An Interpretive Study of Yosemite National Park ... - Springer Link

Environ Manage (2007) 39:50-62 DOI 10.1007/s00267-006-0061-9

RESEARCH

An Interpretive Study of Yosemite National Park Visitors’ Perspectives Toward Alternative Transportation in Yosemite Valley Dave D. White

Received: 23 February 2006 / Accepted: 21 August 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Abstract The National Park Service (NPS) is increasingly focusing on alternative transportation systems in national parks to address environmental and social problems arising from a historical reliance on personal automobiles as the primary means of visitor access. Despite the potential advantages, alternative transportation may require a reorientation in the way that Americans have experienced national parks since the advent of auto-tourism in the early twentieth century. Little research exists, however, on visitor perspectives towards alternative transportation or the rationale underlying their perspectives. It remains unclear how transportation systems affect visitors’ experiences of the park landscape or the factors influencing their travel behavior in the parks. This report presents an interpretive study of visitor perspectives toward transportation management in the Yosemite Valley area of Yosemite National Park, California. Qualitative analysis of 160 semi-structured interviews identified individual psychological factors as well as situational influences that affect visitors’ behavior and perspectives. Individual psychological factors include perceived freedom, environmental values and beliefs, prior experience with Yosemite National Park and other national parks, prior experience with alternative transportation in national parks, and sensitivity to subjective perceptions of crowding. Situational factors included convenience, access, and flexibility of travel modes, as well as type of visit, type of group, and park use level. Interpretive communication designed to D. D. White (&) School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4703, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

encourage voluntary visitor use of alternative transportation should focus on these psychological and situational factors. Although challenges remain, the results of this study suggest approaches for shaping the way Americans visit and experience their national parks to encourage environmental sustainability. Keywords Recreation management National parks Transportation management Visitor experience Qualitative methods Travel choice Public transportation

Introduction Transportation systems are a longstanding concern for environmental and social management in U.S. national parks and protected areas. Enduring public demand for access to national parks coupled with a recent historical reliance on private automobile travel have contributed to traffic congestion, parking shortages, visitor crowding, localized air pollution, noise pollution, wildlife impacts, and roadside vegetation disturbance. Dilsaver and Wyckoff (1999) stated that ‘‘infrastructural development for automobile travel comprises one of the most critical problems in the American national park system and overcrowding forms a related issue’’ (p. 76). They argued that two fundamental factors contribute to these problems. First is a ‘‘culture of management and experience,’’ accepted by both the National Park Service (NPS) and the public, which holds that access to national parks is a democratic right and the private automobile is the most efficient means of access. Second, this philosophy contributed to a ‘‘spiraling of interdependent development and use’’

Environ Manage (2007) 39:50-62

(Dilsaver and Wyckoff 1999, p. 76) leading to overbuilding of auto-related infrastructure. Although these authors focused on Glacier National Park to explore these issues, similar development and associated visitor experience and resource impacts are evident in other prominent parks, including Denali National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Yosemite National Park, and Zion National Park. To address the social and environmental consequences of auto-related development, the NPS is increasingly considering and implementing alternative transportation systems (ATS). Alternative transportation includes all modes of travel other than private vehicles, including bicycles, busses, trains, trams, and walking. ATS seeks to integrate traditional and alternative modes to increase efficiency. This effort was supported by the U.S. Congress in 1998 with the passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which increased planning responsibilities for federal land management agencies and provided funding through the Department of Transportation (DOT). NPS established the Alternative Transportation Program (ATP) in cooperation with DOT to implement its responsibilities under TEA-21. Funding for the ATP averaged about $9.5 million per year in fiscal years 1999–2003. During that time, 131 planning projects and 54 construction projects in 75 different parks were approved totaling $46.36 million (U.S. GAO 2002). GAO estimated that as much as $1.5 billion may be needed to address NPS alternative transportation needs over the next 20 years. Alternative transportation is promoted as an avenue to enhance visitors’ experiences, safety, and security, and to protect natural and cultural resources, as well as spur regional economic development. Despite the potential advantages, alternative transportation may require a reorientation in the way that Americans have accessed national parks since the advent of auto-tourism in the early twentieth century (Dilsaver and Wyckoff 1999; Percival 1999; Sims and others 2005). Although a central topic of concern for national park social science research has been to understand visitors’ experiences of the natural, cultural, social, and managerial settings and the meanings people derive from their park visits, to date a limited number of these studies have examined the role of transportation systems. It remains unclear how transportation systems affect visitors’ experiences of the park landscape or the factors influencing their travel behavior in the parks. Furthermore, little research exists on visitor perspectives toward the appropriateness of alternative transportation systems

51

in parks or the rationale underlying their perspectives. Scholars that have examined transportation issues in national parks (Daigle and Zimmerman 2004; Dilworth 2003; Sims and others 2005) unanimously state the need for additional research. Daigle and Zimmerman (2004) stated, ‘‘There is a need for more research in understanding the benefits and costs associated with visitors’ use of travel information technologies and alternative transportation modes in park settings’’ (p. 159). Such research is necessary to inform social scientific understanding of human–environment interactions and to aid transportation management policies that address environmental problems in national parks. The purpose of this report is to present an interpretive study of visitor perspectives toward transportation management in the Yosemite Valley area of Yosemite National Park, California. An interpretive research approach was chosen to explore the context of visitors’ perspectives and to complement existing research, which tends to rely on survey methods and quantitative analyses. This report continues with a review of research on national park visitors’ attitudes toward transportation management, followed by a description of the context for the case study of Yosemite Valley. Next, the interpretive research approach and methods are described and then findings are presented. The report concludes with a discussion of the implications of the study for environmental management in national parks.

