Visitor experiences across recreation settings: A management or measurement issue?

Abstract

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) has been widely applied; however, studies that have examined setting–experience relationships have found mixed results. When studies found significant relationships, they often measured preferences for settings across visitors grouped by similar motivations, whereas studies not finding a relationship often tested motivation scores across ROS classes at the study site. These contradictory results might be a methodological issue. Through an onsite survey at a winter recreation area with distinct ROS-based management areas, we blended aspects of the two approaches by incorporating experience at the site and normative definitions of crowding into our operationalization of experience. Only one of the nine Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scales varied across the three ROS classes at our site, but with a small effect size (.06). However, visitors with higher levels of previous visits were more likely to choose more primitive ROS settings. Analysis of encounters and perceived crowding suggested those preferring the more developed ROS classes had higher normative standards for crowding. Results suggest that while the means of the REP scales might not vary across ROS classes, the desired experience is setting dependent. Future research conducted with site-specific studies should continue to focus on refining the operationalization of experience. Management implicationsThe Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) has been widely applied as a zoning, inventory, planning and management tool, and is a fundamental concept for Experience-Based Management to provide opportunities for a diversity of recreation experiences. Yet research comparing evaluations of the [subjective] experience between users of different zones has produced few significant differences. Our results provide an explanation of previous contradictory findings.Despite the physical differences between ROS classes, users perceive the outcomes remarkably similar, but the production of the experiences is as intended by the management.•Results confirmed the utility of the ROS as a management tool.•Monitoring should expand in scope beyond one single dimension of defining the experience.