Assessing the Validity of an Outdoor Recreation Constraints Model For Tourists to Florida

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Assessing the Validity of an Outdoor Recreation Constraints Model For Tourists to Florida"

Erick Rice
5 years ago
Views:

1 Assessing the Validity of an Outdoor Recreation Constraints Model For Tourists to Florida Brijesh Thapa Lori Pennington-Gray Steve Holland Center for Tourism Research & Development Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism University of Florida Gainesville, Florida, USA ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to empirically test Crawford, Jackson and Godbey (1991) constraints model (intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural) for construct validity within the context of visiting parks and public lands among tourists that had previously visited Florida (n=2659). Respondents were asked to respond (major reason, minor reason, not a reason, and not sure) to 19 perceived constraint statements that represented the three theoretical constraints constructs. Data were analyzed employing the structural equations modeling package, EQS. Although there was a lack of interpersonal constraints, results suggested the identification of intrapersonal and two types of structural constraints, personal and environmental. Personal tend to be more associated with the individual than the external environmental setting, while environmental relate more towards the recreation setting. While the results fail to identify interpersonal constraints, future efforts should look at additional indicators of interpersonal, intrapersonal and structural constraints including potential subsets (personal and environmental) to the constructs. INTRODUCTION Tourism in Florida is the largest industry as it is one of the world s top tourist destinations. Florida ranks second only to California with respect to domestic and international visitors (Florida Facts, 2000). Of the 74.3 million people that visited Florida in 2000, approximately 6 million were international visitors. Also, 94% of previous visitors indicated intent to return. In 2000, 853,733 thousands people were directly employed in tourism with an annual payroll of US$14.2 billion. In addition, $50.9 billion was accounted for as taxable sales, and $22.5 million was spent on marketing efforts that included print and non-print advertising (Florida Facts, 2000; Visit Florida, 2001). Domestic visitors come to Florida primarily for vacationing, visiting friends & relatives and business. The average length of stay is 5.4 nights with $125.10/day in expenditures. The top visitor origination states are Georgia, New York and Alabama. While in Florida, the top activities that domestic visitors engage in are visiting the beaches, shopping, and going to a theme/amusement park. However, other outdoor recreation activities such as hunting, fishing, hiking, and visiting national/state parks ranks fairly high in participation among domestic visitors (Visit Florida, 2001).

2 In a 1997 survey by Visit Florida, 52% of the ~ 40 million tourists to the state indicated that they included a visit to a nature oriented location as part of their trip to Florida. The four largest National Park Service areas (Everglades, Big Cypress, Canaveral Seashore and Gulf Islands) accounted for about 7.4 million visits in 2000, the three National Forests (Apalachicola, Osceola and Ocala) account for 1.9 millions of visits (National Visitor Use Monitoring Project, 2001). State wildlife management areas reported 1.8 million visitors to observe wildlife (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 1998), and Florida State Parks report a total of about 17 million visits annually. The State Parks system ranks as one of the best in the country and generally, residents and tourists report high levels of satisfaction with visits to Florida s natural areas (Holdnak & Holland 2001; Holland, Holdnak, & Fedler 1996). In the last 15 years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of nature-based tourists, overnight campers, bird and wildlife watchers, among others (Cordell, 1999; Fennell 1999; Kelly & Warnick 1999; Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, 1997). The rise of ecotourism (Fennell, 1999; Honey, 1999) indicates that natural resource areas such as forests, rivers, and wetlands are increasingly popular destinations, even for mass tourists who add such sites as side trips for vacations that are primarily oriented to the beach, a theme park or urban area. These travelers are an important source of income for rural forest communities who promote fishing, camping, sightseeing and other activities to attract tourists to their areas (Crotts & Holland 1993; Fredrick 1992; McCool, 1996). In recent years, researchers have become interested in understanding what constrains or prevents people from participating in parks and public lands. For example, early research reported that low-income groups identified lack of interest as their principal reason for non-participation in outdoor recreation activities (Romsa & Hoffman, 1980). Subsequent research has indicated that the nature of the activity affects the perceived barriers to participation (Jackson, 1983). Furthermore, research has noted that constraints may be compelled within the individual or external forces or conditions (McCarville & Smale, 1993). However, constraint research has largely been studied within residential population based on activity and non-activity participation in the traditional leisure context. There is a paucity of research in understanding constraints from a tourist s perspective (Pennington-Gray & Kerstetter, in press). Since the early 1980s considerable research has been conducted on constraints to leisure. Leisure constraints have been defined as barriers, inhibitors, obstacles or restraining factors, perceived or real that influence an individual s participation, frequency, intensity, duration, quality, preference or freedom of choice in a leisure activity (Goodale & Witt, 1989). Various authors (see Backman, 1991; Backman & Wright, 1990; Jackson & Dunn, 1987; McGuire, 1984) have documented that constraints are interrelated and should be evaluated in the context of underlying dimensions. Within this context, Jackson (1993) identified six dimensions of constraints that appear to be common across settings: (a) social isolation: characteristics that involve interaction between/among people; (b) accessibility: lack of or limited access to transportation; (c) personal reasons: representing an individual s abilities or motivations; (d) cost: experience costs or cost of equipment; (e) time: referring to levels and intensity of participation; and (f) facility: crowding and maintenance.

