Members Platform

Email Address:
Password:
Forgot your password?

How to use persuasive communication to encourage visitors to pay park user fees

This research was presented in the following publication. Author copies are available from ecoresearcher@online.ms

Steckenreuter, A. & Wolf, I.D. (2013). How to use persuasive communication to encourage visitors to pay park user fees. Tourism Management 37, 58–70.

Background of study

Park user fees (PUF) are well established in protected areas worldwide to generate financial revenue for the provision and maintenance of visitor facilities and the conservation and management of park estate.

In order to encourage visitors to pay PUF, parks can manage visitor behaviour both directly by introducing reminder notices and fines or indirectly by educating visitors to comply with established regulations. Persuasive communication is generally a well-proved tool for indirect management of visitors and has in the past been used to encourage visitors to stay on designated trails, pick up litter, and support environmental conservation actions.

The objectives of this study were to determine if and how persuasive communication can encourage visitors to pay PUF, and what factors influence people's fee paying behaviour.

Methods

This research employed Ham et al.’s (2009) approach to developing effective persuasive messages for park signage to increase visitor compliance with paying PUF. The central idea in this approach is that messages that are relevant to the park visitor community, and are easy to process, are likely to motivate people to elaborate and consequently act upon them.
There were three steps involved to develop effective persuasive messages for PUF signage, each delivered as part of a visitor survey:

• Belief elicitation phase: to determine the most common (salient) visitor beliefs about paying PUF.

• Belief measurement phase: to determine which of the salient beliefs differentiate compliers from non-compliers. Persuasive messages need to target salient beliefs that differentiate compliers from non-compliers in order to make non-compliers think and consequently act more like compliers.

• Belief intervention evaluation phase: to test the effectiveness of different persuasive messages at increasing visitor compliance.

Visitor surveys were conducted at the Kurnell Peninsula Headland of the Kamay Botany Bay National Park.

Question 1: What are the salient beliefs about paying park user fees (belief elicitation phase)?

The first survey identified 25 beliefs that visitors associated with paying PUF. In accordance with Ajzen’s (1991) 'Theory of Planned Behaviour' these were classified into three belief categories that immediately underlie people's behavioural intention and hence strongly influence their decision towards or against a specific behaviour.

• Behavioural beliefs about the likely outcomes of visitors’ behaviour and their positive or negative judgement about each of these outcomes,

• Normative beliefs about the opinion of others of personal importance (e.g., friends, authorities) and people's motivation to comply with their wishes, and

• Control beliefs about situational and internal factors that facilitate or impede a specific behaviour.

From the range of 25 beliefs, only those salient beliefs were chosen for inclusion in the next study phase that tended to differ between compliers and non-compliers and that could likely be influenced through persuasive communication.

Question 2: Which beliefs differ between compliers and non compliers (belief measurement phase)?

Four differentiating beliefs were identified across two belief categories:

 

Question 3: How effective is persuasive communication at encouraging visitors to pay PUF (belief intervention evaluation phase)?

Two persuasive messages were developed for signage targeting the differentiating beliefs, which was set up at parking meters clearly visible from a passing vehicle.
Visitors were surveyed on days

• Without signage (control), and

• With signage displayed containing message 1 (see next section), or

• With signage displayed containing message 2 (see next section).

The non-compliance rate was reduced by nearly 50% through message 1:

 

The decrease in non-compliance from 32% to 17% was driven primarily (73%) by an increase in the percentage of annual passes from 26% to 37% and to a minor extent by an increase in daily parking tickets from 41% to 46%.

Question 4: What are the important elements of PUF signage that may encourage visitor compliance?

Message 1 and 2 were both effective

• Both targeted salient differentiating beliefs through text, imagery, and branding.

• Used prominent and easy-to-process elements (catchy title and sub-title). Such visual elements are critical in compliance situations where visitors need to make an instant decisions as to whether or not to comply. In these eye-catching elements, differentiating beliefs need to be targeted and the desired behaviour ('contribution of $7.00') clearly conveyed.

• Displayed imagery from the park where the signage was established to facilitate recognition among visitors and suggest that fees benefit the park they were visiting.

• Promoted benefits attainable from visiting parks such as enjoyment of flora/fauna/landscapes.

• Displayed clear pay instructions/options.

Message 1 was more effective

• Targeted both normative and behavioural differentiating beliefs. Existing park signage with a single focus on behavioural beliefs would likely benefit from also targeting normative beliefs, apart from the standard NPWS branding.

• Used an additional eye-catching box to target a normative belief, namely that of the local community ('Locals for Locals').

   

 

Further recommendations for design of park signage

• Salient differentiating beliefs associated with a particular behaviour may vary between parks. When new signage is established or old signage replaced, it is recommended that at least a brief belief elicitation phase be carried out to scope for the range of salient beliefs and to target those beliefs that show a tendency to differ between compliers and non-compliers.

• This could involve undertaking a visitor survey (as described in Ham et al (2009)) followed by message design in accordance with the aforementioned recommendations. Prop signage with exchangeable messages could be used to select the most efficient message prior to establishing permanent signs. Where insufficient resources prohibit such an assessment, message 1 could be used as a template but subject to inclusion of individual park imagery.

• Visitors may need to be exposed to the messaging repeatedly within the same park and where possible these messages should be integrated on other promotional material.

Other factors that influence PUF paying behaviour and recommendations

Factor	Behaviour	Action
Visitors who felt attached to KBBNP, who come frequently and are locals	Likely to pay	Foster place attachment without suggesting a sense of park ownership. Important to emphasize the opportunity to care for the land and contribute to the community by paying PUF.
Visitors who perceive that they attain benefits from using KBBNP and a proper return of their investment	Likely to pay	Advertise benefits (signage/elsewhere); remind/alert visitors of what they get for paying PUF. Deliver on promise = showcase return of investment.
Visitors who had no intention to pay even before arriving at the park, who had a direct negative attitude towards PUF, and those who previously had not paid	Likely not to pay	Persuasive communication primarily targets spontaneous compliers and persistent compliers. There may still be a group of persistent non-compliers that are difficult to target. Focus on price fairness and pricing schemes.

 

In open-ended feedback, visitors also suggested half-day and hourly PUF options along with student concessions.

Visitors stated that they favour a transparent and consistent pricing scheme that explains what PUF are used for. If return of investment is perceived to be the same in different parks, then pricing should be the same.