An interpretation of special place meanings whitewater recreationists attach to the South Fork of...

This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]On: 20 March 2015, At: 10:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK

Tourism Geographies: AnInternational Journal ofTourism Space, Place andEnvironmentPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtxg20

An interpretationof special placemeanings whitewaterrecreationists attach tothe South Fork of theAmerican RiverKelly S. Bricker & Deborah L. KerstetterPublished online: 05 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Kelly S. Bricker & Deborah L. Kerstetter (2002)An interpretation of special place meanings whitewater recreationistsattach to the South Fork of the American River, Tourism Geographies:An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 4:4,396-425, DOI: 10.1080/14616680210158146

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616680210158146

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtxg20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14616680210158146

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616680210158146

to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not beliable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation toor arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

An interpretation of special placemeanings whitewater recreationistsattach to the South Fork of theAmerican River

Kelly S. BrickerRecreation, Parks, and Tourism Resources Program, West Virginia Univer-sity, USA

and

Deborah L. KerstetterSchool of Hotel, Restaurant and Recreation Management, PennsylvaniaState University, USA

Abstract

The concept of place attachment for one of the most popular whitewater destinations inthe Western United States, the South Fork of the American River, was explored throughqualitative analysis. Whitewater rafters and kayakers visiting the South Fork were surveyedto understand places they perceived as special along the 21-mile river corridor. This includedan open-ended mail survey following an on-site interview with each respondent. The resultsof qualitative analysis indicated that the meanings whitewater recreationists attach to specialplaces are multi-dimensional and complex, ranging in focus from a speci�c geographicallocation to the social bene�ts accrued from visiting the river. Environmental–Landscape,Recreation, Human–Social, Heritage–Historic, and Commodity dimensions were identi�edas base dimensions that provided a basis for added exploration. Sub-categories were foundwithin each base dimension that further explained special place meanings. Additionally,complex dimensions emerged as combinations of the Human–Social, Environmental–Landscape, and Recreation dimensions. Within each complex dimension, sub-categories iden-ti�ed speci�c types of meanings and further clari�cation of major base dimension group-ings. The results of this study documented how a person’s attachment to particular placescan contribute to our understanding of the quality nature-based tourism experiences. Throughqualitative analyses results indicated that different types of place meanings play an importantrole in an individuals’ preferences for places, as well as the ways in which they value the

Tourism Geographies ISSN 1461–6688 print/ISSN 1470-1340 online © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/14616680210158146

Tourism Geographies 4(4), 2002, 396–425

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

South Fork of the American River corridor. The results also bring into question traditionalmethods of assessing place, especially when the data are used in managing natural resources.

Keywords: sense of place, environmental perception, place attachment, whitewaterrecreation, recreation bene�ts

Introduction

The number of people who engaged in outdoor recreation at least oncea month increased 10 percent between 1998 and 1999 (RecreationRoundtable 2000). Concomitantly, travel to natural resource areas (i.e.nature-based tourism) has increased 10 percent to 30 percent (Lew 1998).Given these data it is not surprising that some federal land-managementagencies have established tourism policies that have at their core goalssuch as the protection of ‘park values that attract their clients andcustomers’ (National Park Service 2002). What these ‘values’ are and howto utilize them in the development of a management plan, however, hasreceived limited attention.

Over 30 percent of the United State’s landscape is managed by some typeof federal agency such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US ForestService, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. The BLM is afederal land managing agency currently responsible for the majority of nat-ural resources set aside for public use in the United States. With an increasein the utilization of public resources for nature-based tourism pursuits, theBLM and others are faced not only with environmental impact concerns,they are also confronted with the responsibility of maintaining environmentsconducive to ‘quality’ experiences that may attract people to them in the �rstplace. In essence, managers are faced with sustaining resources, despite theirincreased use, so that their character and the quality experiences people seekwithin them are maintained, restored or enhanced.

Elsner, et al. (1996) suggested that researchers address the meaningshumans overlay upon the physical environment if they want to under-stand how humans relate to or value nature. Armed with this type ofinformation public land managers will be in a better position to under-stand the human dimension of ecosystem management and, according toClark and Stankey (1986), establish the baseline data necessary for thedevelopment of an effective recreation management plan.

According to Tuan (1974), nature-based settings become ‘places’ whenthey are imbued with meaning. Meanings form over time as a result of con-tinuous visitation or related experiences and they may vary in intensity andquality (Hammitt and Stewart 1996). A related construct is place attach-ment. Schreyer, et al. (1981) suggested that place attachment represents auser’s valuing of a recreation setting and, according to Williams, et al.(1995), is theoretically comprised of two dimensions – place dependence

Place: Whitewater recreat ionist s and special place meanings 397

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

and place identity. Place dependence represents ‘the degrees to which occu-pants perceive themselves to be strongly associated with and dependentupon a particular place or a category of functionally similar places’ (Mooreand Graefe 1994: 19). Place identity, on the other hand, is characterizedby the ‘combination of attitudes, values, thoughts, beliefs, meanings, andbehavior tendencies reaching far beyond emotional attachment and belong-ing to particular places’ (Proshansky, et al. 1983: 61). Its essence lies in thebeholder’s mind and is expressed through emotions, choices and spatialbehavior. Kahn (1996) found that personal places are ‘continually createdwhenever meaningful social interactions take place’ (p. 194). Hence, placeattachment is generated through a variety of experiences and cognitionsassociated with individuals and/or groups.

Researchers studying sense of place within the context of tourism, recre-ation and leisure have utilized both qualitative and quantitative methodsto understand individuals’ connection to their environments. Quantita-tively, sense of place has been studied with regard to the overall attach-ment individuals have with a resource or destination (Williams andRoggenbuck 1989; Moore and Graefe 1994; Williams, et al. 1995).Qualitatively, researchers have demonstrated that rich understandings ofperson/environment relationships are possible. For example, Arnould andPrice (1993) examined the experience of river rafters on the Grand Canyonwith a particular focus on customer satisfaction and extraordinary expe-riences. And, Mitchell, et al. (1993) revealed that level of experience wasrelated to the level of attachment developed by visitors.

Schroeder (1996a) developed a method that has shown promise in iden-tifying the effective components of the relationship between people andthe environment. He asked individuals to identify places they consider‘special’, thus acknowledging the conceptual elements of sense of placefrom an emic perspective. In this case, the term special denotes somethingof particular value and therefore allows for a range and degree of inter-pretation of places people have imbued with meaning. Schroeder (1996a,1996b, 1996c) found that the importance of experiencing beauty andserenity in natural places, and a harmonious blending of natural andhuman in�uences, were important elements within peoples’ descriptionsof special places.

Researchers have made signi�cant advances in understanding human–environment interactions; yet, there has been little focus on the speci�cmeanings nature-based places are given by individuals engaged in variousactivities. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to documentthe meanings whitewater recreationists (i.e. rafters and kayakers) attach toa speci�c nature-based place. If the meanings whitewater recreationistsattach to nature-based places are known, managers can more effectivelyplan for the management of areas deemed to be special by their constituents.Whitewater recreationists were chosen because (a) they represent a sizeable

398 Bricker and Kerstetter

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

segment of the outdoor recreation population (31.7 million participants of an estimated 189 million outdoor participants nationwide) (Lewis and Cordell 1995; Canoe & Kayak Industry News 1997) and (b) on theSouth Fork of the American River, they are core users of the water andrelated resources managed by the Bureau of Land Management (El DoradoCounty 1996).

Method

The data utilized in this study primarily came from the qualitative compo-nent of a larger study (Bricker 1998). However, where elucidation of theresults was necessary, we integrated some of the results derived throughquantitative methods.

