Private Boater Monitoring on the Lower Youghiogheny River, at

Private Boater Monitoring on the
Lower Youghiogheny River,
at Ohiopyle State Park (PA)
Jonas Levêque, Robert Burns (Ph.D.),
Arne Arnberger (Ph.D.) & Silvia Kainzinger
Program
• Introduction
• Research Objectives
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
Introduction
• Ohiopyle State Park (PA)
Photo: DCNR PA
Introduction
D.C.
Introduction
• 79 miles of hiking trails
• ADA accessible trails
• Mountain biking trails (25.2 miles)
• Great Allegheny passage (27 miles)
Photo: DCNR PA
Introduction
• 7 miles of class III whitewater river
• 4 outfitter concessions
Photo: DCNR PA
Introduction
• Past research at Ohiopyle:
• Strauss (1977): first study on river use (focusing on
crowding aspects)
• US Department of the Interior (1978): Wild and
Scenic River assessment
• Strauss (1986): Reassessment of environmental conditions
at key areas
• Graefe et al. (1989): Recreational capacity study on the
Upper Yough
• Ewert & Hollenhorst (1994): Individual and setting
attributes
• Mowen et al. (2008-2013): Visitor use monitoring,
commissioned by the DCNR Pa
Introduction
• Why another study?
• First time to focus on private boaters at the
Lower Yough
• Part of a bigger study on whitewater boating
• Comprehensive study
Introduction
• More experienced visitors (within the site)
might have higher place attachment
(White et al., 2008)
• Place attachment: place identity + place
dependence (Hammitt & McDonald, 1983;
Bricker, Kerstetter, 2000; Williams & Vaske,
2003; Kyle et al., 2003, 2004; Manning, 2010,
Arnberger & Eder, 2011, 2012)
Research Objectives
• To assess private boaters characteristics
at Ohiopyle
• Place attachment, satisfaction, crowding:
• To assess whether there are differences
between repeat and first time visitors
• To assess whether there are differences
among repeat visitors (moderate/heavy users)
Methods
• 16 survey days
• Bruner Run,
Old Mitchell Parking lot
• Paper and I-pad questionnaire surveys
Methods
• Data segmentation:
• First time visitors?
• Number of days spent on the river per year
• Descriptive analysis
• T-tests
• Chi-squares
Results
• 398 surveys
were collected:
• 85 with I-pad
• 313 with paper
Results
• Users’ characteristics:
• 80.2% repeat
visitors
• 57.4% kayakers
Photo: Silvia Kainzinger
• 73% male
Results
Half were
21-40 years
old (47.7%)
• Users’ characteristics
Visitors’
characteristics
Masters’
degree or
higher
(31.1%)
1/3 earned
$50K-$99K
per year
(31.0%)
Results
Crowding:
Perceived crowding
Mean (on a 9-pt scale)/
mean (%)
3.75
Percentage of time in sight of
other boats
56.6%
Acceptable percentage of time
to see other boats
52.7%
Satisfaction:
Overall Satisfaction
Mean (on a 6-pt scale)
5.09
Repeat vs. first time visitors
Photo: Silvia Kainzinger
Results
• Place identity (mean on a 5-pt scale):
Item
This river means a lot
to me.
First time
Repeat
t
3.24
4.29
-9.184***
2.96
2.09
6.549***
I am very attached to
this river.
2.72
3.88
-10.757***
I identify strongly with
this river.
2.82
3.74
-7.975***
I feel no commitment
to this river.
Results
• Place identity combined items (alpha =
0.834):
Item
Place identity
First time
2.95
Repeat
3.95
t
-11.055***
Results
• Place dependence (mean on a 5-pt scale):
Item
This river is the best place for the
kind of whitewater recreation I like
to do.
First time
Repeat
t
3.23
3.54
-2.727**
3.00
3.11
-.945
I get more satisfaction out of
visiting this river than from visiting
any other river.
2.95
2.99
-.386
I wouldn’t substitute any other
river for the type of whitewater
recreation I do here
2.83
2.79
.425
I enjoy kayaking/rafting/canoeing
here more than on any other river.
Results
• Place dependence combined items (alpha
= 0.889):
Item
Place dependence
First time
3.00
Repeat
3.10
t
-1.148
Results
• Repeat vs. First time users:
• No statistically significant difference for overall
satisfaction
• No statistically significant difference for
perceived crowding
Heavy vs. Moderate users
Photo: Silvia Kainzinger
Results
• Place identity (mean on a 5-pt scale):
Item
This river means a lot
to me.
Moderate
Heavy
t
3.91
4.73
-9.111***
2.30
1.87
3.129**
I am very attached to
this river.
3.46
4.34
-8.138***
I identify strongly with
this river.
3.33
4.20
-8.092***
I feel no commitment
to this river.
Results
• Place identity combined items (alpha =
0.834):
Item
Place identity
Moderate
3.60
Heavy
t
4.35
-8.895***
Results
• Place dependence (mean on a 5-pt scale):
Item
This river is the best place for the
kind of whitewater recreation I like
to do.
Moderate
Heavy
t
3.37
3.74
-3.140**
2.93
3.30
-2.852**
I get more satisfaction out of
visiting this river than from visiting
any other river.
2.88
3.13
-1.972*
I wouldn’t substitute any other
river for the type of whitewater
recreation I do here
2.70
2.89
-1.460
I enjoy kayaking/rafting/canoeing
here more than on any other river.
Results
• Place dependence combined items (alpha
= 0.889):
Item
Place dependence
Moderate
2.97
Heavy
t
3.26
-2.651**
Results
• Heavy vs. Moderate users:
• No statistically significant difference for
perceived crowding
• Difference for Satisfaction:
Satisfaction
Overall
satisfaction
Moderate
5.05
Heavy
5.26
t
-1.987*
Conclusions
• Repeat visitors have a stronger place
identity than first time users but no
difference in place dependence
• Heavy users have a stronger place identity
and place dependence
Discussion
• Extrapolations:
• The place is substitutable for the activity for
repeat visitors
• The place is not substitutable at all for heavy
users
Discussion
• Other literature and implications
Discussion
• Substitution:
• Williams et al. (1992): lower levels of place
attachment  willingness to substitute.
• Tseng & Ditton (2007): increase levels of
place identity and place dependence 
decrease in willingness to substitute.
Discussion
• Satisfaction:
• Mowen et al. (1998): Visitors with a higher
place attachment  higher satisfaction
Satisfaction
Pearson’s R
Place identity
0.272***
Place attachment
0.236***
Discussion
• Support for management actions:
• Higher attachment  against fees, but pro
restrictions of use (Kyle et al., 2003)
• Higher place Identity  Prohibiting
motorized boats (Warzecha & Lime, 2001)
Discussion
• Environmental conditions:
• Kyle et al. (2004): higher place identity and
place dependence  higher sensitivity to
impact to the environment
• White et al. (2008): prior experience 
more sensitive to the environmental
conditions
Discussion
• Crowding:
• Kyle et al. (2004): hikers with higher place
identity  felt more crowded
• Warzecha & Lime (2001): river users with
higher place identity and dependence 
lower encounter norms
Discussion
• Ohiopyle managers:
•
•
•
•
•
Stronger opinions
More willing to help/volunteer
More ownership to the park (fee)
Report issues/hazard
A Both-way relationship with the park
What’s next?
• More studies:
• Specialization levels
• Link to environmental conditions
Thanks for your attention!
Photo: Silvia Kainzinger