Members Platform

Email Address:
Password:
Forgot your password?

Public perception of park benefits and market repositioning of park agencies

 

This research was presented in the following publications and several technical reports and an Annotated Bibliography. Author copies of all these are available from ecoresearcher@online.ms

Weiler, B., Moyle, B. D., Wolf, I. D., de Bie, K., & Torland, M. (2016). Assessing the Efficacy of Communication Interventions for Shifting Public Perceptions of Park Benefits. Journal of Travel Research, 0047287516646472.

Torland, M., Weiler, B., Moyle, B. D., & Wolf, I. D. (2015). Are your ducks in a row? External and internal stakeholder perceptions of the benefits of parks in New South Wales, Australia. Managing Sport and Leisure, 20(4), 211-237.

Moyle, B. D., Weiler, B., & Moore, S. A. (2014). Benefits that matter to managers: an exploratory study of three national park management agencies. Managing Leisure, 19(6), 400-419.

Background of study and methods

I have established this research for the Office of Environment and Heritage as a collaborative 3-year ARC-affiliated project with Southern Cross University on the "Testing and Shifting the Market Position Occupied by Australian Park Agencies" with two other Australian park agencies, Parks Victoria (PV) and the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPW) WA.

The main aim of this research was to increase the importance that our parks hold in society by better understanding how parks and protected areas are perceived by the public. This knowledge can assist our agency in better connecting with the needs of the Australian community and building a constituency for parks.

As a pre-cursor to the research, a cross-section of previous studies was gathered for a selected annotated bibliography of research on the benefits of parks, providing a synopsis for each of 244 publications on the benefits of tourism, leisure and recreation in parks and the (re-)positioning parks in the eye of the customer.

Question 1: Which attributes capture the benefits of recreation in and conservation of parks (image) that the agency desires to project? (report PDF 7.6 MB)

• Thirty-nine benefits were identified from directors/managers' interviews across the three park agencies including: personal experiential benefits (e.g., socialise with friends and family, relax and unwind), personal higher-order benefits (e.g., achieve physical health, connect with nature) that last beyond the on-site experience, societal/community-wide benefits (e.g., provision of green spaces, generation of employment).

Fig. 1 Benefits that three Australian park agencies wish to convey to the public.

Question 2: What are the constituent publics’ perceptions of parks and where are the gaps between the image a park agency desires to project and its perceptions?

This research produced insights on the public's perceptions broken down by demographics and other visitor characteristics, and the agency's aspirations, and any gaps in-between. It also highlighted differences between the three Australian park agencies participating in this research. It can be used to guide future survey instrument design to capture public perceptions of park benefits.

• When viewing the results by demographics, most notably, visitors’ (those who visited a park in the last 12 months) perceptions of benefits were significantly and dramatically more positive than non-visitors on all but one of the 39 benefit items. Key implication is that visiting parks is important for creating positive perceptions about the personal experiential and higher-order as well as broader community benefits of parks. Also respondents over 30 and females showed more favourable perceptions for many of the benefits while perceptions of benefits were largely the same regardless of place of residence (urban or regional).

Fig. 2 Personal Experiential Benefits
Ratings (1 = very low; 7 = very high) of perceived benefits by park visitors vs. non visitors

Fig. 3 Personal Higher-Order Benefits – Park Visitation
Ratings (1 = very low; 7 = very high) of perceived benefits by park visitors vs. non visitors

Fig. 4 Societal/Community-Wide Benefits – Park Visitation
Ratings (1 = very low; 7 = very high) of perceived benefits by park visitors vs. non visitors

• Notable gaps were discovered between community perceptions and executive/directors' aspirations and the size of the gaps differed for segments of the community. Gaps represent benefit items where targeted interventions may be useful to reduce current gaps, and thus improve OEH’s market position:

• OEH executive/directors' ratings of desired projected benefits were in most instances higher than the public’s perceptions of benefits, especially for access to natural experiences; learning about nature, culture and heritage; connecting with heritage; connecting with culture; improved fire management; protection of biological diversity; and conservation of heritage.

• Large gaps were noted between Gen Y respondents (18-29 year olds) and executive/directors' perceptions of the benefits of visiting parks. In all instances Gen Y perceptions were less favourable than those of the OEH executive/directors. Specific benefit items where significant gaps occurred included a number of items surrounding the theme of 'culture and heritage'.

Question 3: How useful are trial interventions aimed at influencing communities' perceptions, with the aim of re-positioning the agency in the minds of the NSW (and VIC) communities regarding the benefits of providing for recreation in and conservation of parks?

For this purpose community members were shown parts of the NPWS visitor-friendly website and their perceptions of park benefits evaluated pre- and post intervention.

• Exposing the NSW community to the website achieved that community members perceived parks significantly more positively after the intervention.