B. Derrick TaffB. Derrick Taff

April, 2009

Generalizing the Norm/Crowding Generalizing the Norm/Crowding Relationship: An Application of PCIRelationship: An Application of PCI

1978 – Transit shuttle and park 1978 – Transit shuttle and park and and ride ride system established.system established.

2000 -- Shuttle system between 2000 -- Shuttle system between the the

Park & Ride lot and Bear Park & Ride lot and Bear Lake operates on 10-Lake operates on 10-

minute minute headways during peak headways during peak periods.periods.

2002 -- Expansion of the Park & 2002 -- Expansion of the Park & Ride lot to 338 spaces.Ride lot to 338 spaces.

2006 – Provision of Hiker shuttle 2006 – Provision of Hiker shuttle service from Estes Park to service from Estes Park to the Park & Ridethe Park & Ride

Goal: Conserve natural, historical and cultural

resources/reduce congestion and pollution/ultimately

enhance visitor experiences

Introducing high frequency shuttles to the Introducing high frequency shuttles to the Bear Lake Road corridor has increased Bear Lake Road corridor has increased access to the trails within the corridor and access to the trails within the corridor and has caused impacts:has caused impacts:

Integrity of the ParkIntegrity of the Park

Resource Degradation Resource Degradation

Managerial ConcernsManagerial Concerns

“Develop approaches to explicitly integrate

transportation and user capacity planning in parks

and public lands”

Research GoalResearch Goal: Optimize : Optimize Transit Operations to Transit Operations to

Protect Park Resources & Protect Park Resources & Visitor ExperiencesVisitor Experiences

Vehicle Traffic

Cadna-A SoundGrid

NoiseImpacts

Perceived Impacts

GIS Model

Site Perceived Crowding

Paramics Site Visitatio

n Resource

Impacts

Perceived

Impacts

Pedestrian

Model

Experiential &

EcosystemEffects

6

Optimize Transit Operations to Optimize Transit Operations to Protect Park Resources & Visitor Protect Park Resources & Visitor

ExperiencesExperiences-Vehicle traffic model

-Visitor use models

-Resource impact assessments

-Roadway noise modeling

-Visitor surveysPettebone et al.

Visitor perceptions of Visitor perceptions of Crowding Crowding and Transportation and Transportation SystemsSystems

Bear Lake Corridor Bear Lake Corridor Alberta Falls Alberta Falls Glacier GorgeGlacier Gorge Dream LakeDream Lake Emerald LakeEmerald Lake

nn = 806 = 806

73% Response Rate73% Response Rate

Structural Approaches to Norms Provide a framework for evaluating behaviors or conditions

stemming from those behaviors Great for determining standards for acceptable recreation impacts

-Personal Norms Individual expectations, learned from shared expectations

-Social Norms Standards shared by members of a group

-Subjective Norms What you think others would want you to do → leading to behavior

-Encounter NormsExpectations in terms of the number of encounters with other people an individual would tolerate before their experience would be altered.

PCIPCI

Norm/Crowding Norm/Crowding ResearchResearch

Research

Research

DirectionDirection

Generalizing the Encounter-Norm-Crowding RelationshipVaske & Donnelly, 2002

- “Theory predicts that when encounters exceed a visitor’s norm for seeing others, crowding will occur.”

- Analyzed data from 13 different studies to support the hypotheses

- Crowding was measured using the 9-pt scale

- Continuing this research with a splash of Potential for Conflict Index

“When people evaluate an area as crowded, they have at least implicitly compared the condition they experienced (impacts) with their perception of what is acceptable (standards). If they conclude that the area is crowded, it would appear that the existing conditions exceeded their definition of a standard” (Vaske & Donnelly, 2002).

Perceived Crowding = Descriptive info (density or encounter level) + Evaluative info (negative evaluation of density or encounter level)

How crowded did you feel while you were at the Park today? (Circle one number.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Not at allCrowded

SlightlyCrowded

Moderately Crowded

Extremely Crowded

Group 1: Not at all Group 1: Not at all CrowdedCrowded

Group 2: Slightly Group 2: Slightly CrowdedCrowded

Group 3: Moderately Group 3: Moderately to Extremely Crowdedto Extremely Crowded

We would like to know how many other people you think you could encounter We would like to know how many other people you think you could encounter at the Park without feeling too crowded. To help judge this, please rate at the Park without feeling too crowded. To help judge this, please rate each of the photographs by indicating how acceptable you find it based on each of the photographs by indicating how acceptable you find it based on the number of people in the photo. (Circle the number of people in the photo. (Circle oneone number for number for each photoeach photo))

Very Unacceptable

Very Acceptable

Photo 1 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Photo 2 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Photo 3 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Photo 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Photo 5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

H1: When actual density exceeds encounter norms, visitor acceptability of crowding will decrease.

H2: The most consensus regarding acceptability of crowding will occur at the least crowded and most crowded scenarios.

H3: As level of perceived crowding increases, acceptability of crowding will vary among groups.