3 In an effort to maintain consistency in findings as well as to guide research, Crawford, Jackson and Godbey (1991) developed a conceptual framework to integrate the theory related to constraints. Constraints were identified as three main constructs: interpersonal (e.g., stress, depression, anxiety, perceived self skill); intrapersonal (i.e., lack of an appropriate partner); and structural (e.g., family life cycle, cost, season, opportunity). Furthermore, they argued that the three types of constraints represent a sequential hierarchy of importance from most proximal (intrapersonal) to most distal (structural). However, this conceptual model, has received little empirical testing. Raymore, Godbey, Crawford and von Eye (1993) recognized the need to test and confirm the model for construct validity among a sample of adolescent students. Results confirmed the three constructs as well as hierarchy concept. Alexandris & Carroll (1997) also tested the model and yielded differing results largely due to the sampled population (Greeks) and methodology. Most recently, Pennington-Gray & Kerstetter (in press) provided empirical support with respect to the three constraints construct. To our knowledge, there is a paucity of research in empirical tests of this model; hence this offers us an opportunity to verify the three constructs as outlined by Crawford et al. (1991) in a tourism context. According to Campbell and Fiske (1959) there are two main components of construct validity, convergent (the extent to which particular items load jointly on their hypothesized constructs) and discriminant validity (the extent to which allegedly distinct constructs are capable of being distinguished from one another). Confirmatory factor analysis can be used to assess both components. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to empirically test Crawford et al s. (1991) constraints model for construct validity within the context of visiting parks and public lands among tourists that had previously visited Florida. METHOD In order to achieve the objectives of the study, a nationwide survey of tourists who have visited Florida was conducted via a mail-back survey. The survey population consisted of adults aged 18 or older who permanently resided in the United States. The data was selected from a convenience sample of respondents who have previously answered questionnaires from D.K. Shifflet. The original D.K. Shifflet sample called the Traveler Study is stratified demographically to match the U.S. Census data. This original sample is drawn from a pool of over 700,000 U.S. households every month. They have found in their traveler study that approximately 51% of the households returned their questionnaires and approximately 40% have traveled. A four-page mailback survey was developed for the purpose of gathering representative information from tourists to Florida. Questionnaires were mailed out May 2001 and data were collected until mid June Questionnaires were sent to a select group of households (maintained by D.K. Shifflet & Associates) who agreed to participate in on-going travel research. A total sample of 2659 was collected. In order to assess perceived constraints to visiting parks and public lands, respondents were asked to respond (major reason, minor reason, not a reason, and not sure) to 19 constraint statements. The statements represented the three theoretical constructs of constraints outlined by Crawford, Jackson and Godbey (1991) (intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural). Data were analyzed using the structural equations modeling