Visitor Perspectives Toward Transportation Management in National Parks Few studies have examined national park visitors’ perspectives towards the social and environmental consequences of transportation management in national parks and how these perspectives shape their behavior and experiences. Most of the existing related research has relied on survey methods to evaluate visitors’ responses to changes or proposed changes in specific transportation management policies. For instance, Harrison (1975) surveyed Denali National Park visitors about their attitudes toward a newly instituted shuttle system and found that 84% approved of the new policy, 10% disapproved, and 6% were undecided. Although both private car drivers and bus riders approved of the policy, the former group was less supportive. More recently, Miller and Wright (1999) conducted a survey of visitor attitudes toward the transportation service, also in Denali National Park. Visitors felt the bus system enhanced their satisfaction

123

52

by providing ‘‘freedom to view the park instead of focusing on driving, driver courtesy, and wildlife observations’’ (p. 19). Miller and Wright (1999) also found that 76% agreed that ‘‘the transportation service busses enhanced my visit to Denali National Park,’’ and only 10% agreed that ‘‘busses and other vehicle traffic interfered with my enjoyment of wildlife’’ (p. 19). Sims and others (2005) evaluated visitor acceptance of a proposed park shuttle system in the Cave Codes area of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. They found 75% of respondents supported a free, mandatory shuttle system in Cave Codes, but support was significantly eroded to 51% if a proposed fee was included. Opponents of the shuttle system feared losing a sense of personal freedom provided by personal vehicles. Daigle and Zimmerman (2004) examined the relationships between alternative transportation and visitor behavior and experience at Acadia National Park. One of the park management goals was to encourage visitors to use the ‘‘Island Explorer’’ bus. Real-time parking information, realtime bus departure displays, and onboard bus announcements increased visitor use of the Island Explorer bus, even though most visitors tended not to use alternative transportation at home. Dilworth (2003) drew on the theory of planned behavior to study attitudes toward transportation in Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park and Golden Gate National Recreation Area. A factor component including alternative transportation items (park and bike, mandatory shuttle in park, public bus to park) received an overall mean appropriateness rating of 3.3 on a five-point scale, significantly lower than the mean of 4.7 for the traditional transportation items. An optional in-park shuttle was viewed as appropriate by 73% of respondents whereas a mandatory shuttle received support from only 37%. Dilworth (2003) explained lower support for mandatory shuttle as a function of visitors’ value for perceived freedom. She also examined the effect of park setting, experienceuse-history, level of current use of alternative transportation, and perceptions of crowding, congestion, and safety on attitudes and behavioral intentions. Positive attitudes towards the appropriateness of ATS in national parks, higher prior experience with public transit, and urban park setting were significant predictors of behavioral intentions to use ATS. The theory of planned behavior has also been applied to study attitudes toward alternative transportation and the effects of persuasive strategies designed to affect travel mode choices in work and school settings (Bamberg and others 2003a; Bamberg and others 2003b; Heath and Gifford 2002).

123


A limited amount of research has been conducted on visitor perspectives toward transportation systems from an interpretive approach or using qualitative analysis. In one such study, Davenport and Borrie (2005) examined visitor experiences of snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park. Analyzing qualitative data from 96 visitor interviews, they found that the park experience was marked by a sense of freedom, remoteness, closeness with nature, and connection to unique wildlife in a natural habitat. Visitors considered the snowmobile to be a functional mode of travel necessary to attain park experiences, but not fundamental to the experience. This finding suggests on the one hand that respondents evaluated their travel mode according to situational factors such as park access. It is interesting to note, however, that individual psychological factors such as a sense of freedom and closeness or intimacy with nature were important to the park experiences, and some visitors did credit the snowmobile with contributing to or enhancing these feelings. From the research on national park visitors’ perspectives toward transportation management, several issues warrant further investigation. Studies highlight the importance of perceived freedom to visitors’ perspectives. For some, freedom is enhanced by alternative transportation whereas others fear losing freedom by restricted auto access. Visitors appear to prefer and value the option to use alternative transportation but are resistant to mandatory programs. Support for alternative transportation may be eroded if a fee is charged. Intentions to use alternative transportation may be affected by prior park experience and prior public transit usage. There may be differences between visitors to parks near urban settings compared with visitors to more remote parks. Although attitude studies clearly have merit, one limitation of this approach is the inability to delve into visitors’ elaborations and justifications underlying their attitudes. Interpretive methods such as used in the current study may be helpful to explore the issues identified earlier in more depth.

Yosemite National Park Yosemite National Park preserves remarkable natural landscapes characterized by unparalleled examples of granite rock features, waterfalls, glacial valleys, ancient giant trees, and thousands of lakes in the central Sierra Nevada of California. The park also preserves cultural history dating back thousands of years to the earliest inhabitants, people of southern Miwok and Paiute Indian ancestry. Following exploration by trappers and


American military in the 1830s to the 1850s and the forcible removal of the Ahwahneechees, the scenic beauty of Yosemite Valley was promoted by early boosters such as artist Thomas Ayers and writer James Mason Hutchings. The first legal step in the establishment of Yosemite National Park came when President Abraham Lincoln signed the so-called Yosemite Park Act of 1864, transferring authority of the Yosemite Valley and the area around the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias from the federal government to the state of California as an inalienable public trust for purposes of public use, resort, and recreation (Runte 1990). The establishment of Yosemite National Park was fully realized through the California Forest Reservation Act of 1890, the subsequent return of management authority for Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove to the federal government in 1906, and the creation of the National Park Service in 1916. A tension has existed between automobiles, roads, and park preservation since the advent of auto-tourism in the early twentieth century and the ‘‘See America First’’ campaign (Shaffer 2001). Roads were built into Yosemite Valley in the 1870s and by 1913 the first cars were officially permitted into the park. Reliable allweather road access provided for increasing numbers of automobiles and visitation grew dramatically throughout the early 1900s as Yosemite Valley became a focal point for visitor services and park management. Colten and Dilsaver (2005) traced the development of infrastructure for water, sewerage, and garbage services in Yosemite Valley and efforts by the NPS to hide facilities from public view to preserve the romantic ideal of the wilderness park landscape. Visitation to Yosemite increased dramatically during the period from 1915 to 1930, and during the 1930s roads in the park were aggressively improved, widened, and paved (Runte 1990). Visitation reached one million in 1954, two million in 1976, and four million by the mid-1990s. Frissell and others (1980) discussed the challenge of determining visitor capacity in Yosemite Valley and noted that ‘‘debates over how to strike a balance in Yosemite have raged for many years’’ (p. l 54). From the time of these comments to the present day, the NPS has implemented several rounds of planning and measures to reduce traffic congestion, adjust traffic patterns, eliminate automobile travel in east Yosemite Valley, and institute shuttle buses. To address concerns related in part to transportation infrastructure and associated resource and visitor experience impacts, and emboldened by more than $200 million in emergency Congressional allocations for repairs from flooding in the winter of 1996–1997, NPS officials seized the opportunity by adopting the

53

Final Yosemite Valley Plan/ Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (NPS 2000). The final plan called for restoring 176 acres to natural conditions, redeveloping approximately 250 acres of visitor and employee services, reconfiguring traffic patterns to reduce congestion, and adding a fleet of diesel/electric hybrid shuttles to transport visitors around Yosemite Valley and to reduce reliance on personal autos. The Yosemite Valley today presents a compelling context for a case study of visitor perspectives toward alternative transportation in national parks. Nearly all (97%) visitors arrive to the park in a private vehicle (NPS 2006) and visitation is heavily concentrated in an area comprising less than 1% of the overall park acreage. Nearly 40% of the annual visitation occurs during the summer season, when as many as 15,000 visitors a day arrive at the park. A recent study of resource impacts in the Valley transportation corridor found that the majority of roadside parking sites sampled were highly disturbed by vegetation removal, invasive species, and soil compaction (Thomas 2006).

