IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v80y2019icp246-258.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characterizing outdoor recreation user groups: A typology of peri-urban recreationists in the Kromme Rijn area, the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Komossa, Franziska
  • van der Zanden, Emma H.
  • Verburg, Peter H.

Abstract

Increasing urbanization accompanied by a growing demand for recreational use of peri-urban green spaces is likely to cause land-use conflicts. The nature of these conflicts is subject to the heterogeneous preferences of outdoor recreationists. Although the importance of diversifying between recreational user groups has been acknowledged in the literature, most studies - and especially studies on landscape preferences - focus on specific user groups and are not operationalized for creating a recreationist typology. This study presents a typology on case-study level accounting for variations in landscape preferences, visitation behavior, and socio-demographic information. The typology is based on data originating from a structured questionnaire with a total of 200 respondents. It is constructed by employing two commonly used data-driven methods for typology development: PCA of preferences for landscape characteristics and cluster analysis of all data (landscape preferences, visitation behavior and socio-economic variables) to derive alternative typologies. Comparing the results of both types of analysis leads to a consistent picture of the main differences between three distinct outdoor recreation user groups which we refer to as ‘the convenience recreationist’, ‘the day tripper’ and ‘the culture/nature recreationist’. The first user group prefers convenient, short-term recreation, close to home. The second group is characterized by clear preferences for one-day recreational activities and destinations, while the last group is mainly defined by its strong interest in culture and nature. Our study identified large variations in outdoor recreation preferences and recreation needs between these three user groups. Understanding the heterogeneity of recreation preferences can help to articulate effective landscape management strategies, targeted to ensure the multi-functional character of peri-urban landscapes for different types of users.

Suggested Citation

  • Komossa, Franziska & van der Zanden, Emma H. & Verburg, Peter H., 2019. "Characterizing outdoor recreation user groups: A typology of peri-urban recreationists in the Kromme Rijn area, the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 246-258.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:246-258
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717316836
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.017?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elands, Birgit H.M. & Lengkeek, Jaap, 2012. "The tourist experience of out-there-ness: theory and empirical research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 31-38.
    2. Gottfried, Robert & Wear, David & Lee, Robert, 1996. "Institutional solutions to market failure on the landscape scale," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 133-140, August.
    3. Artti Juutinen & Anna-Kaisa Kosenius & Ville Ovaskainen & Anne Tolvanen & Liisa Tyrväinen, 2017. "Heterogeneous preferences for recreation-oriented management in commercial forests: the role of citizens’ socioeconomic characteristics and recreational profiles," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(3), pages 399-418, March.
    4. Eugene E. Ezebilo & Mattias Boman & Leif Mattsson & Anders Lindhagen & Werner Mbongo, 2015. "Preferences and willingness to pay for close to home nature for outdoor recreation in Sweden," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(2), pages 283-296, February.
    5. Arne Arnberger & Renate Eder, 2011. "Exploring the Heterogeneity of Rural Landscape Preferences: An Image-Based Latent Class Approach," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 19-40, February.
    6. Rambonilaza, Tina, 2005. "Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiments method?," MPRA Paper 9225, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2007.
    7. Ambrose-Oji, Bianca & Lawrence, Anna & Stewart, Amy, 2015. "Community based forest enterprises in Britain: Two organising typologies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 65-74.
    8. Fish, Robert & Church, Andrew & Winter, Michael, 2016. "Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 208-217.
    9. Devesa, María & Laguna, Marta & Palacios, Andrés, 2010. "The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 547-552.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Boudreaux, Greg & Lupi, Frank & Sohngen, Brent & Xu, Alan, 2023. "Measuring beachgoer preferences for avoiding harmful algal blooms and bacterial warnings," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    2. Siyu Jiang & Jiang Liu, 2024. "Comparative Study of Cultural Landscape Perception in Historic Districts from the Perspectives of Tourists and Residents," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Rannveig Ólafsdóttir & Anna Dóra Sæþórsdóttir, 2020. "Public Perception of Wilderness in Iceland," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Ustaoglu, E. & Sisman, S. & Aydınoglu, A.C., 2021. "Determining agricultural suitable land in peri-urban geography using GIS and Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 455(C).
    5. Ghasemi, Mitra & Charrahy, Zabih & González-García, Alberto, 2023. "Mapping cultural ecosystem services provision: An integrated model of recreation and ecotourism opportunities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    6. Maram Tawil & Yasemin Utku & Kawthar Alrayyan & Christa Reicher, 2019. "Revierparks as an integrated green network in Germany: An option for Amman?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-24, December.
    7. Enrico Gottero & Claudia Cassatella & Federica Larcher, 2021. "Planning Peri-Urban Open Spaces: Methods and Tools for Interpretation and Classification," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-19, July.
    8. Gabriella Vindigni & Alexandros Mosca & Tommaso Bartoloni & Daniela Spina, 2021. "Shedding Light on Peri-Urban Ecosystem Services Using Automated Content Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-17, August.

    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. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    2. van Zanten, Boris T. & Verburg, Peter H. & Scholte, S.S.K. & Tieskens, K.F., 2016. "Using choice modeling to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale: Lessons from a Dutch case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 221-231.
    3. Chen, Chun-Chu & Huang, Wei-Jue & Petrick, James F., 2016. "Holiday recovery experiences, tourism satisfaction and life satisfaction – Is there a relationship?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 140-147.
    4. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    5. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    6. Dimitris Karagiannis & Meletios Andrinos, 2021. "The Role of Sustainable Restaurant Practices in City Branding: The Case of Athens," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Ros & Church, Andrew, 2016. "Deliberative Democratic Monetary Valuation to implement the Ecosystem Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 308-318.
    8. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    10. Hattam, Caroline & Broszeit, Stefanie & Langmead, Olivia & Praptiwi, Radisti A. & Ching Lim, Voon & Creencia, Lota A. & Duc Hau, Tran & Maharja, Carya & Wulandari, Prawesti & Mitra Setia, Tatang & Sug, 2021. "A matrix approach to tropical marine ecosystem service assessments in South east Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    11. María Redondo-Carretero & Carmen Camarero-Izquierdo & Ana Gutiérrez-Arranz & Javier Rodríguez-Pinto, 2017. "Language tourism destinations: a case study of motivations, perceived value and tourists’ expenditure," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 41(2), pages 155-172, May.
    12. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Juutinen, Artti & Tyrväinen, Liisa & Karhu, Jouni & Kurttila, Mikko, 2018. "Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest landscape conservation: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 14-24.
    13. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    14. Torres-Sovero, Claudia & González, José A. & Martín-López, Berta & Kirkby, Christopher A., 2012. "Social–ecological factors influencing tourist satisfaction in three ecotourism lodges in the southeastern Peruvian Amazon," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 545-552.
    15. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    16. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.
    17. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    18. Deal, Robert L. & Cochran, Bobby & LaRocco, Gina, 2012. "Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 69-76.
    19. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: towards a better understanding of rural landscape preferences," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108956, Agricultural Economics Society.
    20. Tagliafierro, C. & Boeri, M. & Longo, A. & Hutchinson, W.G., 2016. "Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 11-22.

    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:lauspo:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:246-258. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.