Comparing Methods for Determining Visitor Evaluations of Ecological Impacts: Site Visits, Photographs, and Written Descriptions

Abstract

This study applies and extends work on landscape assessment by comparing three methods for gathering evaluative data from users of wilderness campsites. On the basis of previous studies, it was hypothesized that evaluations based on photographs and written descriptions would not differ significantly from those based on actual site visits. Thirty respondents were assigned to each measurement method at each of five locations in the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Oregon, and a total of 427 agreed to participate (a 95% response rate). Dependent variables used for method comparisons include acceptability of specific impact, overall desirability of the site as a place to camp, and overall preference ranking of the sites observed. For specific impacts, photographs and written descriptions agreed with site evaluations 90% and 80% of the time, respectively. Evaluation of more general characteristics (desirability and preference) showed less agreement across methods (65 to 80 percent of the time), probably because photos and written descriptions are limited in their ability to convey background and context features. This may be an advantage for evaluation of specific impacts because it prevents background features from interfering with subjects' assessments.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 73 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.