Study Methods An interpretive research approach (Hemingway 1990; Schwandt 1994) was selected for this study to explore the context underlying visitors’ perspectives toward alternative transportation. Interpretive research is well suited for exploring visitors’ perspectives through collaborative back-and-forth exchange and dialogue. Interpretive researchers often utilize data collection strategies, such as interviews and participant observations, which facilitate a more contextual and nuanced understanding of perspectives than is often possible through survey research. Such methods typically produce data suitable for qualitative analysis. A total of 160 semi-structured interviews were conducted with visitors to the Yosemite Valley portion of Yosemite National Park during two sample periods. Of the total, 100 interviews were completed August 15–27, 2005 and 60 were completed October 13–22, 2005. The interviews took place each day between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. at seven locations in Yosemite Valley. The goal of the non-probability sampling strategy was to capture a wide diversity of visitors’ perspectives. For each group, a random visitor was chosen as the primary interviewee. In keeping with the interpretive research approach, however, other group members were not discouraged from contributing to the discussion. Interviews were digital audio recorded for accuracy and the resulting files totaled approximately 18 hours. Based on the sampling approach, the

123

54

study findings represent the range of perspectives that are present among Yosemite Valley visitors, but not necessarily in the proportions found in our sample. The initial interview questions related to experience-use-history. The next questions focused on visitors’ preferences for and evaluations of various modes of transportation for traveling to the park. Visitors were queried about their most memorable or significant experiences, learning experiences, and least enjoyable experiences in the park, with specific focus and follow-up probes on the effects of transportation mode on their experiences and behavior. The final questions elicited visitors’ opinions about park transportation management options and whether the park should focus on accommodating personal vehicles or promoting alternative transportation. Qualitative analysis followed the procedures outlined by Miles and Huberman (1994). A team-based strategy was used to develop a codebook to guide the analysis (MacQueen and others 1998). This process began with a provisional list of ‘‘start codes,’’ descriptive categories of anticipated responses to the interview questions. For example, start codes included visitors’ perspectives on the costs and benefits of alternative transportation in national parks, such as convenience, monetary cost, flexibility, and accessibility. Beginning with the start codes, two analysts independently coded a sample of approximately 10% of the interviews to develop a more comprehensive coding system. During this process, analysts allowed for new coding categories to emerge from the data. The research team, including the two analysts and the author, subsequently reviewed the new coding systems and discussed discrepancies and differing interpretations. The process continued, using new samples of interview data each time, until an acceptable level of intra-rater and inter-rater reliability was achieved at ‡ 90% (Rust and Cooil 1994). The interviews were transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service and the resulting text files were imported in QSR N*Vivo. Next, the analysts returned to the interviews and developed ‘‘interpretive codes’’ and ‘‘pattern codes’’ in addition to the descriptive codes (Miles and Huberman 1994). Interpretive codes are meant to capture more complex dynamics in the data and typically emerge only after repeated interactions with the data. For example, it became clear during the analysis that the descriptive code ‘‘convenience’’ was being applied to interview text describing visitors’ perceptions of the benefits of private automobiles as well as park shuttle buses, but the meaning underlying the descriptions differed significantly. Interpretive codes allowed for additional contextual distinctions to be made to capture such nuances. Pattern codes were

123


developed to explore relationships among the concepts and to facilitate a constant comparative approach (Strauss and Corbin 1990). That is, pattern codes captured relationships and allowed the analysts to ‘‘test’’ their interpretations against the data. For instance, as discussed in the next section, it appeared during data analysis that visitors’ perceptions of alternative transportation were related to their prior experience with other national parks with ATS programs (e.g., Zion and Denali National Parks). Through pattern coding, the analysts created codes for such relationships to compare against each interview, looking for negating as well as supporting evidence. Lincoln and Guba (1985) described this part of the coding process as filling in, extending, bridging, and surfacing. The final coding included classifying the text according to the descriptive, interpretive, and pattern codes.

Study Findings The first section of the study findings presents visitors perspectives on advantages, disadvantages, and experiences of traveling through Yosemite Valley via private automobile, park shuttle bus, walking, and bicycling. The second section presents visitors’ perspectives toward transportation management policy in the Yosemite Valley and the rationale or justifications visitors use to support their positions. The completed sample of primary respondents included 89 women and 71 men with a mean age of 45 years. The vast majority (133) identified their racial background as White and 14 interviewees identified themselves as of Hispanic or Latino/a ethnicity. Comparison of this sample with a random sample of Yosemite National Park respondents (NPS 2006) revealed similar demographic profiles. Racial and ethnic profiles and education levels were generally similar; however, there are more female respondents in the current study than would be expected by chance. This does not imply that the non-probability sample is statistically representative of the visitor population, but it should diminish concerns about overrepresentation of any single perspective in this study. Visitors’ Perspectives toward Transportation Modes Private vehicles When discussing the benefits of private vehicles in Yosemite Valley, visitors mentioned convenience, freedom, and control, and opportunities for unique


