Comparing Onsite and Offsite Methods for Measuring Norms for Trail Impacts
Comparing Onsite and Offsite Methods for Measuring Norms for Trail Impacts
复制标题
比较现场和场外测量路径影响标准的方法
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
B. Shelby
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sang;B. Shelby
本研究探讨了现场和场外方法的可比性，测量规范的线索的影响，使用照片/调查技术。共有449名受试者参加了韩国光州Mudeung-Mountain省立公园的研究。对于整体照片评价方法（OPEM），受访者对一系列照片中的每一张照片的裸露土壤面积的可接受性进行了评级。对于特定照片评价方法（SPEM），受访者从一系列10张照片中选择了一张照片，该照片说明了裸露土壤面积的最大可接受比例。总体而言，现场（现场-I游客组在实际的线索点和现场-II离开游客组在出口区调查）和场外（学生在实验室环境中调查）两个规范测量替代品（OPEM和SPEM）组之间的最大可接受的影响没有实质性差异。受试者的难度等级都很低，并且在公园经验水平高和低的个体之间没有实质性差异。在这个特定的研究区域，场外方法似乎可以替代现场方法，这是一个相对简单的娱乐机会范围的前沿设置。最后讨论了研究的意义和进一步的研究方向。
This study examined the comparability of onsite and offsite methods for measuring norms for trail impacts using photo/survey techniques. A total of 449 subjects participated in a study of Mudeung-Mountain Provincial Park, Gwang-Ju, Korea. For the overall photo evaluation method (OPEM), respondents rated the acceptability of bare soil area for each of a series of photographs. For the specific photo evaluation method (SPEM), respondents selected a photograph that illustrated the largest acceptable proportion of bare soil area from a series of 10 photographs. Overall, there were no substantial differences in maximum acceptable impacts between onsite (onsite-I visitor group surveyed at the actual trail points and onsite-II departing visitor group surveyed at the exit area) and offsite (students surveyed in a laboratory setting) groups for the two norm measurement alternatives (OPEM and SPEM). Subjects’ difficulty ratings were low for both methods, and there were no substantial differences in norms between individuals with high and low levels of experience at the park. The offsite method appears to be substitutable for onsite methods in this particular study area, which is a frontcountry setting with a relatively simple range of recreation opportunities. Implications and further studies are discussed.