4 package, EQS (Bentler, 1999). In practice a measurement model for the observed variables and a causal model for the latent variables are proposed and then fit to the sample covariance matrix using the EQS program. Three measures of overall fit are proposed: the BBN (Bentler Bonett Normed Fit Index), the CFI (comparative fit index) and the RMR (root mean square error). When models fit well the BBN and CFI will fall around.9 and the RMR will produce a low value, indicating a better fit. All parameters should be statistically significant with a significance value greater than These criteria were adopted in this study. RESULTS The sample for this study ranged in age from 25 to 44 (54.1%), earned more than $75,000 (37.8%), and were educated (58.1% had some college and college degree). The majority of households identified themselves as Caucasian (93.5%), while more females (57%) were represented. Approximately 57.3% lived in a suburban area followed by urban area (21.8%). All respondents were from the contiguous U.S. and the majority was from New York State (10.6%), followed by Pennsylvania (7.4%) and Illinois (5.3%). Based on their most recent trip to Florida during the past 12 months, the top activities participated in were swimming in outdoor pools (56.8%), visiting saltwater beaches (54.4%), visiting historical or archeological sites (21.6%), and nature study (21.6%). With respect to descriptive statistics, the constraints that had the most influence on visitors decision not to visit parks and public lands in Florida were, too busy with other activities, did not have enough time, and preference to do other things for recreation. Conversely, the constraints that had minor influence were not enough money, lack of equipment to participate, and lack of family interests (see Table 1).

5 Table 1: Constraint Mean Scores Variable Constraint Statements Mean Score V1 Too busy with other activities 1.48 V2 Don t have enough time 1.59 V3 Like to do other things for recreation 2.12 V4 Lack of information about the parks or their programs 2.23 V5 Companion(s) prefers to do other things 2.34 V6 Don t have enough money 2.44 V7 Don t have the equipment 2.48 V8 Lack of family interests 2.57 V9 Poor weather 2.58 V10 Parks are too crowded 2.59 V11 Fear of crime 2.67 V12 Public parks are too far away 2.68 V13 Have no way to get to the public parks 2.72 V14 No free public facilities available 2.77 V15 Don t have the skills to participate 2.78 V16 Don t have a travel companion 2.82 V17 Don t like to do things outdoors 2.84 V18 Poor health 2.86 V19 The facilities were not well maintained 2.93 Confirmatory factor analysis was used to investigate the validity of the constraints model in a parks and public land context. The actual model was not the same as the hypothesized model. However, the final model provided good fit to the data. The BBB was.88, the CFI was.90 and the RMR was.028. The standardized factor loadings were all greater than.30 and statistically significant. Overall, there was convergent validity of 13 items on 3 constraint constructs. The correlations among the constructs were relatively high, ranging between.44 and.74. A major difference between the hypothesized model and the actual model arose. The difference was that interpersonal constraints did not emerge (see Figure 1).

6 Intrapersonal Constraints Personal Structural Constraints Environmental Structural Constraints V3 V5 V11 V13 V4 V9 V15 V17 V16 V18 V7 V10 V12 Figure 1. A Proposed Constraints Model: People Who Do Not Visit Parks And Public Lands While on Vacation Interpersonal constraints are defined as the result of interpersonal interaction or the relationship between individuals characteristics (Crawford et al., 1991, p. 312). While this was not expected, it may make sense as in the context of vacationing in Florida, trips usually involves groups (families/friends), and hence interpersonal constraints may not be relevant. This finding is contrary to what Pennington-Gray & Kerstetter (in press) found in which, the three constraints dimensions (intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural) did exist within the context of nature-based tourism setting. However, Pennington-Gray & Kerstetter (in press) did note that based on the means (between ) of the dimensions, respondents generally did not feel constrained with respect to visiting nature-based destinations. Although there was a lack of interpersonal constraints, results suggested an identification of three constraints (i.e., intrapersonal, personal structural and environmental structural). Two types of structural constraints, personal and environmental emerged. Personal structural constraints tend to be more associated with the individual than the external environmental setting. For example, fear of crime was identified as a personal structural constraint rather than an intrapersonal constraint. This may make sense because structural constraints are defined as intervening factors between leisure preferences and participation (Crawford et al., 1991, p. 311), and therefore, fear of crime may actually intervene between wanting to participate and actual participation. Conversely, nvironmental structural constraints relate more towards the recreation setting.