access. Convenience was a recurring theme and was mentioned by nearly all respondents when talking about their cars, and convenience was especially salient to California residents and overnight visitors. Many overnight visitors were loaded down with suitcases or camping gear and valued the convenience of their cars while questioning the ability of alternative transportation to accommodate their needs. One visitor said, ‘‘You should see all my stuff, you’d understand. I have at least 15, 20 pieces of luggage, two ice chests, um, my airbed, one, two, three sleeping bags, I mean you could go on. It’s a lot.’’ A second theme showed that visitors valued private vehicles for providing a sense of personal freedom to dictate their travel schedules. One visitor said, ‘‘We could get where we were going. When we wanted to go.’’ Other visitors said that their cars allowed them to be ‘‘more flexible’’ or ‘‘take my time and view everything.’’ These and other comments, such as ‘‘you can go where you want when you want’’ were sometimes made to highlight the advantages of cars over the park shuttle bus, which limited the sense of freedom for some. Visitors also said private vehicles offered unique access to areas of Yosemite Valley where the free shuttle does not run. When probed about costs or disadvantages of using private vehicles in Yosemite Valley, visitors mentioned traffic congestion, crowding, and route finding. Frequently, respondents said that personal transportation brought the hassles of ‘‘traffic,’’ ‘‘crowding,’’ ‘‘parking,’’ and ‘‘getting lost.’’ Interpretive coding of these responses, however, suggested that visitors did not perceive these hassles to have significant effect on their behavior or detract from their enjoyment. Despite repeated probes during the interviews, there was very little elaboration by these respondents’ about the negative implications of congestion, parking, crowding, and route finding. On the contrary, respondents using their private vehicles were resolved to accepting these conditions as the norm. A typical comment was, ‘‘Sure, it’s crowded, but this is Yosemite, what do you expect? Besides, it’s worth it.’’ Such comments seem to illustrate how visitors reconcile their pre-trip expectations and past experience with the conditions they encounter on site as well the use of rationalization as a cognitive coping mechanism. The Yosemite Park Shuttle Convenience was a prominent descriptive code for the Yosemite Park Shuttle as well, although visitors referred to different facets of convenience for the shuttle bus. In contrast to private vehicles, convenience

55

for the shuttle bus meant avoiding traffic congestion, parking shortages, and route finding. One visitor said, ‘‘It’s just easier, you know you don’t have to find parking or anything, you just jump on the shuttle. It’s very convenient.’’ Another group said the shuttle bus was convenient because ‘‘It knew where it was going better than we did.’’ These visitors found the disadvantages of private automobile travel in Yosemite Valley sufficiently inconvenient to alter their behavior. The convenience of the park shuttle was, in fact, often discussed specifically in contrast to the inconveniences of driving a car in Yosemite Valley. That is, if not for the parking problems and congestion, many park shuttle bus riders would have preferred their private automobiles. This finding indicates that visitors’ tolerance for such hassles is a salient factor in their travel mode decision making. In addition to being convenient, visitors perceived the park shuttle to reflect and promote their environmental values and beliefs about the impact of their behavior on the park. This theme included comments about the shuttle’s role in protecting park resources, reducing air pollution and traffic congestion, and promoting other pro-environmental behaviors. One visitor said, ‘‘Well definitely it’s my alternative. I mean, I’m someone who’d almost like to see there be no cars in Yosemite Valley. So save on pollution, I mean the number of trips, and you know they could make it electric. Environmental yeah.’’ Others said, ‘‘Because it’s way better for nature,’’ ‘‘Environmentally it’s probably a lot better,’’ and ‘‘It’s environmentally correct.’’ Interpretive coding of these and similar responses indicated that these visitors felt an obligation to engage in pro-environmental behaviors during their visit to Yosemite Valley. As with other modes, there was evidence that visitors evaluated the impacts of the various transportation options on not only their own experience and enjoyment but also the social and environmental conditions of the park. A visitor said of the shuttle, ‘‘It’s a little slower than, you know, if you went on your own, but, you know, you can’t really go on your own because of the congestion. If everybody took their own vehicle, we’d all be sitting in traffic.’’ There were criticisms of the park shuttle, mostly related to perceptions of crowding on the buses, long wait times at peak hours during high-use, and limited schedules and routes. For instance, a representative response was, ‘‘It [shuttle] ends at ten and we have to leave here. We’re in Curry Village, there’s no other way to get back, well, it’s a bit of a dark walk back.’’ During the summer season the park shuttle busses tend to fill up and the drivers often direct passengers,

123

56

sometimes quite assertively, to move to the back and fill the bus to capacity. Visitors often said they chose the shuttle specifically to avoid traffic congestion and crowding, only to experience crowding on the bus. Interpretive coding showed that most of these respondents tended to rationalize this experience as acceptable and consistent with their expectations. It is interesting to note that some visitors disliked the buses because they reminded them of being in an urban area. One respondent said, ‘‘These buses are large and sure they’re, you know, not polluters like the old ones were, but they’re too crowded and it’s too much like a bus in a city.’’ Such responses illustrate the point made by Dilsaver and Wyckoff (1999) that national park visitors have come to accept the private automobile as the appropriate means of accessing and experience parks and, to some, shuttle busses seem ‘‘out of place.’’ Walking and bicycling The two common non-motorized travel modes available to Yosemite Valley visitors are walking and bicycling and they are discussed here together due to the similarity in responses and interpretations. Walking and bicycling allowed visitors to take their time, focus on their immediate surroundings, move at their own pace, and connect to the park and its natural and cultural features in an environmentally-friendly way. Those respondents who chose to walk repeatedly said that walking allowed them to ‘‘get up close,’’ ‘‘just see more of everything,’’ and view the natural scenery and wildlife. Visitors’ perceptions of the sense of freedom and the protection of park resources provided by walking are summed up by the next two excerpts. ‘‘You see more, you don’t have to worry about running anyone over or anything, destroying the park, and it preserves it more and makes you slow down and actually look at what you’re walking around.’’ ‘‘Walking is easier, more environmentally friendly, less hassle.’’ Visitors who rode bicycles in Yosemite Valley praised them for being ‘‘faster than a shuttle or a car,’’ and providing ‘‘the freedom of not being with a car.’’ Similar to the park shuttle and walking, visitors recognized the environmental benefits of biking, ‘‘I’d rather not mess the Valley up with any more emissions’’ said one woman visiting in summer. A fall visitor summed up the advantages of biking this way, ‘‘Well I can go exactly where I want. The valley is small so you can go just about anywhere. And I can get there quick. Much more quickly than just walking, and I don’t want to do the car thing for environmental reasons.’’