The study site

The South Fork of the American River is California’s most popular white-water recreation river and the second most popular commercial rafting riverin the United States. The 21-mile Class I–III reach is located in El DoradoCounty, northern California – the heart of Gold Rush Country. Managementof the river falls within the jurisdiction of El Dorado County, the CaliforniaState Park system, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). However,the BLM is responsible for the management of the majority of public lands(9 miles) located along the 21-mile river corridor (see Figure 1). The SouthFork provides a variety of recreational opportunities such as non-motorizedboating, �shing, recreational gold mining, hiking, camping and picnicking.It serves nearly 100,000 commercial rafters and over 40,000 private rafters,kayakers, and canoeists annually (El Dorado County 1996). The River isdam controlled which allows for boating opportunities year round.However, the South Fork receives its greatest usage between Memorial Dayand Labor Day, with average �ows between 1500 and 2000 cubic feet persecond.

The sample

To ensure diversity in types of boaters and variation in levels of experi-ence, a strati�ed systematic sampling strategy was employed. First, on-site sampling was conducted from May 15 through August 18, 1997 –months that together represented the majority (81%) of all whitewaterrecreation use. On-site sampling took place four times a week (two week-days and two weekend days) to account for daily variation in use levels.The interview sites were selected from designated put-in/take-out areas,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

Figu

re 1

Bri

cker

gaz

erDow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

public lands managed by the BLM and one commercial campground. Torandomize sampling within a raft party, interviewers based their selectionon the number of arrivals of rafts or kayaks to a site (i.e. put-in or take-out areas, lunch/camp areas). In commercial and private boater situations,lunch sites were reviewed and one out of every two lunch-groups wasselected to participate in the study. A more comprehensive questionnaireregarding individuals’ feelings about the South Fork of the American River(SFA) and selected management options was sent to participants’ homesone week after the on-site interview. Three follow-up contacts were madewith study participants (Dillman 1978).

Respondents primarily consisted of two types of river recreationists,whitewater rafters and kayakers. Table 1 depicts the sample sizes andresponse rates by whitewater recreationists and by the group with whomthey were associated. A total of 593 useable questionnaires were returned,resulting in a net response rate of 50 percent.

The majority of whitewater recreationists surveyed were rafters (76.2%).Kayakers accounted for nearly 24 percent of respondents. (Note: this break-down is consistent with the use levels of rafters (75%) and kayakers (25%)during the previous year.) The overall response rate from kayakers wasmuch higher (64%) than that of rafters (31%). Of those designating them-selves primarily as rafters, nearly half (48%) were private boaters, with the


Table 1 Summary of sample sizes and response rates of whitewater participants

Whitewater Overall recreationist: responseType of boater / Part I Part I Part II Part II Percentagea

Type of trip On-site On-site Follow-up Follow-up(n=1,226) Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Rafters:Private 460 49.3 198 48.3 43.0Non-pro�t 274 29.4 139 33.9 50.7Commercial 196 21.0 72 17.6 36.7Other 3 .3 1 .2 33.3Total 933 410

Kayakers:Private 212 72.3 134 73.2 63.2Non-pro�t 39 13.3 27 14.8 69.2Commercial 40 13.7 22 12.0 55.0Other 2 .7 0 0.0 0.0Total 293 183

The total number of respondents may vary because some individuals did notanswer all of the questions.aThe percentage of individuals surveyed on-site who returned the follow-upquestionnaire.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

remainder being guided downstream by commercial or non-pro�t raftingorganizations. As expected, the majority of kayakers who responded wereprivate boaters.

Sense of place

Individuals were asked to respond to a series of instructions regardingplaces along the South Fork of the American River (Schroeder 1996b).The instructions were as follows:

Select from memory a place within the South Fork of the American Rivercorridor (Chili Bar to Salmon Falls) that stands out in your mind as beingimportant, memorable, or special to you personally. It might be a place youhave been to or �oated through many times, or a place you have only�oated through or seen once. You do not have to know the exact locationof the place – that is, you may select a place you remember being in or�oating through, even if you can’t remember exactly where along the SouthFork corridor it is located.

In the space labeled ‘DESCRIPTION OF PLACE,’ brie�y describe the placethat you have chosen. Don’t just write the name of the place, but describein a few sentences what the place is like – for example, what the placelooks, sounds, smells, or feels like, important features that are present, andso on.

On the same page, in the space labeled ‘WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU,’please describe the thoughts, feelings, memories, and associations that cometo mind when you think about this place. What makes this place impor-tant for you? What kind of experiences have you had there? Write as muchor as little as you like. There are no right or wrong answers. We are inter-ested in anything at all you want to tell us about why this place is impor-tant or special to you.

The instructions, originating from Schroeder’s research (1996b), guidedparticipants through their description of special places that had meaningon the South Fork of the American River. Schroeder had positive resultswith this technique in two very different environments, the Black Riverarea of the Ottawa National Forest located in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula,and the Morton Arboretum, which is surrounded by a developed anddensely populated urban environment. Schroeder found that the instruc-tions allow for a range of not only geographical interpretations of theentire area, but also complex meanings associated with special places.They cannot, however, succinctly measure the degree of importance specialplaces have relative to other places utilized for recreation. And, withwritten text as opposed to dialogue with an interviewer, no further probinginto the ‘meanings’ can be accomplished.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

Analysis

The data analysis process was based on the work of Schroeder (1996a)and Patton (1990). Phase One of the analysis involved creating an outlinewith very broad categories of information including the categorization ofplaces, and the descriptions and meanings associated with those places.The next level of analysis (Phase Two) involved developing classi�cationsystems (typologies) that divided place meanings into parts (Patton 1990).As we read the responses, we coded each place meaning with a title thatcaptured its essence. Every meaning described by respondents was givenat least one title. Some place meanings were coded more than once tore�ect all meanings within each description. The NUD*IST (1997) analysisprogram allowed for the �exibility of coding text units as many times asnecessary.

After reviewing all of the categories created for places a second time(Phase Three), it was evident that place descriptions could be categorizedinto broader, more comprehensive categories. These categories werelabelled ‘base dimensions’ (i.e. Environmental–Landscape, Human–Social,Recreation, Heritage–Historic, Commodity). Each base dimension wasde�ned and the de�nition guided the remainder of the analysis. Meaningsthat re�ected more than one base dimension (i.e. recreation and environ-ment) also were identi�ed and placed in a separate �le. Complex basedimensions were established as a result of this procedure. For example,all of the place meanings coded as both ‘recreation’ and ‘environment’were combined into a complex base dimension titled ‘recreation–envi-ronmental.’ We continued this process (Phase Four) until all place mean-ings were linked to a dimension.

The �fth and �nal phase of data analysis involved external veri�cation.All the descriptions associated with the place dimensions identi�ed throughthe �rst three phases of analysis were sent to BLM staff and anothermember of the research team for their evaluation. They were asked tomake sure that the description assigned to each base dimension was correctand that overall groupings or base dimensions did not overlap.

Results

Sample description

The predominantly male (n=368; 63%) sample had a mean age of 36(Table 2). More than 90 percent of the sample lived in California andwas 50 years of age or younger. The majority was well educated (75%had a college degree or higher level of education) and reported an annualhousehold income of $US40,000 or above (65%). Eighty-eight percent


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

(n=520) of the 593 individuals who responded to the follow-up ques-tionnaire completed the three questions pertaining to sense of place.

Special place locations

Several individuals recorded a place by name and gave no further descrip-tion. Other responses ranged from broad generalizations about a place orarea to detailed descriptions of speci�c sites. Table 3 provides a briefoverview of all of the special places respondents identi�ed on the SouthFork of the American River.

