Visitors’ place-based evaluations of unacceptable tourism impacts in Oulanka National Park, Finland

Abstract

Managers of outdoor recreation areas must understand how certain types of settings influence visitor experiences to support preferred on-site experiences. Geographically explicit techniques need to be utilized to explore this setting-experience relationship because inaccurate measuring methods have resulted in a weak association between settings and realized visitor experiences. This study piloted accurate GIS methods to study how visitor experiences differ across settings in Oulanka National Park, Finland. Data on visitor experiences was collected in a map-based online survey. Visitors (N = 170) completed the survey after their visit to Oulanka NP by marking first the locations which they had visited on an electronic map and then selecting those experience items, such as relaxation and physical wellbeing, that they had felt in these locations. The study area was classified into four different settings on a continuum of primitive to developed, using measures of infrastructure, social interaction, and accessibility in GIS software. Mapped experiences were compared against the settings using chi-squared test. No significant differences were found in experience items across recreation settings. The results encourage continued use of GIS tools to study visitor experiences and their geographical contexts, but suggest using more qualitative forms of mapping.

A management perspective to using Public Participation GIS in planning for visitor use in national parks

“…Another organisational barrier for adapting PPGIS methods is said to be the lack of skills to use the data effectively (Kahila-Tani et al 2016). Even though only a few managers in our study raised this issue, the challenges related to analysing place-based data, beyond creating visual presentations, could become more acute when actually Pietilä and Fagerholm 2016). However, as these tools are primarily developed for analysing social values, there is an additional need to develop the tools to support the analysis of those attributes that serve planning for outdoor recreation.…”

“…The maps depicted the spatial distributions of use, visitor experiences, special places, visitor perceptions of the negative impacts of tourism (such as littering or crowding), sites where visitors felt unsafe, and development needs regarding the park's infrastructure. The maps were created using ArcMap 10.3 software based on spatial data collected in Oulanka National Park in 2014 (Pietilä and Fagerholm 2016;Pietilä 2017). The data was collected in collaboration with Parks and Wildlife Finland using an internet-based PPGIS survey that was attached to the institutional visitor survey.…”

“…In the context of outdoor recreation in national parks or related areas, researchers have mapped visit outcomes such as learning and solitude (Brown and Weber 2011;Pietilä 2017), the health benefits of outdoor recreation (Brown, Schebella and Weber 2014), activities in which visitors participate (Brown and Weber 2011;Munro et al 2017), and the motives for undertaking a certain activity (Wolf et al 2015). Researchers have also been interested in mapping visitors' perceptions of the negative impacts of tourism (Brown and Weber 2011;Scolozzi et al 2014;Pietilä and Fagerholm 2016;Barnett et al 2016), the conflict potential between users or different values (Wolf, Brown and Wohlfart 2017;Moore et al 2017) and mapping the place-specific factors that affect visitor satisfaction (Pietilä and Kangas 2015).…”

“…Brown, Weber and de Bie 2014;Garcia-Martin et al 2017;Ives and Kendal 2014;van Riper et al 2017;Scolozzi et al 2014;Strickland-Munro et al 2016;Palomo et al 2014). Some studies have particularly addressed PPGIS in the context of outdoor recreation (Brown and Weber 2011;Beeco and Brown 2013;De Valck et al 2016;Korpilo et al 2018;Pietilä and Kangas 2015;Pietilä and Fagerholm 2016;Wolf et al 2015;Wolf, Brown and Wohlfart 2017).…”

Indicators for relational values of nature’s contributions to good quality of life: the IPBES approach for Europe and Central Asia

“…In the European Union 38% of the area has been identified as having high outdoor recreation potential (Paracchini et al 2014), especially locations containing coastal and freshwater systems and broadleaved woodlands (Hornigold et al 2016). Despite the importance of nature for leisure and tourism the capacity for nature-based recreation in ECA in recent decades has declined because of land-use change (Liquete et al 2016;Pietilä and Fagerholm 2016). In urban areas green spaces provide valued recreational experiences, such as walking and outdoor sports (Baró et al 2016;Smrekar et al 2016).…”