Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU 12-2019 Current and Historic Visitor Experiences in Coastal Alaskan Wilderness: Visitor Motivations and Experience Quality in Glacier Bay Nati
Global visitation to parks and protected areas (PPAs) has risen for decades and continues to grow This sustained increase places greater pressure on natural resources, elevating the risk of ecological degradation and potentially diminishing the quality of the visitor experience.
A balance must be found between preserving the naturalness of PPAs (protected park areas) and delivering meaningful visitor experiences To manage PPAs effectively, it is essential to understand who visits them, what motivates them, and the overall quality of their experience, as these factors inform management decisions about potential social and resource impacts.
Recreational areas attract diverse user groups, and many factors—such as socio-demographic characteristics—shape visitor behavior Among these factors, motivations and satisfaction stand out as two essential elements that influence how recreationists choose activities, interact with the environment, and assess their overall experiences.
Understanding visitor motivations is valuable for park managers because it reveals how individuals think and decide, shaping both the well-being of park resources and the quality of visitors’ experiences (Devesa, Laguna, & Palacios, 2010; Manning, 2011) Clark and Stankey (1979) contend that knowing what motivates visitors enables managers to tailor opportunities to the diverse recreational experiences they seek Although many studies have linked outdoor recreationists’ motivations to the activity type (e.g., Daigle, Hrubes, & Ajzen, 2002; Oishi, 2013; Sotomayer, Barbieri, Stanis, Aguilar, & Smith, 2014), relatively few examine motivation as a predictor of visitor behavior.
A logical next step in improving PPAs’ management is to assess the visitor experience through satisfaction and quality assessments, giving visitors an avenue to share concerns, ideas, and opinions with management The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 was designed to measure and report productivity, with a particular emphasis on visitor satisfaction In recreation and tourism research, satisfaction and quality of experience have been extensively studied However, these measures are often coarse, requiring specific indicators to reliably capture sensitive and relevant results While understanding the quality of experiences reported by current visitors is essential for effective management, analyzing historical trends can also yield valuable planning insights.
Motivation theory, rooted in social psychology, helps explain why motives drive behavior and why motivation matters for understanding outdoor recreation experiences Motives are thought to develop when individuals anticipate that an action could lead to satisfaction in an outdoor setting (Iso-Ahola, 1982) Iso-Ahola identifies two main motivational forces linked to overall satisfaction in outdoor recreation: approach (seeking rewards) and avoidance (escaping routines) Approach is connected to intrinsic rewards like adventure, while avoidance involves seeking solitude or renewal by leaving daily life behind In tourism research, scholars describe motivation in terms of push and pull factors, where push factors are internal values or emotions and pull factors are external attractions such as natural landscapes and wildlife (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977, 1981).
Decades later, foundational ideas from Devesa et al (2010) and Klenosky (2002) continue to shape contemporary research on visitor motivation For example, Alshammari and Kim (2019) examined how visitor motivations influence cognitive evaluations during a festival in Saudi Arabia, framing motivation in terms of approach (seeking) and avoidance (escape) Similarly, Hassell, Moore, and Macbeth (2015) identified push factors—escape, disconnection, and self-identity—and pull factors—experiencing nature, aesthetics, and creating self-image—as key motivators for camping in Western Australian national parks While terminology varies across studies, the overarching aim remains the same: the expectation of a satisfying experience that drives visitor behavior.
Motivations among diverse recreational user groups have been examined using open-ended questions and the Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scale developed by Driver and colleagues to better measure why people recreate and the potential outcomes of participation The REP scale has been refined and empirically tested to determine its reliability and validity, with foundational work by Rosenthal, Waldman, and Driver and later by Manfredo, Driver, and Tarrant In survey research, respondents rate the importance of items representing possible motivations, and data are analyzed to derive motivational constructs based on theory and interpretation Recognizing that recreational user groups vary in preferred outdoor activity, socioeconomic/demographic characteristics, attitudes toward management, and motivations for recreating (Manning & Lime, 2000), understanding recreation behavior is typically approached through phases such as experience preferences or motivations (Driver et al., 1991), phases of engagement (Hammitt, 1980), and processes of evaluation (Stewart & Hull, 1992).