During Phase Three of data analysis, �ve types of meanings or base dimen-sions were identi�ed and labelled ‘Environmental–Landscape’, ‘Human–Social’, ‘Recreation’, ‘Heritage–Historic’ and ‘Commodity’. Additionally,


Table 2 Socio-demographic pro�le of respondents

Socio-demographic Characteristics Frequency Percentage

Gender (na=589)Female 221 37.5Male 368 62.5Age (n=588) (mean=36)30 and under 202 34.431–40 185 31.541–50 156 26.551–60 41 7.061 and above 4 0.7Highest Education Level (n=586)Did not complete High School 7 1.2High School Diploma 24 4.1Technical/Business School 10 1.7Some college 104 17.7College Degree 194 33.1Some Graduate work 85 14.5Graduate Degree 162 27.6Annual Household Income (n=577)Under $US20,000 71 12.3$US20,000–39,999 132 22.9$US40,000–59,999 130 22.5$US60,000–79,999 82 14.2$US80,000 and above 162 28.1Resident of California (n=588)Yes 561 95.4No 27 4.6

aThe total number of respondents may vary because some individuals did notanswer all of the questions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

within each base dimension, sub-categories were identi�ed (Table 4).Although some of these sub-categories were based on comments from asmall number of people, the responses were unique and so compelling thatwe felt it was appropriate to include them in the description of meaningsassociated with each base dimension.

Environmental–Landscape dimension

Individuals’ appreciation for the serenity and beauty of the naturalsurroundings; recognition of the wildness and remoteness that exists justa short distance from developed urban areas; respect for the naturalfeatures of the river, including its power; and, desire for protection of theriver were represented in this dimension. A thorough review of these mean-ings revealed eight sub-dimensions. The meanings comprising the sub-dimensions ranged from repose to degradation (see Table 4).

Human–Social dimension

A second dimension that evolved from the meanings described by respon-dents was the Human–Social dimension. This dimension is representativeof place meanings attached to social ties, interactions, relationships andpersonal growth ideas for self and for others (Table 4). There were twotypes of meanings (i.e. sub-categories) attached to the Human–Socialdimension. For example, some whitewater recreationists think of the riveras a place or ‘community’ where people gather and share similar goals.Others simply enjoy seeing others enjoying the river environment.

Recreation dimension

Everyone surveyed on the river was there for whitewater recreation inone form or another. Consequently, it was not surprising that the majorityof respondents cited ‘recreation’ as a dimension of place. Two sub-dimen-sions comprising this base dimension revolved around special places wherean activity began or a skill was learned, developed or tested. Enjoymentand excitement were representative of the meanings associated with thethird sub-dimension. As one visitor indicated, ‘. . . The pure fun and excite-ment of these rapids will bring me back over and over again – it isrefreshing!’ The convenience and/or accessibility of the river were the focusof the fourth sub-dimension.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5


Table 3 Geographic representations of special places on the South Fork of theAmerican River

Places described Type of description

River reachesThe South Fork of The entire river corridor from Chili Bar to Salmon Fallsthe American River Bridge. The entire boat-able stretch of river is 20.5

miles in length. While some people raft the entire stretch in one day, the majority of commercial raftersand private boaters will break the run into two one-day trips.

Upper Reach Loosely de�ned as the upper run, from Chili Bar to Coloma or Lotus. Begins with Class III rapids and ends with one of the most dif�cult of them all, Troublemaker Rapid. This stretch extends approximately the �rst 8 miles of river (miles 1–8) from the Chili Bar put-in to Henningsen–Lotus Park take-out.

Coloma–Lotus Run The Class I–II section of mild water that runs parallel to the historical town of Coloma and the town of Lotus. This area includes a designated ‘Quiet Zone’ established for residents living at river’s edge – it asks that boaters refrain from water �ghts and unnecessary yelling. This is the most developed section of river from Chili Bar to Salmon Falls. This section encompasses approximately mile 6 through mile 10, depending on the put-in and take-out locations. This section of the river tends to be a training ground for new boaters, as the highest level of dif�culty is Class II+.

Lower Reach Loosely de�ned as the stretch of river extending 10 miles from below the Coloma-Lotus run to the Salmon Falls Bridge. This section includes other identi�able sections such as The Gorge, and Upper and Lower Haystack Canyons. Mile 10 through mile 20.5 basically identify this section of the river corridor.

The Gorge A classic section of continuous whitewater on the lowerreach of the river marked at the start by a Class III rapid called ‘Fowlers Rock’ and ending with a Class III rapid called ‘Hospital Bar’.

Upper Haystack An area within the ‘Gorge’ run marked by continuous Canyon haystack waves. This section of the river comes prior

to Satan’s Cesspool, a renowned Class III rapid.

Lower Haystack Very similar to ‘Upper Haystack’ occurs after Satan’s Canyon Cesspool, within the ‘Gorge’ proper.

Self-Identi�ed Reaches These are sections of river that respondents created by personal description, identifying landmarks, places, ornatural features of the river corridor.

(continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

Heritage–Historic dimension

The history of the area surrounding the gold rush is re�ected in the mean-ings individuals attached to the Heritage–Historic dimension (Table 4).Meanings within this dimension did not vary; thus, sub-categories werenot formed. The historical community of Coloma, located between theUpper and Lower reach of the South Fork is home to the Marshall GoldDiscovery Historic State Park, the place where gold was �rst discoveredin California. This park houses a museum and other artefacts of the areaand is a popular picnicking place for visitors.

Commodity dimension

Meanings related to facilities and amenities along the river corridor werecaptured in the Commodity dimension. Special places descriptions includedin this dimension focused on what the place provided in the way of servicesor facilities (Table 4).


Table 3 (continued)

Places described Type of description

Established sites These areas are identi�ed by known names and places utilized by river users and other recreationists. Often this category refers to places that are public lands or commercial camp areas. The following sites were described by whitewater recreationists’:

Bureau of Land Management SitesMarshall Gold Discovery State ParkThe town of Coloma

Natural places This collection of descriptions includes natural features of the South Fork of the American River. The following natural areas were described by participants:

Rapids General (general descriptions without designated names)Rapids Common Name (descriptions which included established names)Natural Features General (features that are simply places without names)Natural Features Common Name (e.g. The Lollipop Tree, Gorilla Rock, Poppy Hill)

Human-made features These are areas that are not established sites, yet are remnants of human alteration of the landscape.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5


Table 4 Description of meanings: base dimensions and their sub-categories

Dimension categories Examples of descriptions by individuals

Environmental–Landscape (n=141)

Repose: ‘Serenity [or] peaceful communion with nature.’‘Escape from the city and the rejuvenation of [the] mind, body and spirit.’

Aesthetic appreciation: ‘That moment is the �rst memory that came to mindBeauty as transcendentally, astoundingly beautiful. I have

enjoyed several such moments on the American. It was the quality of the light on the water, like a great Windslow Homer painting. A peak experience.’

Beauty/peace: ‘This place is so peaceful, so beautiful, so calming, Combined meanings of that I inevitably �nd myself smiling and exhaling beauty and serenity serenity, thinking yes, this is the life.’

Wild/remote: ‘The South Fork is a prime example of those places Places described as in and around our urban centers that most of us seebeing away from and use only as an extension of our urban lives, civilization, remote, but that are still ruled by nature; and when the limited access, a people leave, these places quickly return to their sense of wilderness wild state.’

Natural appreciation: ‘The ridge downstream from Greenwood Creek.

Appreciation for Rolling hills yielding to a steep wooded slope which features of the drops to the terrace by the river. Glades within the natural environment oak forest offer opportunities to view black tail deer,such as wildlife, botany quail, and wild turkeys on cold winter days. A or geology place to be alone, to hunt, to commune with the

wild.’

Reverence: ‘Peaceful memories, deep rippling vibration, the calm Appreciation for the before the wild of a storm, feelings of love and natural forces of the connected-ness. Blues and greens of a perfect dream river; a deep respect. – a turtle whispers wisdom to those who listen. Oh

river of my life – I love you, I thank you and I honor you for your beauty!’

