Past On-Site Experience, Crowding Perceptions, and Use Displacement of Visitor Groups to a Peri-Urban National Park

Abstract

Past on-site experience was linked to the crowding perceptions and use displacement of 383 on-site visitors to the peri-urban Danube Floodplains National Park, Austria. Three visitor groups were determined according to their area experience: local residents from Vienna and rural communities, having the highest level of experience; regional visitors from the city and eastern Austria; and tourists from Austria and abroad with the lowest degree of experience. Crowding perceptions were significantly different across the user groups. More than 50% of local residents perceived the national park as crowded, whereas only 27% of regional visitors and 19% of tourists reported such an evaluation. Even among local residents and regional visitors, respondents with more on-site experience expressed a greater impression of a crowded park. Differences in crowding evaluations between local rural and urban residents and between regional rural and urban visitors were not found. For 27% of local residents and 15% of regional visitors, use levels were so unacceptable that they displaced temporally and spatially, whereas use displacement was relatively irrelevant for tourists. The use displacement strategies involved differ among the three user groups. Management implications were discussed, taking the specific situation of the small national park on the urban-rural fringe into consideration.

Perceptions of Neighborhood Park Quality: Associations with Physical Activity and Body Mass Index

“…Another possibility is that perceptions of crowded parks may encourage physical activity participation for some users while discouraging use for physical activity for other users. Residents living near large open spaces or attractions are more likely to perceive crowding [80,81]. For example, a study in Central Europe found that more than 50 % of the local residents reported the park as crowded, while only 27 % of the regional visitors and 19 % of the tourists viewed it as crowded [80].…”

“…Residents living near large open spaces or attractions are more likely to perceive crowding [80,81]. For example, a study in Central Europe found that more than 50 % of the local residents reported the park as crowded, while only 27 % of the regional visitors and 19 % of the tourists viewed it as crowded [80]. Some studies indicated that use of parks by friends and family, perceiving neighbors as being active, and having a friend to exercise with were related to more physical activity [32,38,79].…”

Chenang Beach and its Crowding Capacity: A Malaysian Perspective

“…Of importance, 'number of people seen' was negatively significant for accepted crowding factor (maximum number of people to see) and the same result was observed for 'opportunity to escape crowd' ('number of people seen' and 'maximum number of people to see'). From the perspective of 'maximum number of people to see', it can be said that respondents fall under the crowding-averse category [10]. However, from respondents are interchange between crowding-averse and crowding-tolerant when analysed from the 'opportunity to escape crowd' and 'enjoyment level' point of views.…”

“…The paradigm shift between crowding-averse and crowding-tolerant, to a certain extent, is influenced by one's psychology stability in accepting changes of the surroundings. For instance, the difference in crowding standard between regional rural and urban visitors of a national park is fairly interlinks with the use displacement in addition to past experience and nous [10]. At a greater extent, the use displacement is also addressing the effect of surroundings (types and density) towards crowding standard of a site.…”

Identifying Success Factors behind Partnerships for Managing Recreation and Tourism in Urban Fringe Parks

“…Urban sprawl is increasingly an issue in the planning and management of many cities and their hinterlands, with the latter including what have been variously termed peri-urban (Allen, 2003;Arnberger andBrandenburg, 2007), near-urban (DNRE, 1996) or urban fringe parks (Ramp et al, 2006). Australia has an unusually high incidence of protected areas abutting metropolitan areas and, with estimates of annual growth in visitation of 16% to 17%, compared to just 4% for remote protected areas (DRE, 1996), this preference for nature-based recreation and tourism close to home appears to be a growing one.…”