IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v178y2025ics1389934125001194.html

Navigating crowds: Reconsidering visitor recreational experience and crowding preference for a forest park in Taiwan

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Wan-Yu
  • Yen, Chin-Chun
  • Lee, Rachel S.K.
  • Lin, Chun-Cheng

Abstract

As forest recreational activities gain popularity, the potential for crowding and activity-based conflicts to diminish sustainable recreational quality becomes a critical concern. Consequently, it is vital to understand the factors shaping recreational preferences and conflict perceptions in natural settings. This study selected Xitou Nature Education Area, Taiwan's most frequented forest park, as a case study to investigate complex relationships among visitor demographics, crowding perceptions, and recreational behaviors. Using a questionnaire and choice experiment, the study explored perceptions of crowding and recreational conflicts within Xitou, alongside visitors' willingness to travel further to avoid crowded conditions. The analysis showed that visitor preferences differed significantly across socioeconomic groups, with age playing a substantial role in shaping motivations and behaviors. While overall perceptions of crowding were moderate, visitors aged 65 and older demonstrated notable tolerance for crowds. Despite the park's high visitation, the incidence of recreational conflict was relatively low, with primary disturbances attributed to visitors resting in various locations, park staff, and group game participants. Contrary to expectations, visitors did not exhibit strong willingness to pay to avoid crowding. Instead, results surprisingly suggested a slight preference for increased social interaction within the park, challenging the general assumption that crowding is always viewed negatively. Drawing from visitor perceptions of overcrowding, we propose enhanced regulations and stricter monitoring for designated resting and picnicking areas to elevate the forest recreation experience. Crucially, this study highlights that effective park management must acknowledge and cater to diverse visitor motivations, whether they seek physical activity, social engagement, or solitude.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Wan-Yu & Yen, Chin-Chun & Lee, Rachel S.K. & Lin, Chun-Cheng, 2025. "Navigating crowds: Reconsidering visitor recreational experience and crowding preference for a forest park in Taiwan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:178:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125001194
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125001194
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103540?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Bixia & Nakama, Yuei & Zhang, Yaoqi, 2017. "Traditional village forest landscapes: Tourists' attitudes and preferences for conservation," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 652-662.
    2. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    3. Zhang, Fan & Wang, Xiao Hua & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Ma, Chunbo, 2015. "The recreational value of gold coast beaches, Australia: An application of the travel cost method," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 106-114.
    4. Fitalew Agimass Taye & Jens Abildtrup & Marius Mayer & Milan Scasny & Niels Strange & Thomas Lundhede, 2019. "Childhood experience in forest recreation practices : Evidence from nine European countries," Post-Print hal-02444467, HAL.
    5. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    6. Jacobsen, Jens Kr. Steen & Iversen, Nina M. & Hem, Leif E., 2019. "Hotspot crowding and over-tourism: Antecedents of destination attractiveness," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 53-66.
    7. Murphy, Martin & Cullen, Paula & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Ní Dhubháin, Áine, 2024. "A natural experiment: Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon forest recreation use and preferences in Ireland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    8. Erkki Mäntymaa & Ville Ovaskainen & Artti Juutinen & Liisa Tyrväinen, 2018. "Integrating nature-based tourism and forestry in private lands under heterogeneous visitor preferences for forest attributes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(4), pages 724-746, March.
    9. Davies, Helen J. & Doick, Kieron J. & Hudson, Malcolm D. & Schaafsma, Marije & Schreckenberg, Kate & Valatin, Gregory, 2018. "Business attitudes towards funding ecosystem services provided by urban forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 159-169.
    10. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks & Kenneth McConnell, 2015. "Densities Rather than Shares: Improving the Measurement of Congestion in Recreation Demand Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(2), pages 127-140, June.
    11. Andreas Skriver Hansen & Thomas Beery & Peter Fredman & Daniel Wolf-Watz, 2023. "Outdoor recreation in Sweden during and after the COVID-19 pandemic – management and policy implications," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 66(7), pages 1472-1493, June.
    12. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, Enero-Abr.
    13. Needham, Mark D. & Little, Christopher M., 2013. "Voluntary environmental programs at an alpine ski area: Visitor perceptions, attachment, value orientations, and specialization," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 70-81.
    14. Scarpa, Riccardo & Hutchinson, W. George & Chilton, Susan M. & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2000. "Importance of forest attributes in the willingness to pay for recreation: a contingent valuation study of Irish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3-4), pages 315-329, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sacher, Philipp & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mayer, Marius, 2022. "Evidence of the association between deadwood and forest recreational site choices," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    2. Murphy, Martin & Cullen, Paula & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Ní Dhubháin, Áine, 2024. "A natural experiment: Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon forest recreation use and preferences in Ireland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    3. King, Peter M. & Dallimer, Martin & Lundhede, Thomas & Austen, Gail E. & Fisher, Jessica C. & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fish, Robert D. & Davies, Zoe G., 2025. "Stated preferences for the colours, smells, and sounds of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    4. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    5. Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim & Tu, Gengyang & Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Whittle, Colin, 2022. "Household acceptability of energy efficiency policies in the European Union: Policy characteristics trade-offs and the role of trust in government and environmental identity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    6. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    7. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Yahya, Nurul & Musa, Rusmani, 2013. "Status Quo Effect and Preferences Uncertainty: A Heteroscedastic Extreme Value (HEV) Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 47(1), pages 163-172.
    8. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    9. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    10. repec:eid:wpaper:7/09 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. van der Kroon, Bianca & Brouwer, Roy & van Beukering, Pieter J.H., 2014. "The impact of the household decision environment on fuel choice behavior," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 236-247.
    12. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    13. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    15. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    16. Jegnie, Alemken & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael P., "undated". "Boat-based and other recreational fishing in Western Australia: Analysis of site choice, access values and bag limit effects," Working Papers 257167, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    17. Vásquez Lavin, Felipe & Barrientos, Manuel & Castillo, Álvaro & Herrera, Iván & Ponce Oliva, Roberto D., 2020. "Firewood certification programs: Key attributes and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    18. Guimarães, Maria Helena & Nunes, Luís Catela & Madureira, Lívia & Santos, José Lima & Boski, Tomasz & Dentinho, Tomaz, 2015. "Measuring birdwatchers preferences: A case for using online networks and mixed-mode surveys," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 102-113.
    19. Martínez-Jauregui, María & White, Piran C.L. & Touza, Julia & Soliño, Mario, 2019. "Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Cheng Zong & Kun Cheng & Chun-Hung Lee & Nai-Lun Hsu, 2017. "Capturing Tourists’ Preferences for the Management of Community-Based Ecotourism in a Forest Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.
    21. Yu-Hui Chen & Kai-Han Qiu & Kang Ernest Liu & Chun-Yuan Chiang, 2020. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay a Premium for Pure Rice Noodles? A Study of Discrete Choice Experiments in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:178:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125001194. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.