Protect/preserve: ‘Rivers are lifelines of the state. Healthy rivers are Meanings re�ecting important for a healthy environment. We need them a need to protect the and they need us for protection. I love the contrast natural environment between calm, still spots and rushing rapids and from further how the river is always changing. I am awed by the development and/or thought about how long a river has been in a degradation canyon; the time it took to carve its present loca

tion. It is sad to cover eons of time with the crestingwater of a dam.’

Degradation: ‘There is an obscene amount of people utilizing the Meanings associated river on weekends – I wouldn’t want to see even with recognition of more people out there. Promote education of the environmental public about weekday use and continue to remind degradation all users NO AUBURN DAM.’

(continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5


Table 4 (continued)


Human–Social (n=10)

The Gathering place: a ‘gathering place, surprise meetings, friendly chaos.’A social gathering of friend/acquaintances with similar goals – to run the river. A place to meet new friends.

Social enjoyment: ‘a chance to see all who enjoy the river.’An appreciation for seeing others enjoy the river environment

Recreation (n=191)

A Starting Place: Meanings associated with places that some type of activity or experience began ‘The South Fork has been the �rst place I have ever whitewater kayaked. It will always be special to me for introducing me to this sport,’ as well as speci�c locations within the corridor: ‘Meatgrinder Rapid. It’s the �rst Class III that helped and inspired me into the whitewater sport.’

Skill/learn: Place meanings that depict an appreciation for the places where one learns or develops skills. ‘I love to play in the river at Meatgrinder. It gave me the con�dence to move on to harder rivers. It has always been a measure/yardstick in the development of newer boaters. We’ve held Slalom races at the bottom of the rapid that were great! The rapid could be a world class Slalom training area if gates were hung and maintained.’

Enjoyment/excitement: ‘Part of river rafting is the anticipation of the rapids.Enjoyment of the The excitement of matching ourselves with an activewhitewater experience surrounding; where the water froths and thunders, and places that evoked paddle blades glinting as they go every which way, a sense of danger. screams of joy and shock as water cascades over the

boat. The pure fun and excitement of these rapids will bring me back over and over again – it is refreshing!’

Access/convenience: ‘We only do the lower part on special days. It meansAccess and feasibility, I have a good stretch of fast water that we can run an appreciation for in a few hours and all get back home at a decent accommodating hour. The shuttle is short and easy, and the put-in a variety of skill levels and take-outs are convenient.’

(continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

The complexity of special place meanings

As predicted, the meanings whitewater recreationists attached to specialplaces were complex. For example, social ties and relationships were con-nected with other aspects of the river experience (e.g., environment andrecreation, social and environment, social and recreation). Thus, we con-tinued to analyse the data by looking for combinations of two or more ofthe base dimensions of meanings. As a result, three combinations of basedimensions were documented and labelled, ‘Recreation–Environmental’,‘Human–Recreation’ and ‘Heritage–Environmental’ (Table 5).

Recreation–Environmental Complex (REC) dimension

This dimension included meanings associated with pure recreationalpursuits and environmental appreciation, concern, or observation. Forboth rafters and kayakers, this dimension was noted most frequently outof all the responses to complex dimensions. As noted in Table 5, sevensub-categories comprised the REC dimension:


Table 4 (continued)


Heritage–Historic (n=12)

Sub-dimensions were not ‘Marshall Gold Discovery site. This place has evident in this category. a great sense of history. It adds enormously to a

trip. I wandered hills like this all through my childhood – it centers me. The historical aspect – this is what brought my family to California, the discovery of gold . . .’

‘Sutters’ Mill. Preservation of history – I like seeing some of the past and trying to understand what others went through in years past.’

Commodity (n=15)

Sub-dimensions were ‘Camp Lotus. For the past �ve years I have enjoyed not evident in this the facilities at Camp Lotus. There are few areas oncategory. the South Fork which have serene amenities (store,

camping, restrooms) with public river access. Being at a midpoint on the river, it has frequent use. However, the atmosphere remains pleasant (even on the busiest days).’

Note: The total response represents the number of comments made within thecategory described. This number does not necessarily depict the number of indi-viduals who responded. Some individuals may have cited one or more places that�t the category.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

1. Aesthetic/recreation : Many individuals expressed an appreciation forboth the aesthetic and natural qualities of the river corridor as wellas an appreciation for camping, hiking and various forms of white-water recreation.

2. Protect/preserve : Another aspect of the REC was noted with the inclu-sion of statements focused on protecting the experience or environ-ment. Respondents added comments such as, ‘River rafting isn’t theonly reason to go to the American River. River rafting is just a wayto be able to experience the natural quiet state of the land and envi-ronment – keep it that way!’ This type of comment reinforced theneed for conservation and warned against the effects of developmentand increased use.

3. Seasons: Several individuals referenced the environmental and recre-ational meanings associated with the river in a seasonal context. Infact, places framed within a season seemed to accentuate what ismeaningful about a special location, as illustrated by this statementfrom a respondent: ‘Troublemaker Rapid. Entertainment on peaksummer weekends; contemplative, pensive environment in winter’.

4. Access: For some whitewater recreationists, special places were thosethat provided convenient access to boating opportunities relative tothe activity they were engaged in. For others, these accesses were adisappointment. ‘. . . Class II boaters need more than the grubby 3miles of Coloma to Lotus. I feel they are discriminated against’.

5. Environmental signals: ‘The Lollipop Tree. Shows how the river mean-ders, twists and turns. Lets people know the gorge is coming up soon. . . a little dramatic build up and gets them pumped for the Gorge!’This description exempli�es the meanings individuals attach to attrib-utes of the river that signal upcoming events or remind them of activ-ities that took place in the past.

6. Reverence: Individuals often indicated an appreciation for the powerof the river. While similar to ‘reverence’ in the Environmental–Landscape base dimension, each of the meanings in this sub-dimen-sion was tied to some aspect of the whitewater recreation activity aswell. ‘Hospital Bar – the big waves! The �rst Class III rapid I swam.I felt the power and the strength of the river. This increased my respectfor the river.’

7. Degradation: Again, some individuals expressed concern that eithertheir experience or the environment was degraded which ultimatelyaffected their enjoyment and perhaps appreciation for their recre-ational experience. The notion of degradation was generated throughcomments about ‘too much development’ and/or ‘commercializationof the river corridor’. In some instances individuals described howdifferent types of activities were in con�ict with their boating enjoy-ment:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

Troublemaker Rapid. Wonderful waves, big stream washed granite boul-ders, campsites located left on the river, bunches of people spread out allover the rocks, throwing litter everywhere, destroying vegetation, disturbingthe peacefulness and isolation characteristics of the BLM parts of the NorthStretch mile 0–4. I feel like some circus animal when I paddle throughTroublemaker.


Table 5 Descriptions of place meaning: complex dimensions and their sub-dimensions

Dimension categories Description

Recreation–environmental (n=264)

Aesthetic–recreation: ‘A place of wilderness (or at least it was 15 years Meanings combining ago) few people see or experience because of lack the natural beauty of of access. A section that includes quiet �oat an area with descriptions sections and exciting rapids. The famous gorge or ideas about the with far more to offer than whitewater.’recreational activity taking place.

Protect/preserve: ‘The whole area around the river was wonderful. I Meanings associated would love for the whole area to be left untouched.with protecting I don’t think the nature should be disrupted. environment and Everything should be left alone. There was not just recreational pursuits. one special place, all the land around the river was

important.’

Seasons: ‘The entire Gorge in early spring on a rainy day. The environment of a Peaceful, quiet, green, king�shers, no yahoos. I can recreational experience run a Class III river without millions of other expressed in the context people. The rafters just take over in the summer. It of seasons or changes destroys the tranquility and sacredness of a river toin the experience that have thousands of people a day on it.’occur within different seasons.

