Skip to main content
Log in

Perceptions of Community Benefits from Two Wild and Scenic Rivers

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Wild and Scenic Rivers provide a host of psychological, social, ecological, and economic benefits to local communities. In this study, we use data collected from recreational users of two Wild and Scenic Rivers to examine perceptions of the benefits provided by the rivers to local communities. Our purposes are (1) to determine if similar perceptions of community benefits exist across the two rivers, (2) to determine if individuals’ proximity to the rivers are related to the benefits they perceive, (3) to determine if individuals’ prior recreation experience on the river is related to variations in perceived benefits, (4) to determine if users’ sociodemographic characteristics are related to perceived community benefits, and (5) to determine if the influence of these characteristics on perceived community benefits is similar across the two resource areas. Perceived benefits were found to be analogous across both rivers as individuals consistently ranked ecological/affective benefits as well as tangible benefits similarly. Recreationists living further from the river ranked ecological and affective benefits as significantly less important than those individuals living closer to the river. Women perceived the community benefits produced by the resource areas to be significantly more important when compared to men. Significant relationships were also found between perceived benefits and recreationists’ previous use of the river, their age, and their level of education. With the exception of resource proximity and prior use history, the effects of user characteristics on perceived community benefits were not statistically different across the two rivers. These findings imply similar patterns of perceived community benefits exist across distinct resource areas and that the relationships between user characteristics and perceived benefits are also similar across the study rivers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen LR (1991) Benefits of leisure service to community satisfaction. In: Driver BL, Brown PJ, Peterson GL (eds) Benefits of leisure. Venture, State College, PA, pp 331–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson DH, Davenport MA, Leahy JE, Stein TV (2008a) OFM and local community benefits. In: Driver BL (ed) Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of recreation. Venture, State College, PA, pp 311–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson DH, Wilhem Stanis SA, Schneider IE, Leahy JE (2008b) Proximate and distant visitors: differences in importance ratings of beneficial experiences. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 26(4):47–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns D, Driver BL, Lee ME, Anderson DH, Brown PJ (1994) Pilot test for implementing benefits-based management. In: Paper presented at the fifth international symposium on society and resource management, June 7–10, Fort Collins, CO

  • Campbell A (1981) The sense of well-being in America: recent patterns and trends. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer LA, Kennedy JJ, Krannich RS, Quigley TM (1993) Changing Forest Service values and their implications for land management decisions affecting resource-dependent communities. Rural Sociology 58(3):475–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels SE, Cheng AS (2004) Collaborative resource management. In: Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ, Bruyere BL, Field DR, Brown PJ (eds) Society and natural resources: a summary of knowledge. Litho Press, Jefferson, MO, pp 127–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport MA, Anderson DH (2005) Getting from sense of place to place-based management: an interpretive investigation of place meanings and perceptions of landscape change. Society & Natural Resources 18(7):625–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Drenthen MAM (2009) Ecological restoration and place attachment: emplacing non-places? Environmental Values 18:285–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver BL (2008a) What is outcomes-focused management? In: Driver BL (ed) Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of recreation. Venture, State College, PA, pp 19–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver BL (2008b) Why outcomes-focused management is needed. In: Driver BL (ed) Managing to optimize the beneficial outcomes of recreation. Venture, State College, PA, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver BL, Brown PJ, Peterson GL (eds) (1991) Benefits of leisure. Venture, State College, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap RE, van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56(3):425–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eder J (2005) Coastal resource management and social differences in Philippine fishing communities. Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal 33(2):147–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976) Pub. L. No. 94-579

  • Federal Water Project Recreation Act (1965) Pub. L. No. 89-72

  • Gelissen J (2007) Explaining popular support for environmental protection: a multilevel analysis of 50 nations. Environment and Behavior 39(3):392–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover TD, Stewart WP, Gladdys K (2008) Social ethics of landscape change: toward community-based land-use planning. Qualitative Inquiry 14(3):384–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graefe A, Moore RL (1992) Monitoring the visitor experience at Buck Island Reef National Monument. In: Proceedings of the 1991 northeastern recreation research symposium, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-160, pp 55–58

