The Potentials and Pitfalls of Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management

R.J. PayneLakehead University

Transforming Visitor Management - Improving the Understanding of Protected Area Clientele with Declining Resources

Centre for Applied Science in Ontario Protected Areas (CASIOPA) Annual MeetingToronto, Ontario

January 31 – February 1, 2013

Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management

Introduction

Context

Parks Canada

Ontario Parks

Terms

Assessment

Visitor Management

Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management

Rapid Assessments

Visitor Impacts on Parks and Protected Areas

Parks Canada's Visitor Activity Profiles

Potentials and PitfallsVisitor Experiences in Parks and Protected Areas

Existing Data Sources in Parks Canada and Ontario Parks

Potentials and PitfallsSocial Media as Data

Potentials and Pitfalls

Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management

Conclusions

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

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)

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

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

Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management

Terms

Assessment

= Evaluation

The Management Effectiveness Initiative (WCPA)

The Green List (WCPA)

Source: Hockings et al., 2006

Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management

Source: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evallogicmodel.html

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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?

Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management

Pitfalls

Nothing about visitor experiences except qualitative responses

Agency capacity for analysis?

At the national officeAt the protected area

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

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

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 Parke.g., Ontario Parks

Communication, promotion

Data captureParks and Protected Areas Research Group

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

Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management

Banff National Park

Sentiments and Platforms

Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management

Quetico Provincial Park

Sentiment and Platforms

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

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

Rapid Assessments for Visitor Management

Selected ReferencesCole, 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].

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].