Access: ‘This is my �rst trip to the area as part of rafting Access to the recreational excursion. I probably won’t end up rafting again, experience and/or but I may come back to camp. There is no place environment in which that really stood out more than any other spot, but the activity takes place what attracts me to this area is a quiet secluded (positive and negative place that is pretty easily accessible.’associations).

Environmental signals: ‘Gorilla rock area where the water slows and pulls Meanings associated with up just before coming to the Gorge. Lower stretch. environmental attributes The quiet of this area just before entering Gorge – serving as signals or and where my anxiety picks up – always stands outacknowledgements that in my minds. It is still, bird sounds stand out, the something was about to water waits for the next part of its journey.’happen or a reminder thatsomething happened within that place.

(continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5


Table 5 (continued)


Recreation–environmental (n=264) (continued)

Reverence: ‘Meat Grinder. A great place to get overcon�dent Place meanings that tied and see what the power of nature can do to you if the recreation experience you don’t respect it. Absolutely beautiful rock to an appreciation or formations in the river.’acknowledgement of the natural forces of the river.

Degradation: ‘Very beautiful and exciting but I was VERY upset Meanings associated with about the gasoline powered gold retrieved machines. observations of They are loud, ugly, and they appear to be digging degradation (experiential up a signi�cant amount of the riverbed (this was or environmental) that determined by the murky water that resulted).’have implications for enjoyment and the overall recreational experience itself.

Human–recreation (n=179)

The gathering place: ‘Fun rapid with several runnable lines. Some people Place meanings that gathered around enjoying the river, watching others recognized the social run the rapid. Had fun running the rapid and nature of a place or hanging out on shore for a while afterward, experience. Recreation socialize with the other river runners and specta-is prominent, yet tors.’the chance to meet people or others that have similar interests is also present.

Challenge–growth: ‘This is the �rst big rapid on Chili Bar. I have some Place meanings associated good memories of being nervous before it. It was with personal growth or de�nitely one good con�dence boost after running witnessing the growth of it. It’s my favorite rapid on the upper stretch due others within the context to its length.’of a recreational pursuit.

Shared experience: ‘Exciting, wet, exhilarating, swirling water, Place meanings associated refreshing. Sharing the thrills with friends and with recreational relaxation.’experiences recreational emphasis on sharing the experience with family and friends.

Enjoyment: ‘I like the excitement of the rapids & I also enjoy The enjoyment of seeing all the other people just having a good time watching others on the river, �shing, swimming, panning for gold, engaged in a recreational people of all ages were enjoying themselves.’pursuits

(continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

Human–Recreation Complex (HRC) dimension

Meanings that include a strong recreational component as well as a humanor social component comprised the HRC dimension. This was the secondmost common category (see Table 5).

1. The gathering place: The focus of the meanings in this sub-dimen-sion was on the enjoyment of a recreational activity while meetingothers. Places on the river provided individuals with several oppor-tunities to get to know others who were enjoying the same environ-


Table 5 (continued)


Heritage–environmental(n=48)

Natural appreciation: ‘Emily is still a very close friend and occasionally Meanings associated with accompanies us. I remember the day we had the sharing an appreciation beach to ourselves and a squirrel waited anxiously for the natural heritage for a hand-out. I tossed a small piece of lettuce with others. An event which the squirrel ignored and it treated the bread in a place that is shared crust the same. But when Emily put down her and refers to the natural empty yogurt container, the squirrel snatched it and attributes of that licked it clean. I cherish the sighting of a golden environment. eagle �ying overhead with a snake dangling from

its talons, and a hard rain beating the river’s surface into a froth. I love its sameness. In an ever-changing world, sameness is comforting.’

Native environments: ‘The sense of being part of a long history of Meanings associated different people associated with a river of beauty. with places that evoked The merger of human endeavor and natural a sense of kinship with habitat.’humans that lived in the area prior to present day (cultural heritage).

Protect and preserve: ‘As the sun was sinking low on the horizon the Meanings associated deer made their way to the river to drink, the with protecting the turkey vultures bathed and hung their wings to dry environment from and a river otter hauled out on one of those the impact of humans. cottonwoods that dared to fall to the �oods. My Environmental messages spirit was lifted to see that the river corridor shared with others or continues to provide habitat to El Dorado’s wildlifeemphasized within the even within 100,000 boaters each season and the context of special places. free hand of capitalism at work this spring after the

�oods. Please preserve this educational resource!’

Note: the total response represents the number of comments made within the cate-gory described. This number does not necessarily depict the number of individ-uals who responded, some individuals may have cited one or more places that �tthe category.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

ment or type of recreational experience. For example, one individualstated:

Lotus Ledge: a side-sur�ng hole on the Coloma to Lotus stretch–it nolonger exists after the �oods. This is a place of many good memories: �rstcombat roll, meeting new people, side-sur�ng in a forgiving hole for the�rst time, watching others enjoy themselves.

2. Challenge–growth: Respondents also referred to places in the contextof personal growth and development through participation in recre-ational pursuits such as kayaking or rafting. ‘It is challenging and thefeeling of anything can happen. Maybe it’s bad, maybe not! It isexciting and dangerous.’ Often the activity and challenge were bondedin context by a special place.

3. Shared experience: This sub-dimension contained descriptions ofspecial places and recreational experiences that were intertwined withspecial people (e.g. friends and family). It differs from ‘The gatheringplace’ dimension on the importance individuals attach to relationshipsand kinships. For example, one respondent noted,

The South Fork of the American River represents hours of satisfaction,challenges, learning, humility, appreciation, and rejuvenation. For me, aswell as for many of my friends, the [South Fork] has played a major rolein the development of our con�dence in whitewater boating and innetworking with fellow boaters who share our passion for kayaking . . .

In addition, friendships are remembered within the context of therecreation experience itself.

I have enjoyed lunch and swapped stories with dozens of friends andstrangers, but we are all bonded by the moment and location. Don Favorwas my mentor, he taught me to be a river guide. I remember sitting herewith him discussing the mechanics of a river. I attended his memorialservice on this spot. And I never pass by the First Hole without shootinga glance over to his plaque on the rock–as a ‘hello Don; miss you!’ (Dondied in 1985 – I had known him for 10 years).

Special places along the corridor also meant ‘family experiences’ tosome people. One individual wrote,

From Chili Bar to Trouble Maker, our family rafts this section of the rivereach year many times . . . We feel it is a great family activity which hastaught all of us to respect Mother Nature and the power of the river aswell as the value of sports to your self con�dence, and personal �tness.

Additionally, a sense of teamwork or camaraderie amongst whitewaterrecreationists was depicted in the meanings attached to the river.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

Whether it was the challenge of the whitewater or a chance to sharestories, this sub-dimension emphasized a type of union or bond withpeople that naturally occurred within the context of the recreationexperience.

4. Enjoyment: Lastly, individuals simply enjoy watching others or expe-riencing the river and activities that take place. I like the excitementof the rapids but I also enjoy seeing all the other people just havinga good time on the river, �shing, swimming, panning for gold, peopleof all ages were enjoying themselves.

Heritage–Environmental Complex (HEC) dimension

Meanings that re�ected environmental attributes, an environmentalmessage, or natural appreciation of the river corridor comprised the HECdimension. The heritage component of this dimension was highlightedthrough individuals’ descriptions of the history of their shared experienceswith others, the impacts of humans on the environment and signs ofhuman in�uences (both past and present) within the corridor. In essence,environmental attributes were tied to the local heritage of the area(community, environmental and cultural). Again, sub-dimensions furtherexempli�ed the complex meanings found within this dimension.

1. Natural appreciation: Places were deemed special due to some aspectof the natural environment that was shared or experienced with otherhuman beings. As one respondent noted,

Coming out of the last chance rapid in the Gorge – if you look river rightyou will see a �gure in the rock. To me it looks like a dancing woman.Her hands stretched out to the sky in celebration. I enjoy sharing this rockwith friends.