Researchers developed the behavioral approach to outdoor recreation to explain what motivates people to recreate, building on Driver and Brown (1978) and Haas et al (1980) This framework identifies four levels of demand: the demand for specific activities, the settings where these activities occur, the motivations or desired psychological outcomes, and the higher-order benefits that follow a satisfying experience Although higher-order benefits are part of the model, most studies focus on the first three demands because these benefits tend to be abstract and difficult to measure (Manning, 2011) To explore these demands, researchers often examine how motivations relate to other constructs; for example, Vogelsong, Graefe, Confer, Solan, and Kramp (1998) investigated relationships among activities, settings, and motivations across the Delaware State Park System, finding that motivations differ significantly between user groups but show only subtle differences based on site location (historic, suburban, pond, and seashore).
A National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) conducted by Graefe, Schuster, Green, and Cordell (2010) examined how recreational activity choices relate to setting choices and motivations, analyzing thirteen motivations for outdoor participation across distinct natural settings such as coastal waters, forests, and deserts The study found only slight differences between the importance of motivations for selecting a setting versus an activity, and the motivations with the highest mean importance scores were similar across all study activities (p 262) A follow-up study at Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming (Newman, Taff, Newton, & Abbott, 2015) sought to better understand visitor dimensions, including motivations, to inform visitor use management strategies.
In a similar vein, understanding differences between visitor types has been a topic of interest in recreation research as well, specifically focused on differences based on motivations In order to determine these differences, many studies cluster recreationists accordingly Pan and Ryan (2007) investigated visitor motivations and satisfaction at Pirongia Forest Park, New Zealand, and found five different types of visitors using a cluster analysis Graefe, Thapa, Confer, & Absher (2000) studied wilderness users in Allegheny National Forest, Pennsylvania, finding subtle differences between user types and their motivations for visiting Ultimately, understanding motivations can help explain visitor use and behavior within and between activities and settings, which in turn help inform management
With motivation literature reaching back to the 1960s, it is important to acknowledge and explore potential historic trends within this field The study of leisure/recreation began with determining what exactly recreation meant Neulinger
Early work (1974) suggested that leisure comprises two dimensions: perceived freedom and intrinsic motivation, while Csikszentmihalyi (1975) found an experience to be leisure when there are challenges and participants lose track of time A few years later, Stebbins (1982, 1997) argued for a distinction between ‘casual’ and ‘serious’ leisure, with recreationists engaging in shorter, more novice experiences versus more complex, challenging ones As researchers defined leisure/recreation, the question of measurement emerged, with motivation becoming a common metric; Tinsley and Kass (1978) proposed 44 leisure/recreation needs, later reduced to eight motivation categories: self-expression, companionship, power, compensation, security, service, intellectual estheticism, and solitude In the same period, Driver and associates developed the REP scales to assist managers of outdoor recreation areas, narrowing the constructs to 19; Manfredo et al (1996) further reduced these to 11 constructs: achievement, autonomy, similar people, new people, learning, enjoying nature, introspection, social escape, physical escape, teaching, and risk reduction.
In a 2011 study, Dillard and Bates reexamined leisure motivation to determine whether a unified theory of leisure and recreation could be articulated and which factors most effectively explain why people choose to engage in recreational activity They distilled four core motivations from 41 identified in prior literature: escape, relationship enhancement, personal mastery, and the drive to win To organize these motivations, they developed a perceptual map with two dimensions—activity participation (self versus with others) and benefit attained (the experience versus the results) Their findings provide strong validation of earlier work on leisure/recreation motivations and indicate that the core values proposed previously remain central While the use of motivations to understand visitor behavior has evolved over time, the fundamental concepts have stayed remarkably stable.
Principal component analysis (PCA) has been used to reduce scale items and yield more interpretable motivational constructs in tourism research In north-central Kenya, Beh and Bruyere (2007) applied PCA to visitor motivations at three national reserves, extracting eight factors—escape, culture, personal growth, mega-fauna, adventure, learning, nature, and general viewing—and then used cluster analysis to classify visitors A similar PCA approach was applied by Alexandris, Kouthouris, Funk, and Giovani (2009) among recreational skiers at a Greek resort, using a tailored REP scale to derive seven motivational dimensions: escape, social recognition, enjoying nature, excitement/risk, socialization, skill development, and achievement, followed by clustering to identify distinct groups More recently, Miller, Rice, Taff, and Newman (2018) examined motivations at the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site in Georgia with REP items, reducing 30 variables to seven constructs: Jimmy Carter, southern and rural history, visiting all presidential historic sites, social bonding, escape from everyday life, reflective experience, and presidential life and contributions Across these studies, PCA, often accompanied by cluster analysis, captures both universal and site- or activity-specific motivational constructs, suggesting that core values may stay constant while the interpretability and application of the data shift with place, time, and the potential impacts under consideration.
GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK & PRESERVE
Over a 40-year longitudinal study of visitors to parks and protected areas (PPAs), this research investigates how motivations and experience quality shape recreation in an open‑water, dispersed environment with few constraints on travel and activity The study uses six visitor groups surveyed via intercept surveys, identifies eight motivations through principal component analysis, and forms three motivation‑based clusters with K‑means, to develop and test indicators for evaluating experience quality that can inform management decisions Results show generally high‑quality experiences with limited detractions, with statistically detectable but subtle differences in motivations and experience quality across activity types Historical comparisons reveal enduring motivations—glacial experiences, natural connection and renewal, and solitude—while social detractions persist in litter, cruise ships, and propeller‑driven aircraft, and the visitor profile shifts toward older, highly educated, wealthier travelers These findings underscore the need for tailored opportunities and measured indicators to sustain meaningful experiences in dispersed, open‑water PPAs.
Keywords: Visitor motivations, quality of experience, historic trends, Alaskan coastal park
Visitation to parks and protected areas (PPAs) worldwide has risen for decades and continues to increase (Machlis & Tichnell, 2019) Effective management of these areas requires protecting natural resources while delivering meaningful visitor experiences (Moore, Rodger, & Taplin, 2015; Newsome, Moore, & Dowling, 2012) A range of visitor characteristics influence visitor behavior and satisfaction, with visitor motivations and the overall quality of experiences being particularly influential Understanding visitor motivations helps managers grasp the variety of experiences visitors seek while recreating (Clark & Stankey, 1979) Although many studies have explored the relationship between outdoor recreationists’ motivations and their activity types (Daigle, Hrubes, & Ajzen, 2002; Hassell, Moore, & Macbeth, 2015; Oishi, 2013; Sotomayer, Barbieri, Stanis, Aguilar, & Smith, 2014), relatively few examine motivation as a predictor of visitor behavior.
Driver and associates developed the Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scale to gauge recreationists’ motivations for visiting and experiencing a place; through refinement and testing its reliability and validity have been demonstrated, and PCA has helped extract interpretable motivational constructs Beh and Bruyere (2007) used PCA with visitors to three national reserves in north-central Kenya, yielding eight factors, while Alexandris, Kouthouris, Funk, and Giovani (2009) applied a similar approach to recreational skiers in a Greek resort, and Miller, Rice, Taff, and Newman (2018) examined visitor motivations at a National Historic Site using REP items PCA often uncovers both universal and site- or activity-specific motivations Anderson and Fulton (2008) propose that the REP scale can be used not only to measure motivations but also to identify potential outcomes of participation Identifying motivations facilitates the development of quality indicators that can be used to evaluate the visitor experience (Newman, Taff, Newton, & Abbott, 2015; Tian-Cole, Crompton, & Willson, 2002).
Assessing the overall quality of a visitor’s experience reveals which experiential components or management approaches are effective and where improvements are needed Although satisfaction has long served as the proxy for quality in recreation, research suggests that the quality of the experience itself is a strong predictor of experiential satisfaction, and that higher-quality experiences tend to yield higher levels of satisfaction This focus on experience quality has been widely explored in the recreation and tourism literature, with numerous studies documenting the links between experience quality, satisfaction, and related outcomes.
Zhen (2009) notes that whether we examine satisfaction or the quality of experience, both concepts often function as coarse indicators Consequently, substantial, careful deliberation is required to identify indicators that are appropriate, sensitive, and relevant to the specific context.
Additionally, recreational experiences are multidimensional and complex (e.g
Identifying both the positive and negative elements of an experience tends to be more helpful to managers than relying on broad visitor reports of overall quality This nuance is supported by Roggenbuck, Williams, and Watson (1993) and Borrie and Birzell (2001), who show that specific strengths and shortcomings offer actionable insights Consequently, managers can target improvements and allocate resources more effectively when feedback focuses on detailed aspects of the experience, rather than general quality ratings alone (Williams, 1989; Manning, 2011).