  • Hammitt WE, Backlund EA, Bixler RD (2004) Experience use history, place bonding and resource substitution of trout anglers during recreation engagements. Journal of Leisure Research 36(3):356–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin JW, Hilbe JM (2003) Generalized estimating equations. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper JL, Neider D, Godbey G, Lamont D (1997) The use and benefits of local government parks recreation services: a Canadian perspective. Health, Leisure, and Human Dimensions Research Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjerpe EE, Kim Y (2007) Regional economic impacts of Grand Canyon river runners. Journal of Environmental Management 85(1):137–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter LM, Hatch A, Johnson A (2004) Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly 85:677–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith J, Jakus P, Larsen J, Burr S, Reiter D, Zeitlin J (2008) Impacts of wild and scenic river designation: a report for the Utah Governor’s public lands office. Department of Economics Utah State University, Logan UT

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson KL, Santelmann MV (2007) An analysis of the relationship between residents’ proximity to water and attitudes about resource protection. Professional Geographer 59(3):316–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahy JE (2005) US Army Corps of Engineers and Kaskaskia River Watershed community relationships: social capital, trust, and benefits. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota

  • Lemelin RH (2009) Doubting Thomases and the cougar: the perceptions of puma management in Northern Ontario, Canada. Sociologia Ruralis 49(1):56–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine MS (1977) Canonical analysis and factor comparison. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Sage, Newbury Park, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Marans R, Mohai P (1991) Leisure resources, recreation activity, and the quality of life. In: Driver BL, Brown P, Peterson G (eds) Benefits of leisure. Venture, State College, PA, pp 351–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore RL, Driver BL (2005) Evolution of science-based management of outdoor recreation resources. In: Moore RL, Driver BL (eds) Introduction to outdoor recreation: providing and managing natural resource based opportunities. Venture, State College, PA, pp 155–184

  • Moore RL, Siderelis C (2003a) Use and economic importance of the Wild and Scenic Chattooga River. American Rivers, Inc., Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore RL, Siderelis C (2003b) Use and economic importance of the West Branch of the Farmington River. American Rivers, Inc., Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Forest Management Act (1976) 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1600–1614

  • National Park Service Organic Act (1916) 16 U.S.C. §§ 1–4

  • National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997) Pub. L. No. 105-57

  • Palmer T (1993) The wild and scenic rivers of America. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Passante J (2001) Farmington river hatches. Fly Fisherman 22(5): 48–51, 60–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Verdin G, Lee M, Chavez D (2004) Outdoor recreation in a protected area in Southern Durango, Mexico: Analysis of local residents’ perceptions. Society and Natural Resources 17:897–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rummel RJ (1970) Applied factor analysis, 2nd edn. Northwestern University Press, Evanston IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein TV, Anderson DH (2002) Combining benefits-based management with ecosystem management for landscape planning: Leech Lake watershed, Minnesota. Landscape and Urban Planning 60:151–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein TV, Lee ME (1995) Managing recreation resources for positive outcomes: an application of benefits-based management. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 13:52–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein TV, Anderson DH, Thompson D (1999) Identifying and managing for community benefits in Minnesota state parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 17(4):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Stem CJ, Lassoie JP, Lee DR, Deshler DD, Schelhas JW (2004) Community participation in ecotourism benefits: The link to conservation practices and perspectives. Society and Natural Resources 16:387–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White DD, Virden RJ, van Riper CJ (2008) Effects of place identity, place dependence, and experience-use history on perceptions of recreation impacts in a natural setting. Environmental Management 42(4):647–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968) Public Law 90-541

  • Wild and Scenic Rivers Act—Amendments (1974) Public Law 93-279

  • Wild and Scenic Rivers Act—Amendments (1994) Public Law 103-242

  • Williams DR, Stewart SI (1998) Sense of place: An elusive concept that is finding a home in ecosystem management. J For 96:18–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrigley C, Neuhaus J (1955) The matching of two sets of factors. Am Psychol 10:418–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelezny LC, Chua P-P, Aldrich C (2000) Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues 56:443–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program of the National Park Service.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jordan W. Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, J.W., Moore, R.L. Perceptions of Community Benefits from Two Wild and Scenic Rivers. Environmental Management 47, 814–827 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9671-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9671-y

Keywords

Navigation