2. Native environments: Individuals referred to several places that evokeda sense of history or appreciation for indigenous people of the rivercorridor. One wrote,

Indian Grinding Rock. Reminds me to imagine what the Valley and itspeople might have been like 100 or more years ago – with people gath-ering acorns, trading with foothill tribes. Listening to countless �ocks ofmigrating waterfowl headed to the valley wetlands in winter and spring.

3. Protect and preserve: Humans in association with the environmentwere not always viewed in a positive light. Development, crowdingand environmental degradation were some of the negative highlightsof individuals’ descriptions of the river.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

Chili Bar section, below Meat Grinder and Race Horse Bend rapids. Thehillsides are steep right bank is meadow-like, with a riot of spring �owers,tall grasses and few oaks. The left bank is densely wooded. There are nosigns of human development along this corridor, so I can live the wilder-ness and forget about civilization. It means we are remote and on our own.It reminds me of early explorers. Please keep it wild!

Discussion

The joy of running a river for the �rst time; simple but telling descrip-tions of the rivers beauty; and reminiscences about friends – all threedescriptors are representative of the varied meanings whitewater recre-ationists attached to a special place – the South Fork of the AmericanRiver. Would we have gained this insight using traditional measures (i.e.place dependence and place identity) (see Williams and Roggenbuck 1989;Mitchell, et al. 1993; Moore and Graefe 1994; Williams, et al. 1995) ofplace? No.

For some, the importance or meaning of places hinged solely on theenvironment or social relationship; the activity itself was not mentioned.For others, the activity (e.g. rafting and kayaking), combined with theimportance of environmental attributes and/or social attributes, ultimatelygave meaning to a geographical range of places on the river. Also, somewhitewater recreationists documented the importance of social interactionas well as other aspects of the river experience (e.g. environment andrecreation). Their ‘multi-dimensional’ descriptions provide support forKahn’s (1996) contention that special place meanings are multi-dimen-sional.

In terms of the complexities or multi-dimensionality of individuals’responses, they are reminiscent of Proshansky, et al.’s (1983) functions ofplace identity (i.e. recognition, meaning, expressive-requirement, mediatingchange). For example, the recognition function implies that individualshave spent enough time in a physical setting to allow them to derive satis-faction from those settings. Alternatively, the meaning function impliesthat physical settings have a primary purpose. The primary purpose deter-mines what one might expect within the physical setting and what onemight be sensitized to within that setting. For example, in this study indi-viduals focused on complex environmental attributes of the setting, thesocial atmosphere, historical features, and/or whitewater. As well, someindividuals referenced particular attributes of their special place, whileothers wrote in generalities. This may be a re�ection of the effort indi-viduals were willing to make on the questionnaire itself or their abilityto describe or explain. It also may be due to experience with the place.

In some cases, meanings of special places re�ected individual reasonsfor going to the South Fork. For some it was escaping a harried lifestyle.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

Others indicated that special places were conducive to challenging boating,or facilitated some aspect of their experience (e.g. learning new skills, achance to be with friends, an opportunity to enjoy nature). These mean-ings were representative of the expressive-requirement function, which isbased on the notion that there are cognitions that express the tastes andpreferences of an individual.

The �nal function proposed by Proshansky, et al., the mediating changefunction, involves knowing what is right and wrong in a physical setting.This function also involves recognizing what has to be done to bringabout a change in the setting to reduce any discrepancy between the settingand what the individual knows about the setting itself. Within the diversedescriptions of special places on the South Fork of the American River,several individuals identi�ed places they felt were threatened by social(crowding) and environmental (developmental) impacts. It was interestingto �nd that some individuals acknowledged they had only been down theriver once, yet still expressed concern for the protection of the corridoror the experience they had. As one recreationist noted, ‘This was my �rsttime on the [South Fork] and it was incredible. My main concern is thatthe area not be overdeveloped and I have tried to convey this in mysurvey’.

Past research in recreation has emphasized the intensity of place attach-ment and two dimensions of place attachment (identity and dependence)rather than the meanings identi�ed by the physical location of places.While the �ndings of this study support the notion of attachment and itsattendant dimensions, the special places as described by participants inthis study were more likely to re�ect the complex place attachmentconcepts referred to by Low and Altman (1992). For example, place attach-ment as an integrating concept is evidenced by the base dimensions aswell as the complex dimensions that emerged as a result of the three levelsof analysis. The base dimension descriptions (Environmental–Landscape,Human–Social, Recreation, Heritage–Historic, Commodity) included refer-ences to a place where feelings, emotions, values and satisfaction or dissat-isfaction were re�ected upon.

This may indicate perceptual differences in the experience and perhapswhat is deemed important within the quality of experience. However,further analysis demonstrated that for some whitewater recreationists,places were special because of a complex combination of an activity, rela-tionship, or environment (social and physical). Others described the inter-play between their love for the environment, companions, or recreation(i.e. kayaking and rafting). Interestingly, regardless of type of recreationist(i.e. kayaker or rafter) the ‘Recreation–Environmental’ complex dimen-sion was most frequently mentioned, followed by ‘Human–Recreation’and ‘Heritage–Environmental’ complex dimensions. For whitewater recre-ationists on the South Fork, this indicates meanings af�liated to this partic-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

ular resource have an important environmental dimension, regardless of the recreational activity they are engaged in. According to Goldman,et al. (2002), ‘a meaningful transaction constitutes a quality on-site expe-rience’. For many visitors to the South Fork, the quality of their experi-ence existed because of the beauty, wildlife and ecology, etc. This mayindicate that our previous understanding of place dependency and placeidentity is limiting – that people �nd meaning in both their attachmentto the resource and the activity to which they are engaged within theresource.

The ‘place’ aspect of place attachment also was evident in our results.Some individuals noted that places held meaning due to social in�uence.For others, personal growth and development became the avenue by whicha space was transformed into a meaningful place. Additionally, the placesrepresented along the South Fork of the American River corridor rangedfrom small non-descript places to the entire river corridor.

Low and Altman (1992) suggested that there are temporal aspects ofplace attachment. In this study many whitewater recreationists impliedthat the South Fork of the American River is a place where they �rstlearned various aspects of rafting or kayaking. Additionally, many indi-viduals referenced the past, seasons of the year and friendships both pastand present that link the places described in time. In some cases, an indi-vidual’s life-changing events were closely intertwined with experiences onthe river. According to the National Park Service, one of the most impor-tant goals of public land managing agencies is ‘to provide opportunitiesfor visitors to come to care about the resource so that they can begin tocare for the resource (Larsen 1997). When we understand that resourcesand activities within those resources provide life-changing events, we canbegin to understand ways in which to care for the resource so that visi-tors too care about the resource – and perhaps become a part of its ecolog-ical sustainability.

Notions of place dependence were also articulated. For example, theRecreation–Environmental complex dimension was comprised of aspectsof place dependence such as the functionality of a natural resource oroutdoor recreation setting (Stokols and Shumaker 1981; Williams, et al.1992; Moore and Graefe 1994; Hammitt and Stewart 1996) or that itdevelops in a relatively short period of time and facilitates participationin a chosen recreational activity (Moore and Graefe 1994). Some recre-ationists referred to the river as a ‘great beginner’s river’ due to its easeof access and the varying levels of dif�culty – all reminiscent of descrip-tors one would associate with place dependence. In essence, we validatethe work of others who have found individuals to be place dependent;however, we have also utilized a methodology that allows for a deeperunderstanding of what it actually means to be place dependent withinparticular resources.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

Management implications

An analysis of place meanings offers land managers a sense of how aresource utilized for recreation purposes is de�ned and valued by thosewho visit. Carrying capacity frameworks such as Visitor ImpactManagement and Limits of Acceptable Change have provided processesby which managers can evaluate and monitor impacts on resources orexperiences. Yet, the dif�culty associated with these management frame-works has been de�ning quality recreation experiences or setting objec-tives based on those de�nitions (Shelby and Heberlein 1984, 1986; Stankeyand McCool 1984; Graefe, et al. 1990; Wight 1998). Through an analysisof the meanings individuals attach to special places, managers can beginto get a sense of how their users de�ne and value the resource.