Both qualitative and quantitative approaches are used to identify potential indicator variables Qualitative methods typically involve semi-structured interviews or open-ended questions, capturing rich, exploratory insights into which aspects influence the visitor experience A quantitative approach relies on close-ended, scaled questions that ask visitors to rate the quality of their experience for a specific indicator, enabling precise measurement and meaningful comparisons across respondents.
Understanding and identifying indicators of quality have evolved over time, reflecting shifts in theoretical backgrounds, methodological approaches, and implementation in visitor-experience research (Vengesayi, Chikuta, Muboko, & Gandiwa, 2017; Pearce & Dowling, 2019; Pilcher, Newman, & Manning, 2009; Vaske, 2019) Exploring and interpreting the multiple components of a visitor’s experience is inherently complex, which is why specific, measurable variables are essential for accurately characterizing the visitor experience and guiding quality assessment in tourism and recreation settings.
It is widely recognized that motivations and the quality of the recreation experience are central themes in recreation research, yet longitudinal comparative studies remain relatively rare Over the past several decades, participation in general outdoor recreation grew from the 1960s to the 1980s, with nature-based outdoor recreation expanding more recently between 1999 and 2009 Viewing and photographing natural areas have been among the fastest growing activities, and some researchers have noted a parallel rise in participation in more physically challenging activities such as kayaking, snowboarding, and surfing, suggesting possible shifts in visitor motivations Despite these shifts, few studies explicitly link motivational trends with indicators of experience quality in a longitudinal framework There is, however, substantial multi-decadal work on visitation to protected natural areas (PPAs), social change, and perceived crowding Earlier concerns, such as those raised by Shelby and Heberlein about the Grand Canyon, highlight that current visitor assessments may not reflect carrying capacity if past visitors were displaced by changing conditions As Kuentzel and Heberlein argued, the best way to observe potential change is to measure social conditions and visitor evaluations at a single site over time While researchers have examined changes in visitor demographics, participation rates, and economic impacts, integrating historical trends in visitor motivations and experience quality within the same PPA over an extended period would meaningfully extend the literature. -**Support Pollinations.AI:** -🌸 **Ad** 🌸Powered by Pollinations.AI free text APIs [Support our mission](https://pollinations.ai/redirect/kofi) to keep AI accessible for everyone.
The study has three aims: to deepen understanding of visitor motivations and potential differences across visitor groups; to develop and validate effective indicators for measuring the quality of experiences; and to examine these visitor dimensions over a longitudinal scope Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska (GLBA) serves as the case study to investigate and address these questions.
To date, few studies have explicitly explored visitor experiences in coastal Alaskan PPAs This study contributes to the current literature by examining multiple dimensions of visitor experience and by contextualizing these findings with a historical perspective.
GLBA data reveal similarities, differences, and nuanced patterns across user groups, including universal and regionally specific motivations and indicators of quality, as well as overall experience quality This study uniquely compares current and historical visitor-use data with prior GLBA research conducted in 1978 and 1984, highlighting how motivations and indicators of quality align or diverge over time Historical comparisons are limited to backcountry visitors, the focal population surveyed in the earlier studies.
Visitor use studies conducted in 1978 and 1984 informed the development of Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve's backcountry management plan (Johnson, 1979; Salvi & Johnson, 1985) Data from 1978 served as baseline data for the later study, with comparisons made to 1984 data The study population included all backcountry campers, excluding those who experienced GLBA via charter company and NPS/Glacier Bay Lodge employees Salvi and Johnson (1985) note that, based on similar high response rates for the two studies and the similarities of question content, the 1984 results can be compared with those obtained in 1978.
14) Visitor dimensions (i.e demographics, characteristics, etc.), motivations, and the overall experience of backcountry campers were selected for discussion Relevant data will be presented in the following results section
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve protects 3.3 million acres of unique landscapes and wilderness along Alaska’s Inside Passage Aligning with national trends, visitation has risen, increasing 20% from 2012 to 2015 and reaching 551,353 recreational visitors.
Most visitors experience Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve via open-water travel through the West Arm, East Arm, or Beardslee Islands (Figure 2-1), aboard a commercial ship, concessionaire catamaran, personal or rented kayaks, or a private vessel Travel on land is limited due to the park’s remote setting and the lack of roads connecting Gustavus, Alaska—the gateway community—to the surrounding Tongass National Forest A small portion of visitors reach Bartlett Cove, where the park’s visitor center and headquarters are located, by docking directly in the cove via sea kayak, a tour or charter vessel, or by flight.