123


Impact on travel mode on visitors’ significant experiences To explore the relationship between transportation and visitors’ experiences of the natural, cultural, and social landscape, respondents were asked about their most significant or meaningful experience of Yosemite Valley and how they were traveling when the experience occurred. Natural landscape features such as valleys, waterfalls, mountains, granite domes, and ephemeral celestial features were far and away the most commonly mentioned elements. These features contributed to feelings of awe, happiness, and wonder. For instance, a female summer visitor said, ‘‘It’s just the scenery. It’s just any direction you look there’s beautiful scenery. Not just in one spot, it’s everywhere. A lot of the parks, it’s just in one spot. But in Yosemite it’s everywhere.’’ Although natural landscape features were the most common contributors to significant experiences, a few visitors mentioned cultural elements, such as the historic Ahwahnee Lodge, Yosemite Lodge, and Curry Village. Pattern coding showed a clear relationship between visitors’ most significant experiences and alternative transportation, particularly walking and biking. That is, visitors were more likely to be walking or riding bicycles when their most significant or memorable experience of the park occurred. This pattern was most pronounced for pleasurable experiences and emotions associated with viewing natural scenery such as waterfalls. Interestingly, visitors who were driving when their most significant experience occurred were more likely to mention viewing the granite features, such as Half Dome and El Capitan, especially from the panoramic vista at Tunnel View point. A male summer visitor recalled ‘‘Just, you know, when we were coming down into the valley, that first glimpse of the valley. That was really spectacular. The view.’’ Another visitor said, ‘‘Pulling in and seeing the huge rock cliff.’’ The association of driving and pleasurable experiences viewing granite features is certainly related to the physical geography of the park and the road system, which provides excellent environmental affordances for such experiences. Visitor Perspectives on Transportation Management Policy One of the principal advantages of the interpretive research approach employed in this study is that respondents had an opportunity to consider the impacts of the various transportation modes on the natural, social, and cultural environment of the park as


well as the impact on their own experience and behavior prior to discussing their opinions on transportation management. In contrast to on-site or mailback survey questionnaires commonly used to study visitor attitudes, the qualitative interview process facilitated more deliberation on an issue that many visitors had not considered thoughtfully prior to being approached for the study. The qualitative interview method allowed the technician to interject and question visitors about consistencies or contradictions in their answers as well as the rationale underlying their perspectives. With the discussion of the costs and benefits of the various transportation modes in the background, visitors were asked to state and justify their perspectives on transportation management in Yosemite Valley. Focus on alternative transportation One perspective, expressed by more than half of the respondents in this study, was that the park should focus heavily or exclusively on alternative transportation in Yosemite Valley. These responses typically revealed strong attitudes supported by claims that alternative transportation is environmentally sustainable and appropriate in a national park context, reduces crowding and traffic congestion, alleviates parking problems, and promotes more significant and meaningful visitor experiences. One visitor said, ‘‘Park shuttles have less pollution. If they want to drive in their cars, go to Disneyland or something.’’ Pattern coding revealed that this perspective was more pronounced among visitors with higher levels of experience with Yosemite National Park and other national parks, a longer history of visiting Yosemite National Park, and overnight visitors. Many of these respondents were well informed about park management and discussed at length the continuing transportation management policy debate. The following excerpt, from a woman visiting in summer, is representative of the rationale for support of alternative transportation. ‘‘I like shuttle bus services. You know, several, I’m going to say back in the ‘80s there was a big article in National Geographic on the national parks and Yosemite in particular. Supposedly at that time, by the year 2000 there would be no cars coming into the park, you know, there would be points of entry and exit outside the park. You would leave your cars there and you and all of your belongings would be shuttled in. So I don’t know what happened to that concept, maybe they couldn’t get the funding, people protested, you know, wrote their congressman. I don’t know. But, you know, at that time, you know, that was the plan. And

57

they were going to have it instituted by the year 2000. And obviously that didn’t happen, but I think that it’s you know, I think that I’m seeing, really seeing the effects of people a lot, you know, now more than I have before. I see things being trampled and broken and this and that, you know.’’ In this next excerpt, a male visitor who reported visiting Yosemite National Park once a year for the past five years supported the shuttle bus and further suggested that the NPS has lost an appropriate focus on restoring the natural character of the park. ‘‘I think you’ve got a whole valley between the entrance-way and Curry Village, and in that way, in that area there I think there should be more campgrounds. And maybe at the beginning of it, they could have a big parking lot with buses there that could bring people in. And unless you’re going to camp, you could come in here with your car if you’re going to camp and leave it there and not drive around, you know, and ride the shuttle buses around. That would be great. But I just think that the whole thing has fallen short.’’ Many visitors who supported a focus on alternative transportation indicated their preferences for a policy of shuttling all visitors into Yosemite Valley. In this response, a woman visiting in summer recognizes the thorny challenges posed by such a policy but concludes that it is worthwhile nonetheless. ‘‘Focus on shuttle buses. And I think they should keep all personal vehicles outside of the park completely. Well, this is, like in my opinion, like my favorite place on earth. I think it’s gorgeous and I love coming here to get away from everything and to still be here surrounded by vehicles and car noises and, you know, the pollution’s just going to keep increasing and the popularity and I mean, just the number of people coming to this place. And so more for the sake of the natural beauty, I think that cars should be, yeah, left outside. And then, yeah, just, if they, you know, I mean, obviously, they’d have to create like a huge amount of parking outside of the park and then have, you know, a very smooth-running shuttle system and stuff like that. And it gets a little tricky with everyone being able to bring in all this stuff they need. But I think that would be worth the challenge. And yeah, I think we have to preserve what we have here. And just for the little conveniences of having our cars, I think it’s not worth it.’’ Note in the preceding excerpt how the visitor first states a definitive opinion, ‘‘Focus on shuttle buses...I think they should keep all personal vehicles outside of the park completely.’’ She then justifies her stance by reference to what she values from the park experience (escape, enjoying scenic beauty) and how reliance on

