
perceptual themes in great detail. They discuss
how using the VEP approach gave the participants control of the situation and
provided better results that previous methods.
The authors argue that, “While there is a large body of knowledge on biological
and physical assessments of recreation impacts, very few studies have examined
visitors’ perceptions of the trail environment and how resource conditions affect
visitor experiences. However,
information on visitor perceptions is integral to carrying out both parts of
the National Park Service’s mandate” (pg. 312) To improve natural resource management,
it is essential that the National Park Service understand how visitors perceive
nature so that they can identifying critical areas and designing better
facilities to enhance the visitor’s experience.
This study reminded me of the importance of visitor
surveys. In the past, landscapes, facilities,
and trails have been ignored because they do not address the needs of the Park’s
visitors and management. This study confirms
that visitors want to experience places with both functionality and
purpose. Places that people can connect are
generally the areas where people create the most memories and where they can
interpret their surroundings. However,
when these iconic places begin to suffer from insufficient planning and funding,
the visitor experience deteriorates. The
authors of this study (and previous studies) reveal that most people who visit
the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, particularly trails along Newfound
Gap, are particularly attracted to the nature oriented details and the scenic
views. The study concludes by arguing
that consideration must be given to visitor’s perceptions and preferences so
that natural resources are both adequately protected and enjoyed.
No comments:
Post a Comment