IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envman/v36y2005i2d10.1007_s00267-004-8201-6.html

Evaluating Visitor-Monitoring Techniques: A Comparison of Counting and Video Observation Data

Author

Listed:
  • Arne Arnberger

    (BOKU - University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Institute for Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning)

  • Wolfgang Haider

    (Simon Fraser University, School of Resource and Environmental Management)

  • Christiane Brandenburg

    (BOKU—University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Institute for Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning)

Abstract

Two visitor-monitoring methods, video monitoring and counts by human observers, were compared in order to identify and evaluate their respective advantages and disadvantages. The analysis considered user numbers, user type (walkers, dog walkers, bicyclists, and joggers) and group size of visitors. Remarkable differences were found between the two methods for user type and use levels. At low use levels, evaluations based on video monitoring resulted in fewer single bicyclists compared to counts by human observers, whereas at high use levels, human observers counted fewer walkers and bikers than video-interpreters. Based on this comparative analysis, we derive recommendations for more effective visitor-monitoring approaches. All data were collected during a visitor-monitoring project in the Danube Floodplains National Park in Austria between 1998 and 1999.

Suggested Citation

  • Arne Arnberger & Wolfgang Haider & Christiane Brandenburg, 2005. "Evaluating Visitor-Monitoring Techniques: A Comparison of Counting and Video Observation Data," Environmental Management, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 317-327, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envman:v:36:y:2005:i:2:d:10.1007_s00267-004-8201-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s00267-004-8201-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00267-004-8201-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00267-004-8201-6?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
    ---><---

    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:spr:envman:v:36:y:2005:i:2:d:10.1007_s00267-004-8201-6. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.