According to the �rst tenet of the Interpretive Process Model (NationalPark Service (NPS) 2002: 9), ‘resources possess meanings and have rele-vance’. And, because of this tenet, a key step in interpreting our nation’sheritage for visitors is to understand the meanings they ascribe to theresource (NPS 2002). As a caretaker of our nation’s natural and culturalheritage the NPS has recognized the importance of understanding themeanings visitors hold for resources as part of its national interpretativetraining programme (Larsen 1997). It is currently conducting research toascertain meanings people hold for national monuments as part of aninterpretative planning process (Goldman, et al. 2002). Results like ourscan contribute to this process.

Additionally, it is important for managers to understand the geograph-ical de�nitions of the places they manage. In this study, special placeswere described as the entire community, the river corridor, reaches withinthe corridor and speci�c locations. Changes to any one of these specialplaces may have enormous impact on individuals’ perceptions of the entireriver corridor. For example, if a place represents peace and serenity to agroup of users and managers decide to build an access area (i.e. put-in,take-out) through it, the perceived value and ultimately the entire qualityof the experience may be impacted. Thus, it is imperative that managersbegin to identify the places that are special to a wide range of users, aswell as the meanings or values they attach to them. Further, by addressingissues that are emotionally, intellectually, recreationally and spirituallyimportant, managers increase the likelihood of �nding acceptance andsupport for future plans.

Recommendations for future research

These qualitative data have provided a rich description of the meaningswhitewater recreationists’ attach to special places along the South Fork


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

of the American River. By exploring recreationists’ descriptions we wereable to document a multifarious ecosystem that includes not only thenatural environment, but also human relationships relative to the activi-ties that take place within it. Hence, to fully interpret the complex mean-ings associated with special places, the meaning and nature of ‘place’ (i.e.place attachment) should continue to be addressed and, equally impor-tant, the intensity and importance of ‘place’ should be clari�ed, as orig-inally proposed by Hammitt and Stewart (1996).

Our �ndings suggest further research is needed to explore whether visi-tors to natural resources have differences in descriptions of special placesbased on the type of activity they are engaged in. These data are usefulfor managers because values most important to their visiting constituencyare revealed; demonstrating what aspects of the experience can compro-mise peoples’ satisfaction with their experience. This type of informationis also necessary to assist in discovering new dimensions of meaningspeople imbue in nature-based tourism places.

Given that a mail questionnaire was used in this study, further clari�-cation was not feasible. We believe that this limited our understanding ofthe written text due to an inability to probe deeper into any underlyingmeanings. Hence, we recommend that future investigations incorporatevarious interview techniques as a way of probing and clarifying writtenexperiences and ideas.

References

Arnould, E. J., Price, L. L. 1993. River Magic: Extraordinary Experience and theExtended Service Encounter. Journal of Consumer Research 20: 24–45.

Bricker, K. S. 1998. Place and Preference: A Study of Whitewater Recreationists onthe South Fork of the American River. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, ThePennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, Pennsylvania.

Canoe & Kayak Industry News. 1997. Industry report cites paddlesports growth.Canoe & Kayak Industry News (Fall): 1, 19. Canoe & Kayak Magazine.

Clark, R. N. and Stankey, G. H. 1986. Site attributes: A key to managing wilder-ness and dispersed recreation. (General Technical Report INT-212)Proceedings: National Wilderness Research Conference. Ogden, Utah: USDepartment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station, pp. 509–15.

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. NewYork: Wiley.

El Dorado County. 1996. El Dorado County use level report, March 15.Elsner, G., Lewis, D., Snell, F. and Spitzer, W. 1996. The role of public lands in

maintaining and rejuvenating the human spirit. In Nature and the humanspirit, ed. B. L. Driver, D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner and G. Peterson, pp.9–13. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Goldman, T., Chen, J. and Larsen, D. 2002. Clicking the Icon: Exploring theMeanings Visitors Attach to Three National Capitol Memorials. ForthcomingJournal of Interpretation Research


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

Graefe, A. R., Kuss, F. R., & Vaske, J. J. (1990). Recreational impacts and carryingcapacity: Visitor impact management: The planning framework (Volume 2),Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association.

Hammitt, W. E. and Stewart, W. 1996. Sense of place: A call for construct clarity andmeasurement. Unpublished manuscript, Clemson University, South Carolina.

Kahn, M. 1996. Your place and mine. In Senses of Place, ed. S. F. Feld and K.H. Basso, pp. 167–96. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American ResearchPress.

Larsen, D. L. 1997. Module 101: What interpretation is. Interpretive DevelopmentProgram Homepage. [Online]. Available: http://www.nps.gov/idp/interp/101/lesplan.htm

Lew, A. A. 1998. The Asia–Paci�c ecotourism industry: Putting sustainable tourisminto practice. In Sustainable tourism: A geographical perspective, ed. C. M.Hall and A. A. Lew , pp. 92–106. Essex: Longman.

Lewis, B. and Cordell, K. 1995. National survey on recreation and the envir-onment: Key �ndings draft. Athens, GA. US Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Northeast Experiment Station.

Low, S. M. and Altman, I. 1992. Place Attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In PlaceAttachment: Human behavior and environment. Advances in theory andresearch, ed. I. Altman and S. M. Low, Vol. 12, pp. 1–12. New York: PlenumPress.

Mitchell, M. Y., Force, J. E., Carol, M. S. and McLaughlin, W. J. 1993. Forestplaces of the heart. Journal of Forestry 91(4): 32–7.

Moore, R. L. and Graefe, A. R. 1994. Attachments to recreation settings: Thecase of rail-trail users. Leisure Sciences 16: 17–31.

National Park Service. 2000. Module 101: How interpretation works: The inter-pretive equation. Interpretive Development Program Homepage. [Online].Available: http://www.nps.gov/idp/interp/101/howitworks.htm

National Park Service. 2002 Director’s Order #17: National Park Service Tourism.Unpublished manuscript.

QSR NUD*IST 4. 1997. Victoria, Australia: Qualitative Solutions and ResearchParty Ltd.

Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd edn).Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K. and Kaminoff, R. 1983. Place-identity: Physicalworld socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3: 57–83.

Recreation Roundtable. 2000. Outdoor recreation in America 1999: The familyand the environment. Washington, DC: The Recreation Roundtable.

Schreyer, R., Jacob, G. and White, R. 1981. Environmental meaning as a deter-minant of spatial behavior in recreation. In Proceedings of the AppliedGeography Conferences 4: 294–300.

Schroeder, H. 1996a. Voices from Michigan’s Black River: Obtaining informationon ‘special places’ for natural resource planning. (General Technical ReportNC-184) St. Paul, MN: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, NorthCentral Forest Experiment Station, 25pp.

Schroeder, H. 1996b. Psyche, nature, and mystery: Some psychological perspec-tives on the values of natural environments. In Nature and the human spirit,ed. B. L. Driver, D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner and G. Peterson, pp. 81–96.State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Schroeder, H. 1996c. Ecology of the heart: Understanding how people experiencenatural environments. In Natural resource management: The human dimen-sion, ed. A. W. Ewert, pp. 13–27. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

Shelby, B. and Heberlein, T. A. 1984. A conceptual framework for carrying capacitydetermination. Leisure Sciences 6(4): 433–51.

Shelby, B. and Heberlein, T. A. (1986). Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings.Corvalis, Oregon State University Press.

Stankey, G. H. and McCool, S. F. 1984. Carrying capacities in recreational settings.Leisure Sciences 6(4): 453–73.

