Abstract
Two visitor-monitoring methods, video monitoring and counts by human observers, were compared in order to identify and evaluate their respective advantages and disadvantages. The analysis considered user numbers, user type (walkers, dog walkers, bicyclists, and joggers) and group size of visitors. Remarkable differences were found between the two methods for user type and use levels. At low use levels, evaluations based on video monitoring resulted in fewer single bicyclists compared to counts by human observers, whereas at high use levels, human observers counted fewer walkers and bikers than video-interpreters. Based on this comparative analysis, we derive recommendations for more effective visitor-monitoring approaches. All data were collected during a visitor-monitoring project in the Danube Floodplains National Park in Austria between 1998 and 1999.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