123

58


private automobiles threatens those values (through air pollution, noise pollution, crowding). She then recognizes the complexity of this recommendation by discussing the technical and management challenges of building adequate parking and running an efficient shuttle system before finally reiterating her initial statement. This excerpt demonstrates the complexity underlying visitors’ perspectives toward alternative transportation. Most visitors recognized the prevailing alternative transportation management scenarios, such as a mandatory park-and-ride shuttle located at the park entrance and the supporting arguments as well as potential problems. Pattern coding also revealed that prior positive experience with ATS in other parks and recreation areas was clearly linked to increased support of ATS in Yosemite Valley. Many of those who supported ATS in Yosemite Valley mentioned prior experience with the Zion National Park shuttle system, which was nearly universally praised. Other comparisons are illustrated in the following passages. ‘‘I’ve stayed in a lot of places where they have a lot more public transportation and it worked out very well. All the large snow ski areas like Aspen, Mammoth, and so on, Lake Tahoe, they have a lot of public transportation, shuttle services that run constantly. And that works out really good.’’ ‘‘I’m from Alaska and I go to Denali Park sometimes and that’s just, there’s not as much, there’s not as much personal vehicle travel through there and I think that’s better like for the animals and the other plants and the wildlife. I just think that it seems better.’’ It is interesting to note how, in the first of the preceding passages, the respondent compares transportation management in Yosemite Valley to privately-run ski resorts such as Aspen Mountain Ski Resort in Colorado. NPS managers may feel this is an unfair comparison, but it illustrates that some visitors compare transportation services in national parks to those of private tourism providers.

you carry on and off the bus and you can stop whenever you want to.’’ A fall season visitor declared, ‘‘This is America, we use personal vehicles’’ and continued ‘‘I think that’s the preferred mode of travel and I think that they need to accommodate that and the park’s not that big but a couple of acres of parking I don’t think is going to detract from the park and if they do, well.’’ These respondents stressed the anthropocentric benefits of national parks and downplayed the ecological impact of visitation.

Focus on traditional transportation

In a follow-up question to explore perspectives on transportation management policy further, respondents were asked if the park management should actively discourage the use of private vehicles. Pattern coding revealed that summer visitors were less likely than fall visitors to support such a policy. This finding is somewhat counterintuitive as it seems that summer visitors are exposed to higher use levels, traffic congestion, parking problems, and potentially increased crowding perceptions. Interpretive coding revealed, however, that this perspective was related to a perception among these respondents that discouraging private

A less prominent theme by comparison, expressed by just six respondents in our study, was that the park should focus on providing access to personal vehicles. Several of these respondents expressed concern that a policy stressing alternative transportation would be inconvenient and cumbersome, especially for overnight visitors with camping equipment. For instance, a summer visitor said, ‘‘I think more and more people tend, like us, to use personal vehicles. You can have your stuff in it you know. You are not limited to what

123

Mixed or balanced approach A third perspective stressed a balance between traditional and alternative transportation. Visitors said that personal vehicles were essential for entry to the valley and for accessing campgrounds, but that shuttles should be encouraged, but not required, once visitors are in the Valley. Pattern coding revealed that those visitors who were satisfied with the current transportation conditions in the Valley supported a ‘‘balanced approach.’’ One visitor said, ‘‘I think the way they have it right now seems to be a pretty good mix. Because it seems like there’s a lot of parking. But the shuttle system seems to be really awesome too.’’ A theme in the responses of visitors who favored a mixed approach was a perception that increasing use pressures would necessitate an increasing focus on shuttle bus, but that some access to personal vehicles should be preserved. A male summer visitor said, ‘‘I think they’ve got a pretty good balance right now, and maybe long term, you know, we read a bit in the news how they’re going to try to really limit personal vehicles. And I think that might be good in the long run. But I think people like to have, and I like to have, a little flexibility in where I’m going. But I also think it’s important that it’s nice and scenic here and not polluted.’’ Visitor perspectives on discouraging personal vehicles


autos in the park would also entail limiting use, which may negatively affect them personally. In essence, limiting autos meant limiting use, which these visitors opposed. It is also possible that visitors who are more sensitive to environmental impacts and more supportive of ATS may have been displaced. As might be expected, visitors who felt the park should focus on providing alternative transportation as opposed to traditional transportation were more likely to support a policy actively discouraging people from driving in the valley. Many of these respondents answered emphatically ‘‘yes’’ and ‘‘absolutely.’’ To support this position, visitors stressed the value of reducing crowding, traffic congestion, and preserving the park environment. The response from this female summer visitor was typical, ‘‘Yes I do [think the park should limit cars]. It just causes a traffic jam and there is a lot of people biking, there are a lot of children and it’s safer with the shuttle. And it’s more convenient. I mean, but some people are just hard headed and just want to use them [cars]. I don’t know why they don’t because it’s so much easier to get on a shuttle.’’ Several respondents indicated deference to park managers to enact transportation management policies for environmental conservation, ‘‘We didn’t have a problem with traffic. It just surprised me, and certainly the cars didn’t, only if the cars were inhibiting the environment, then I’d say by all means, keep more of them out and stop us short of the park and make us take trams and stuff in that reduce, you know, the pollution of cars, if that becomes a problem.’’ Another theme in these responses was that even if the park did not actively discourage personal vehicles, it should not promote them either. For instance, one respondent said, ‘‘Not discourage them, but provide more public transportation’’ and another replied ‘‘No, but I don’t think I’d cater to them any more than what they’re doing now.’’ Respondents who opposed discouraging vehicles often expressed support for the park shuttle, but also valued the personal freedom and convenience of their autos: ‘‘I think that the shuttle buses are a really good idea, but I don’t think they should restrict. See if they provide them and they’re optional, people use them, as they have. We’ve been on a shuttle bus lately. So I think there’s a happy medium in there.’’ Another theme in these responses was that the park should actively, even aggressively, encourage visitors to use the shuttle, but still not discourage or limit private vehicles: ‘‘No. I think they should encourage the use of public transportation. But I don’t think they should discourage it [personal vehicles].’’

59

Discussion and Conclusion In this study, an interpretive research approach was employed to examine visitors’ perspectives toward alternative transportation in the Yosemite Valley of Yosemite National Park, California. The findings provide evidence that national park visitors’ travelrelated behavior and perspectives toward alternative transportation in national parks are affected by a host of factors that may be categorized as: (1) individual psychological factors, and (2) situational influences in the park setting. At the individual psychological level, the findings point to the role of perceived freedom, environmental values and beliefs, prior experience with Yosemite National Park and other national parks, prior experience with alternative transportation in national parks, and sensitivity to subjective perceptions of crowding. Situational factors included the convenience, access, and flexibility of travel modes as well as type of visit, type of group, and park use level. In this concluding section, these influences on visitors’ behavior and perspectives are discussed and implications are provided for alternative transportation management in national park designed to address environmental problems. Perceived freedom emerged as a significant psychological factor affecting visitors’ perspectives on alternative transportation. The relevance of perceived freedom is consistent with previous transportation research in national parks (Davenport and Borrie 2005; Miller and Wright 1999; Sims and others 2005). This finding is also consistent with travel mode choice research in non-leisure settings (Evans and Carrere 1991; Stradling and others 1999), where perceived freedom, control, and independence have been shown to affect choices and moderate the effect of stress during work commutes. Perceived freedom appears especially salient and influential for transportationrelated decision-making, behavior, and management preferences in the context of a national park visit, a conclusion consistent with the importance of perceived freedom as a defining characteristic of leisure (Iso-Ahola 1980; Neulinger 1981). In management terms, perceived freedom would be a relevant indicator of the quality of visitor experience with transportation systems in national parks. This implication, however, may offer mixed comfort for managers because visitors differed somewhat in their opinions about whether traditional or alternative transportation enhanced their feelings of freedom. For alternative transportation advocates who promote ATS as more environmentally sustainable than traditional transportation, it will be important to recognize some visitors prefer