Stokols, D. and Shumaker, S. A. 1981. People in places: A transactional view ofsettings. In Cognition, social behavior, and the environment, ed. J. H. Harvey,pp. 441–48). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.

Tuan, Y. F. 1974. Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, andvalues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Wight, P. 1998. “Tools for sustainability analysis in planning and managing tourismand recreation in the destination.” In Sustainable tourism: A geographicperspective, ed. C. M. Hall and A. A. Lew, pp. 75–91. Essex, UK: AddisonWesley Longman Limited.

Williams, D. R., Anderson, B. S., McDonald, C. D. and Patterson, M. E. 1995.Measuring place attachment: More preliminary results. Presentation in Bookof Abstracts: National Recreation and Park Association Leisure ResearchSymposium, San Antonio, TX, October.

Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W. and Watson, A. E. 1992.Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attach-ment to place. Leisure Sciences 14: 29–46.

Williams, D. R. and Roggenbuck, J. W. 1989. Measuring place attachment: Somepreliminary results. Paper presented at the Symposium on Outdoor RecreationPlanning and Management, National Recreation and Park AssociationResearch Symposium on Leisure Research, San Antonio, TX, October.

Acknowledgements

We want to thank the staff of the Bureau of Land Management FolsomResource Area, especially managers James Eicher, Deanne Swickard andJeff Horn, for their support on this project.

Biographical notes

Kelly S. Bricker is Assistant Professor at West Virginia University in theRecreation, Parks, and Tourism Resources Program, Division of Forestry.She received her PhD from The Pennsylvania State University in LeisureStudies, USA. She has worked in nature-based recreation and tourism since1981, and taught at the University of the South Paci�c in Suva, Fiji. Herresearch interests include ecotourism and ecotourists, linkages betweennatural resource management and sense of place, and tourism as a toolfor conservation. (Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Resources Program;Davis College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Consumer Sciences; PO Box6125, 325B Percival Hall, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WestVirginia, USA; e-mail: [email protected])


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

Deborah L. Kerstetter is Associate Professor at The Pennsylvania StateUniversity in the School of Hotel, Restaurant, and Recreation Manage-ment. She received her PhD from The Pennsylvania State University inLeisure Studies, USA. Her research interests include leisure behaviour,including travel; the impact of past behaviour on current involvement;heritage tourism; the overall approach to marketing of leisure services,marketing; tourism and/or commercial recreation. (Leisure StudiesProgram; School of Hotel, Restaurant, and Recreation Management; 201Mateer Building, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,Pennsylvania, USA; e-mail: [email protected])

Résumé: Une interprétation de la signi�cation spéciale donnée par lesamateurs de rafting à l’af�uent South Fork du �euve American

On explore ici, à l’aide d’une recherche qualitative, le concept d’attachement à un des lieuxles plus populaires de récréation en eau vive dans les Etats Unis de l’Ouest, l’af�uent SouthFork du �euve American. On a interrogé des pratiquants de rafting et de kayak qui visi-taient la South Fork pour comprendre quels lieux leur semblaient attachants le long ducouloir de 21 miles que suit l’af�uent. Ils ont répondu à un questionnaire par courrier quifut suivi par une interview sur place avec chaque répondant. Les résultats de cette analyseindiquent que ceux qui pratiquent le rafting attachent aux lieux choisis des signi�cationsmulti-dimensionnelles et complexes, allant d’une simple localisation géographique aux avan-tages sociaux que l’on tire d’avoir visité le �euve. Les dimensions fondamentales telles qu’environnement-paysage, récréation, social-humain, histoire-patrimoine et commodité qui sontressorties ont servi de base à une explication plus approfondie. On a ainsi dé�ni des sous-catégories qui expliquaient mieux certaines signi�cations. On a remarqué en plus que descombinaisons des dimensions environnement-paysage, récréation et humain-social formaientde nouvelles dimensions plus complexes. Les sous catégories de ces nouvelles dimensionsidenti�ent des genres spéci�ques de signi�cation qui ont permis de clari�er les groupementsdes dimensions de base. Les résultats de cette étude documentent comment l’attachement àdes lieux particuliers permet de mieux appréhender la qualité des expériences touristiquesqui se poursuivent dans la nature. Les résultats de l’analyse qualitative indiquent que différentsgenres de signi�cation de lieux jouent un rôle important dans les préférences que les indi-vidus manifestent pour ces lieux et la valeur qu’ils attribuent au couloir de la South Fork.Ces résultats mettent en doute les méthodes traditionnelles d’évaluation de lieux, surtoutquand les renseignements servent à gérer les ressources naturelles.

Mots-clés: sensibilité(s) pour un lieu, perception de l’environnement, attachement à unlieu, récréation en eau vive, béné�ces des délassements.

Zusammenfassung: Eine Interpretation der von Weißwasserfahrerngeschätzten ‚besonderen Plätze’ entlang der South Fork des AmericanRiver

Das Konzept der ‚besonderen Plätze’ entlang einer der beliebtesten Weißwasserziele im Westender USA, der South Fork des American River, wurde durch eine qualitative Analyse unter-sucht. Dabei sind Weißwasserrafter und -kajakfahrer befragt worden, um deren als beson-ders empfundene Plätze entlang dieses 21 Meilen langen Flussabschnitts in Erfahrung zu


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

bringen. Dies schloss eine zeitlich offene brie�iche Befragung im Anschluss an die Vor-Ort-Interviews jedes Antwortwilligen ein. Die Ergebnisse der qualitativen Analyse deuten daraufhin, dass die Bedeutungen, welche Weißwasserfahrer‚ besonderen Plätzen’ zumessen, multi-dimensional und komplex sind. Diese reichen von bestimmten konkreten Örtlichkeiten bishin zu sozialen Nutzen durch den Besuch jenes Flussabschnitts. Als Grunderfahrung-sdimensionen wurden dabei die Bereiche Umwelt-Landschaft, Erholung, Gemeinsch-aftserlebnis, Kulturerbe-Geschichte und ‘sonstige Rohstoffe’ identi�ziert. Jede dieserGrunderfahrungsdimensionen gliedert sich in Unterkategorien, welche eingehender dieBedeutung der‚ besonderen Plätze’ erklären. Darüber hinaus ergaben sich weitere komplexeErfahrungsdimensionen aus Kombinationen der Grunderfahrungen Gemeinschaftserlebnis,Umwelt-Landschaft und Erholung. Auch in diesen komplexen Erfahrungsdimensionenwurden Unterkategorien besonderer Bedeutungstypen identi�ziert, welche zur Klärung derGruppierungen der Grunderfahrungsdimensionen beitrugen. Die Ergebnisse dieser Studiebelegen, wie die Bedeutung, welche eine Person einem bestimmten Platz beimisst, zu unseremVerständnis eines qualitativen naturverbundenen Tourismus beitragen kann. Die Ergebnisseder qualitativen Analyse deuten darauf hin, dass unterschiedliche Typen der Erfahrung von‚besonderen Plätze’ eine wichtige Rolle spielen sowohl bei individuellen Vorlieben fürbestimmte Örtlichkeiten im Allgemeinen als auch bei der Art der Einschätzung des SouthFork-Flussabschnitts des American River im Besonderen. Die Studienergebnisse stellendarüber hinaus die herkömmlichen Methoden der Raumbewertung in Frage, insbesonderewenn ihre Daten zur Verwaltung natürlicher Attraktionen herangezogen werden.

Stichwörter: Raumwahrnehmung, Umwelterfahrung, Erfahrung besonderer Plätze,Weißwasser-Freizeit, Freizeitnutzen


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

25 2

0 M

arch

201

5

An interpretation of special place meanings whitewater recreationists attach to the South Fork of...

Documents

Transcript of An interpretation of special place meanings whitewater recreationists attach to the South Fork of...