Parks and People: Managing Outdoor Recreation at Acadia National Park

14. What’s Behind the Numbers?: Qualitative Insights into Normative Research in Outdoor Recreation

14 What’s Behind the Numbers? Qualitative Insights into Normative Research in Outdoor Recreation Conventional studies of normative standards of quality in outdoor recreation rely on quantitative research methods as described in previous chapters . While these studies derive measures of acceptability (or other evaluativedimensions ),theymaynotinformresearchersormanagersofpotentially important elements of the cognitive process respondents use to derive and report such numbers. These cognitive insights may be important in informing researchers of the normative character of such judgments and in allowing managers to assess whether these judgments are rendered within a context of realistic consideration of the tradeoffs inherent in park and outdoor recreation management. Qualitative research might be used to gain insights into the cognitive processes underlying normative research. The study described in this chapter uses both quantitative and qualitative research methods to measure and more fully understand crowding-related norms of visitors to Acadia. The specific objectives of the study were to assess (1) the extent to which respondents consciously considered the inherent tradeoffs between protecting the quality of park resources and the visitor experience, and maintaining reasonable public access for recreation; and (2) the effect of such consideration on the norms derived. Verbal protocol analysis, developed in psychology, was adopted as an appropriate qualitative method. Tradeoffs in Outdoor Recreation One of the most fundamental conflicts, tensions, or tradeoffs in park and outdoor recreation management is the amount of use that can be accom-  This chapter is an edited version of the following paper: Robert Manning, Jennifer Morrissey , and Steven Lawson, “What’s Behind the Numbers? Qualitative Insights Into Normative Research in Outdoor Recreation,” Leisure Sciences 27 (2005):205–24. W H A T ’S B E H I N D T H E N U M B E R S ?  modated without causing unacceptable impacts to park resources and/or the quality of the visitor experience. Indeed, this tension is at the heart of the carrying capacity concept and its genesis lies in the dual mandate of most park and outdoor recreation agencies that requires them to protect significant natural resources and the quality of the visitor experience while also providing for public access (Manning 1999). The dual mandate of park and outdoor recreation agencies suggests that normative research on recreation-related standards of quality should be informed by tradeoffs inherent in park and outdoor recreation management. A stronger emphasis on such tradeoffs would move normative research more in line with the “should” or “ought” dimension of norms as they traditionally were conceived, and also could incorporate the notion of sanctions often associated with the concept of norms—either formal sanctions on visitor use adopted by park management agencies or self-sanctions adopted by park visitors who choose not to visit parks under certain resource or social conditions (Heywood 1996a, 1996b; Roggenbuck et al. 1991; Shelby and Vaske 1991). It also would suggest that information derived in this way would be more thoughtful and considered, and might be more directly useful in formulating standards of quality. In fact, normative research has been subject to criticism that it may simply represent “unconstrained preferences ” that may not be incorporated easily or directly into management decision making (Stewart and Cole 2003). These issues raise the potentially important questions of the extent to which respondents to normative research are aware and conscious of the fundamental tradeoffs inherent in such issues, and how this knowledge might affect the responses that are forthcoming. As noted above, normative research in outdoor recreation conventionally is driven by quantitative methods and results in numerical estimates of respondents’ norms for selected recreation-related impacts. However, as the title of this chapter suggests, it may be important to “look behind the numbers.” What are respondents thinking as they read, consider, and answer such questions? More specifically, to what extent are respondents consciously considering tradeoffs inherent in park and outdoor recreation management? How do such considerations affect respondent norms? How might insights into these questions and issues help inform the design and administration of normative research and its eventual application in park and outdoor recreation management? I N D I C A T O R S A N D S T A N D A R D S O F Q U A L I T Y  Verbal Protocol Analysis To help answer these questions, this study used a qualitative research method known as verbal protocol analysis. The verbal protocol or “think aloud” research method was developed in psychology to...