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

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

[1]  W. Whyte.  The social life of small urban spaces , 1980 .

[2]  Kathleen Madden,et al.  User analysis : an approach to park planning and management , 1982 .

[3]  A. Graefe,et al.  Factors contributing to perceptions of recreational crowding , 1983 .

[4]  Improving voluntary registration through location and design of trail registration stations , 1985 .

[5]  The effect of personal communication and group incentives on depreciative behavior by organized youth groups in a national park , 1986 .

[6]  J. Roggenbuck,et al.  Wilderness use and user characteristics. A state-of-knowledge review. , 1987 .

[7]  J. Hendee,et al.  Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values , 1991 .

[8]  P. Eagles,et al.  Guidelines for Public Use Measurement and Reporting at Parks and Protected Areas , 1999 .

[9]  N. McIntyre.  Towards best practice in visitor use monitoring processes: a case study of Australian protected areas. , 1999 .

[10]  D. Cole,et al.  Wilderness recreation use estimation: a handbook of methods and systems. , 2000 .

[11]  An integrative concept for visitor monitoring in a heavily used conservation area in the vicinity of a large city: the Danube Floodplains National Park, Vienna , 2002 .

[12]  Christine A. Vogt,et al.  Measuring and Monitoring Trail Use: A Nationwide Survey of State and Federal Trail Managers , 2002 .

[13]  Arne Arnberger,et al.  Visitor monitoring methods for managing public use pressures in the Danube Floodplains National Park, Austria , 2003 .

[14]  A. Ploner,et al.  MODELLING VISITOR ATTENDANCE LEVELS SUBJECT TO DAY OF THE WEEK AND WEATHER; A COMPARISON BETWEEN LINEAR REGRESSION MODELS AND REGRESSION TREES , 2003 .

[15]  G. Becker,et al.  Characteristics and needs of different user groups in the urban forest of Stuttgart , 2003 .

[16]  Andreas Muhar,et al.  Monitoring options for visitor numbers in national parks and natural areas , 2003 .

[17]  I. Keirle.  Countryside Recreation Site Management: A Marketing Approach , 2003 .

[18]  Juha Ruohonen,et al.  The development of a remote-download system for visitor counting , 2004 .