Photo PairPhoto Pair MeanMean11 Mean Mean 22

t-t-valuevalue

pp-value-value rr

(~0 People vs. ~7 People)(~0 People vs. ~7 People) 3.733.73 2.102.10 21.0821.08 <.001<.001 .07.07

(~0 People vs. ~10 People)(~0 People vs. ~10 People) 3.733.73 -.16-.16 43.8343.83 <.001<.001 .02.02

(~0 People vs. ~15 People)(~0 People vs. ~15 People) 3.733.73 -2.00-2.00 68.3368.33 <.001<.001 .01.01

(~0 People vs. ~25 People)(~0 People vs. ~25 People) 3.733.73 -3.07-3.07 92.3192.31 <.001<.001 .03.03

(~7 People vs. ~10 People)(~7 People vs. ~10 People) 2.102.10 -.16-.16 39.7339.73 <.001<.001 .72.72

(~7 People vs. ~15 People)(~7 People vs. ~15 People) 2.102.10 -2.00-2.00 57.2757.27 <.001<.001 .52.52

(~7 People vs. ~25 People)(~7 People vs. ~25 People) 2.102.10 -3.07-3.07 68.4868.48 <.001<.001 .35.35

(~10 People vs. ~15 People)(~10 People vs. ~15 People) -.16-.16 -2.00-2.00 38.4338.43 <.001<.001 .82.82

(~10 People vs. ~25 People)(~10 People vs. ~25 People) -.16-.16 -3.07-3.07 44.2844.28 <.001<.001 .62.62

(~15 People vs. ~25 People)(~15 People vs. ~25 People) -2.00-2.00 -3.07-3.07 25.7025.70 <.001<.001 .84.84

1 Mean for first photo in the pair2 Mean for second photo in the pair

Tables Tables

are are

AwesomeAwesome

!!! !!!

Visitor Acceptability of Photos Very

Acceptable

Neutral

Very Unacceptable

Acc

ep

tab

ility

Acceptability of Crowding at the Bear Lake Corridor of RMNP

Visitor Norm: ~10 People

~ 0 ~ 0 PeoplePeople

~ 7 People~ 7 People ~10 People~10 People ~ 15 People~ 15 People ~ 25 People~ 25 People

Attitude Toward Crowding LevelAttitude Toward Crowding Level11

PhotoPhoto Not at Not at AllAll

SlighSlightt

Moderate – Moderate – ExtremeExtreme

FF pp--valuevalue

EtaEta

#1#1 3.443.44aa 3.763.76bb 3.823.82bb 6.806.80 .001*.001* .13.13

#2#2 2.922.92aa 2.112.11bb 1.431.43cc 30.530.511

<.001*<.001***

.27.27

#3#3 .87.87aa -.17-.17bb -.93-.93cc 33.733.700

<.001*<.001***

.28.28

#4#4 -1.19-1.19aa -2.11-2.11bb -2.41-2.41bb 18.118.144

<.001*<.001***

.21.21

#5#5 -2.51-2.51aa -3.17-3.17bb -3.33-3.33bb 12.712.700

<.001*<.001***

.18.18

1 Means with different subscripts are significant at the p<.05 level, accounting for multiple tests using the Scheffe’s S Method*p<.05; **p<.001

~ 0 ~ 0 PeoplePeople

~ 7 ~ 7 PeoplePeople

~ 10 ~ 10 PeoplePeople

~ 15 ~ 15 PeoplePeople

~25 ~25 PeoplePeople

Group Perceptions of Crowding Across 5 PhotosVery

Acceptable

Unsure

Very Unacceptabl

e

Acc

ep

tab

ility

Not At All CrowdedNot At All Crowded

Slightly CrowdedSlightly CrowdedModerately to Extremely CrowdedModerately to Extremely Crowded

Photo 1 Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Photo 5

PhotosPhotos Crowding GroupsCrowding Groups PCI PCI aa

PCI PCI bb

PCI PCI Difference*Difference*

# 2 ~ 7 People

Not at all Crowded vs. Slightly Crowded

.03 .20 4.71*

Not at all Crowded vs. Moderately – Extremely Crowded

.03 .30 6.04*

Slightly Crowded vs. Moderately – Extremely Crowded

.20 .30 2.00*

# 4~15 People

Not at all Crowded vs. Slightly Crowded

.34 .22 2.83*

Not at all Crowded vs. Moderately – Extremely Crowded

.34 .24 2.36*

Slightly Crowded vs. Moderately – Extremely Crowded

.22 .24 .047

# 5~25 ~25 PeoplePeople

Not at all Crowded vs. Slightly Not at all Crowded vs. Slightly CrowdedCrowded

.21.21 .14.14 1.571.57

Not at all Crowded vs. Moderately Not at all Crowded vs. Moderately – Extremely Crowded– Extremely Crowded

.21.21 .10.10 2.20*2.20*

Slightly Crowded vs. Moderately – Slightly Crowded vs. Moderately – Extremely Crowded Extremely Crowded

.14.14 .10.10 1.111.11

*PCI difference tests larger than 1.96 are significant at p<.05

H1: When actual density exceeds encounter norms, visitor acceptability of crowding will decrease.

Supported H2: The most consensus regarding acceptability

of crowding will occur at the least crowded and most crowded scenarios.

Supported H3: As level of perceived crowding increases,

acceptability of crowding will vary among groups. Supported

Focus upon the three different groups and the norms/standards established through this analysis

Management should focus upon those individuals that exhibit norms/standards at the extreme ends (Moderate – Extremely Crowded Group)

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Adapt management plans to better inform and educate

visitors Zone for different user groups based upon interpretive

information

-Test Different Methodologies Randomize Photos

-Stay Consistent with Proven Scales (9-pt Scale)-Apply PCI to reports to enhance Management Implications-Establish Baselines

QuestionQuestions?s?