7 RESULTS This study provided empirical testing for the validity of a constraint model for tourists to Florida who do not visit parks and public land setting. While the results fail to identify interpersonal constraints, we feel that future efforts should look at additional indicators of interpersonal, intrapersonal and structural constraints. Also, besides the identification of the three constructs (interpersonal, intrapersonal and structural), there may be subsets to the constructs, such as personal and environmental structural constraints. Researchers have documented that some constraints are situational. Could this be true in this context? Are constraints dependent upon activity and/or setting? If parks and public land managers are interested in understanding its current and potential markets, a constraint scale designed specifically for the setting is suggested. REFERENCES Alexandris, K. & Carroll, B. (1997). An analysis of leisure constraints based on different recreational sport participation levels: Results from a study in Greece. Leisure Sciences, 19 (1), Backman, S. (1991). An investigation of the relationship between activity loyalty and perceived constraints. Journal of Leisure Research, 23: Backman, S. & Wright, B. (1990). Identifying perceived constraints to hunting. In B. Smale (Ed.), Leisure Challenges: Bridging people, resources, and policy into play, (pp ). Proceedings of the Sixth Canadian Congress on Leisure Research. Toronto: Ontario Research Council on Leisure. Bentler, P. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, Cordell, K. (1999). Outdoor recreation in american life: A national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore. Crawford, D., Jackson, E. & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, Crotts, J. & Holland, S. (1993). Objective indicators of the impact of rural tourism development in the state of Florida. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(2), Fennell, D. (1999) Ecotourism: An introduction. New York: Routledge. Florida Facts (2000). Retrieved on October 10 th, 2001 from the World Wide Web: Frederick, M. (1992). Tourism as a rural economic development tool: an exploration of the literature. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Goodale, T. & Witt, P. (1989). Recreation non-participation and barriers to leisure. In E. Jackson & T. Burton (Eds.), Understanding leisure and recreation: Mapping the past, charting the future (pp ). State College, PA: Venture.

8 Holland, S. & Holdnak, A. (2001). Florida State Parks Visitors Survey Technical Report for Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Holland, S., Holdnak, A., & Fedler, A. (1996). Florida Park Management Issues: survey of campers. Technical Report for Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Environmental Protection. Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Jackson, E. (1993). Recognizing patterns of leisure constraints: results from alternative analyses. Journal of Leisure Research, 25: Jackson, E. & Dunn, E. (1987). Ceasing participation in leisure activities: An analysis of data from the 1984 public opinion survey on recreation. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Recreation and Parks. Jackson, E. (1987). Activity-specific barriers to recreation participation. Leisure Sciences, 6(1), Kelly, J., & Warnick, R. (1999). Recreation trends and markets. Champaign, IL: Sagamore. Klenosky, D., Gengler, C. & Mulvey, M. (1993). Understanding the factors influencing ski destination choice: a means-end analytic approach. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(4), McCool, S. (1996). Wildlife viewing, natural area protection and community sustainability and resiliency. Natural Areas Journal, 16, McCarville, R. & Smale, B. (1993). Perceived constraints to leisure participation within five activity domains. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 11(2), McGuire, F. (1984). A factor analytic study of leisure constraints in advanced adulthood. Leisure Sciences, 6, National Visitor Use Monitoring Project (2001). Retrieved on September 6 th, 2001 from the World Wide Web: Pennington-Gray, L. & Kerstetter, D. (in press). Testing a constraints model within the context of nature based tourism. Journal of Travel Research. Raymore, L., Godbey, G., Crawford, D. & von Eye, (1993). The nature and process of leisure constraints: An empirical test. Leisure Sciences, 15 (2), Romsa, G. & Hoffman, W. (1980). An application on nonparticipation data in recreation research: Testing the opportunity theory. Journal of Leisure Research, 12(4), Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association. (1997). Human powered recreation: State of the industry report. North Palm Beach, FL: SGMA. Visit Florida. (2001). How s business Special Edition. Unpublished document. October 1 st, 2001.

9 Contact Information: Brijesh Thapa Center for Tourism Research & Development Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism 306 Florida Gym University of Florida Gainesville, FL , USA (352) x1239 (352) fax

Dr. Marian H. Wooten Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation The University of North Carolina at Pembroke

Dr. Marian H. Wooten Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation The University of North Carolina at Pembroke University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Tourism Travel and Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally 2012 ttra International Conference Gender Differences in Travel