123

60

automobiles for freedom to control their schedules in the park and ‘‘go where you want when you want.’’ Thus, to encourage voluntary adoption of ATS by these visitors, park shuttles may have to be more flexible and accommodating in their travel routes. Individuals’ environmental values also impacted their perspectives toward alternative transportation in Yosemite Valley. This finding is consistent with the impact of environmental values and beliefs on proenvironmental behaviors such as using public transportation for commuting (Collins and Chambers 2005) and recycling (Guagnano and others 1995). Specifically, visitors’ perspectives were influenced by what Stern and others (1999), in the context of a valuebelief-norm theory of pro-environmental behavior, labeled social and biospheric values for the environment. In the current study, visitors evaluated and justified their own behaviors in accordance with their beliefs about the effects of their actions on the value of the environment to society as well as the value of the environment for its own sake. Some visitors feel a personal moral responsibility and social expectation to engage in pro-environmental behaviors while in the park by riding the bus. Park managers wishing to encourage alternative transportation in national parks should seek to activate or make salient visitors’ proenvironmental values. Greater experience-use-history (EUH) with Yosemite National Park and other national parks and greater experience with alternative transportation in national parks were also positively related to visitors’ use of and support for alternative transportation in Yosemite Valley. It is possible that visitors with greater EUH in Yosemite Valley favor alternative transportation because they are comparing current conditions to their prior experiences in a process of ‘‘benchmarking’’ (Vaske and others 1980), and they feel that alternative transportation helps to alleviate undesirable conditions (e.g., traffic congestion) and thus recreate conditions more similar to their earlier experiences. It is encouraging to alternative transportation proponents that visitors who have greater experience with ATS in national parks appear more supportive. This finding is consistent with a longitudinal study of visitor experience of the mandatory alternative transportation system at Zion National Park, Utah (Mace and others 2006). Zion National Park visitors initially had some reservations when the shuttle system was instituted in 2000, but by 2003 visitor satisfaction was very high overall and remained high in 2005. For several reasons, including geography, cost, and local political dynamics, it would be extremely challenging to implement mandatory park and ride shuttle system in Yosemite

123


Valley. Regardless, evidence suggests that as visitors use and become accustomed to alternative transportation in national parks, overall they are supportive. For some visitors, subjective psychological perceptions of crowding influenced their behavior and management perspectives. It is widely accepted that crowding perceptions are influenced not only by encounter levels but also by individual psychological traits, characteristics of the groups encountered, and situational features (Manning 1999). Although crowding perceptions were not a focus of this study, respondents seemed to experience crowding during periods of high encounters and close confinement on park shuttles. These visitors also said that crowding was expected and acceptable given the setting, perhaps an example of rationalization as a cognitive coping strategy (Manning 1999). Additional research would be necessary to understand fully the dynamics of crowding perceptions, but it is plausible that alternative transportation may be even more acceptable if encounter levels and wait times were lower, suggesting a need for additional shuttle capacity during high use seasons. Also, this finding suggests the need to measure crowding perceptions on park shuttles as a component of ongoing visitor experience monitoring. Situational factors, including type of visit, type of group, park use level, and convenience, access, and flexibility of travel modes were also mentioned by respondents. This is consistent with findings from the study in Zion National Park by Mace and others (2006), in which visitor satisfaction with the park shuttle system was affected by situational influences including shuttle accessibility and efficiency. Such situational factors likely represent proximal influences on specific behaviors during the park visit, mediating the relationship between individual psychological factors and behavior. It is also possible that situational factors function as choice heuristics, or shortcuts, in the decision process. For instance, the need to transport camping or other recreation equipment, traveling with children, staying overnight, and severe traffic congestion or parking shortages, are situational influences that affect visitors’ choices between driving a car, riding the shuttle bus, biking, or walking. This explanation is consistent with a study of tourists’ trips from home to the tourist destination by Middelkoop and others (2003), in which choices between car, air, or alternative transportation were made using heuristics, including the presence of children and type of accommodation. Managers should focus on situational influences that are under their control, such as the convenience, accessibility, and flexibility of the park shuttle, to encourage voluntary visitor use of


alternative transportation. Although other situational factors are beyond management control, such as the presence of children and type of stay (day/overnight), managers should focus their efforts on accommodating visitor needs by, for instance, providing adequate space for equipment and encouraging a family-friendly bus environment. Based upon the results of this study, communication designed to influence visitors’ travel mode choices and management perspectives should target individual psychological factors as well as situational factors, a recommendation consistent with efforts designed to influence work and school commuting patterns (Collins and Chambers 2005). Interpretation could highlight both the social and environmental benefits of alternative transportation in national parks, encourage visitors who have little experience with park shuttles to try it, encourage visitors with more experience to introduce it to other members of their group, and promote the convenience, flexibility, and accessibility of the shuttle. To promote walking and bicycling, NPS interpretation should highlight not only the social and environmental benefits, but also the opportunity for more intimate, meaningful, and satisfying experiences in the park. Finally, to counteract the auto-focused ‘‘culture of management and experience’’ (Dilsaver and Wyckoff 1999) that the NPS and its visitors have accepted, interpretative communication should highlight the long history of alternative transportation in national parks, which included stagecoach tours, railroad routes, and touring auto coaches. Interpretation might use nostalgic images, quotations from early visitors, nostalgic artifacts, and ATS design features to bring transportation in the parks full circle. For instance, the classic red busses called ‘‘Jammers’’ at Glacier National Park provide an example of historical imagery for alternative transportation. Yosemite National Park has been at the center of debate about balancing visitor use and environmental preservation for more than a century. From the time roads first entered the Valley in the 1870s, through the 1970s when visitation reached two million, until today, Yosemite Valley exemplifies the uneasy historical alliance between roads, cars, and park preservation. Although it is not a panacea for all that ills the NPS, alternative transportation does hold the potential to mitigate environmental impacts such as air pollution, noise pollution, roadside vegetation disturbances, and wildlife impacts associated with auto-related infrastructure and a reliance on personal automobiles as the primary means of public access. National parks have a unique opportunity to serve as exemplars or demonstration projects for environmentally sustain-

61

able transportation systems, educating visitors about the impact of their transportation choices on society and the environment. Respondents in this study demonstrated the capacity to deliberate about the effects of their transportation choices and management preferences on their own experience as well as the park environment. Although challenges remain, the results of this interpretive study suggest the real possibility of a reorientation in the way Americans visit and experience their national parks to encourage sustainability. Acknowledgments This research was supported through a Cooperative Agreement with Yosemite National Park and facilitated by the National Park Service Denver Service Center and the Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit. The author would like to acknowledge Kevin Percival, Kerri Cahill, Jim Bacon, and Henrietta DeGroot from the National Park Service for their support for this research. Also, thanks to Jill Wodrich, Yolonda Youngs, Tiffani Borcherding, and Michelle Malonzo for their valuable assistance with the research.

References Bamberg S., I. Ajzen, P. Schmidt. 2003a. Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: The roles of past behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 25:175–187 Bamberg S., D. Rolle, C. Weber. 2003b. Does habitual car use not lead to more resistance to change of travel mode? Transportation 30:97–108 Collins C. M., S. M. Chambers. 2005. Psychological and situational influences on commuter-transport-mode choice. Environ Behav 37:640–661 Colten C. E., L. M. Dilsaver. 2005. The hidden landscape of Yosemite National Park. J Cult Geogr 22:27–50 Daigle J. J., C. A. Zimmerman. 2004. The convergence of transportation, information technology, and visitor experience at Acadia National Park. J Travel Res 43:151–160 Davenport M. A., W. T. Borrie. 2005. The appropriateness of snowmobiling in national parks: An investigation of the meanings of snowmobiling experiences in Yellowstone National Park. Environ Manage 35:151–160 Dilsaver L. M., W. Wyckoff. 1999. Agency culture, cumulative causation and development in Glacier National Park, Montana. J Hist Geogr 25:75–92 Dilworth V. A. 2003. Visitor perceptions of alternative transportation systems and intelligent transportation systems in national parks. Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 299 pp Evans G. W., S. Carrere. 1991. Traffic congestion, perceived control and psychophysiological stress among urban bus drivers. J Appl Psychol 76:658–663 Frissell S. S., R. G. Lee, G. H. Stankey, E. H. Zube. 1980. A framework for estimating the consequences of alternative carrying-capacity levels in Yosemite Valley. Land Plan 7:151–170 Guagnano G. A., P. C. Stern, T. Dietz. 1995. Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ Behav 27:699–718

123

62 Harrison G. S. 1975. People and park: Reactions to a system of public transportation in Mt-Mckinley-National-Park, Alaska. J Leisure Res 7:6–15 Heath Y., R. Gifford. 2002. Extending the theory of planned behavior: Predicting the use of public transportation. J Appl Soc Psychol 32:2154–2189 Hemingway J. L. 1990. Opening windows on an interpretive leisure studies. J Leisure Res 22:303–308 Iso-Ahola S. E. 1980. The social psychology of leisure and recreation. W. C. Brown Co. Publishers, Dubuque, IA, 436 pp Lincoln Y. S., E. G. Guba 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 416 pp MacQueen K. M., E. McLellan, K. Kay, B. Milstein. 1998. Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. CAM J 10:31–36 Mace B. L., J. D. Marquite, R. Kay. 2006. Six years of mandatory shuttle use in Zion National Park: A longitudinal analysis of the visitor experience. 12th International Symposium for Society and Resource Management, Vancouver, BC Manning R. E. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, 374 pp Middelkoop M. V., A. Borgers, H. Timmermans. 2003. Inducing heuristic principles of tourist choice of travel mode: A rulebased approach. J Travel Res 42:75–83 Miles M. B., A. M. Huberman 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 338 pp Miller C. A., G. R. Wright. 1999. An assessment of visitor satisfaction with public transportation services at Denali National Park and Preserve. Park Sci 19:18–21 NPS (National Park Service). 2000. Final Yosemite Valley Plan/ Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. National Park Service, Yosemite National Park, California Neulinger J. 1981. The psychology of leisure. C.C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, 302 pp NPS (National Park Service). 2006. Yosemite National Park Visitor Study Summer 2005. NPS Park Studies Unit, Moscow, Idaho

123

Environ Manage (2007) 39:50-62 Percival K. 1999. National parks and the auto: A historical overview. In C. Strong (ed), National Parks: Transportation alternatives and advanced technology for the 21st century. Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, pp 55–58 Runte A. 1990. Yosemite: The embattled wilderness. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, 271 pp Rust R. T., B. Cooil. 1994. Reliability measures for qualitative data: Theory and implications. J Market Res 31:1–14 Schwandt T. A. 1994. Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, pp 118–137 Shaffer M. S. 2001. See America first: Tourism and national identity, 1880–1940. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 429 pp Sims C. B., D. G. Hodges, J. M. Fly, B. Stephens. 2005. Modeling acceptance of a shuttle system in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. J Park Recreation Admin 23:25–44 Stern P. C., T. Dietz, T. Abel, G. A. Guagnano, L. Kalof. 1999. A value belief norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmental concern. Human Ecol Rev 6:81– 97 Stradling S. G., M. L. Meadows S. Beatty. 1999. Identity and independence: Two dimensions of driver autonomy. In G. B. Grayson (ed), Behavioural Research in Road Safety X. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK, pp 7–20 Strauss A., J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research. Sage, Newbury Park, California Thomas S. 2006. Visitor experience and resource protection (VERP) transportation impact study. Yosemite Alternative Transportation Workshop, Yosemite, California U.S. General Accounting Office. 2002. National Park Service: Opportunities to improve the administration of the alternative transportation system. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, 14 pp Vaske J., M. Donnelly, T. Heberlein. 1980. Perceptions of crowding and resource quality by early and more recent visitors. Leisure Sci 3:367–381