<%BANNER%>

Human-Induced Noise Impacts on Boaters at Waldo Lake, Oregon


PAGE 1

HUMAN-INDUCED NOISE IMPACTS ON BOATERS AT WALDO LAKE, OREGON By JOSEPH KUHN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN RECREATIONAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Joseph Kuhn

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I wish to sincerely thank Dr. John Confer for his help and guidance throughout my entire graduate experience here at the University of Florida. As my advisor, friend, supervisor and mentor, we successfully completed many projects throughout my stay and gave each other many words of wisdom concerning home improvement issues. I also wish to thank my co-chair Dr. Robert Burns. I would have never been able to experience the wild beauty of Oregon for two consecutive summers without his belief in my skills as a researcher. Dr. Burns hired me as part of the NVUM project even before I was a student at this University. Again, without his trust in me to assist in the NVUM project, I may have never even been a graduate student. I would also like to thank Dr. Taylor Stein. Taylor is an excellent instructor, and I learned a lot about planning and nature-based tourism through his classes. His input into this thesis is appreciated. I would also like to thank my family for all of their love and continued support in all of the decisions I have made throughout life no matter how strange they seemed to be. I thank my dad especially, to whom I dedicate this thesis, for he made me who I am today and I am proud to be his son. In addition, I would like to thank all of the graduate students who put up with me through thick and thin during the creation of this thesis the party is at my place!!!! Lastly, I want to thank Sarah Farmer. She has been a continued inspiration to me throughout our relationship. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................x CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Background...................................................................................................................1 Statement of Research Problem....................................................................................5 Thesis Statement...........................................................................................................5 Hypotheses and Research Questions............................................................................6 Delimitations.................................................................................................................7 Limitations....................................................................................................................7 Definitions....................................................................................................................8 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................14 Introduction.................................................................................................................14 Lakes...........................................................................................................................15 Normative Theory.......................................................................................................17 Conflict.......................................................................................................................20 Tolerance....................................................................................................................26 Noise Impacts and Conflicts.......................................................................................27 Satisfaction.................................................................................................................31 Summary.....................................................................................................................36 Conceptual Model.......................................................................................................37 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................39 Background.................................................................................................................39 Site Description..........................................................................................................40 Data Collection and Sampling Procedures.................................................................41 Selection of Subjects...................................................................................................46 iv

PAGE 5

Instrumentation...........................................................................................................46 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................48 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................50 Introduction.................................................................................................................50 General User Profile...................................................................................................50 Descriptive Analysis of Noise-Related Variables......................................................56 Satisfaction..........................................................................................................56 Human-Induced Noise.........................................................................................58 Motorized Noise..................................................................................................60 Interference and Conflict.....................................................................................61 Motorized Boating Impacts.................................................................................63 Motorized Boating Management.........................................................................65 Research Questions and Hypotheses Testing.............................................................68 Research Question 1............................................................................................68 Research Question 2............................................................................................72 Research Question 3............................................................................................73 Research Question 4............................................................................................77 5 CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION..................................................................................88 Introduction.................................................................................................................88 Summary of Findings.................................................................................................89 Research Question 1: Does the Occurrence of Noise Affect Boaters Overall Experiences at Waldo Lake?............................................................................89 Hypothesis 1A...............................................................................................89 Hypothesis 1B...............................................................................................90 Research Question 2: Does Activity Style Affect Overall Experience Differently?......................................................................................................92 Hypothesis 2A...............................................................................................92 Research Question 3: Does Activity Style Affect Boaters Opinions About Noise?..............................................................................................................93 Hypothesis 3A...............................................................................................93 Hypothesis 3B...............................................................................................95 Research Question 4: Are the Attitudes and Opinions Regarding Proposed Management Actions Different Between Boating Groups?............................97 Hypothesis 4A...............................................................................................97 Hypothesis 4B...............................................................................................99 Hypothesis 4C.............................................................................................100 Conclusions...............................................................................................................101 Future Research........................................................................................................105 Management Implications........................................................................................108 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT........................................................................................110 v

PAGE 6

B SURVEY REFUSAL FORM...................................................................................116 C ADDITIONAL TABLE............................................................................................117 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................118 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................127 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 Surveys per Sampling Day.......................................................................................43 2 Number of Surveys per Day of Week......................................................................44 3 Number of Surveys per Month.................................................................................44 4 Number of Surveys per Location.............................................................................44 5 Usage of Watercraft.................................................................................................51 6 Boater Activity Style Based on Type of Power.......................................................51 7 Gender of Respondents............................................................................................51 8 Respondents State of Residence.............................................................................52 9 Miles Traveled to Waldo Lake.................................................................................53 10 Average Length of Stay............................................................................................53 11 Waldo Lake Visitor Status.......................................................................................54 12 Amount of Years Visiting Waldo Lake....................................................................54 13 Activities Participated in and Primary Activity While Visiting Waldo Lake..........55 14 Ten-Point Overall Satisfaction Scale.......................................................................56 15 Satisfaction Index Item Descriptives........................................................................57 16 Reliability of Satisfaction Index...............................................................................58 17 Human-Induced Noise Impacts on Overall Experience...........................................58 18 Human-Induced Noise Types that Impacted Overall Experience............................59 19 Number of Human-Induced Noises Selected...........................................................60 20 Motorized Noise Impacts on Overall Experience....................................................61 21 Number of Motorized Noises Selected....................................................................61 vii

PAGE 8

22 Interference Index Item Descriptives.......................................................................62 23 Reliability of Noise Interference Index....................................................................63 24 Motorized Boating Impact Index Item Descriptives................................................64 25 Reliability of Motorized Boating Impact Index (MBI)............................................65 26 Motorized Boating Management Index Item Descriptives......................................67 27 Reliability of Motorized Boating Management Index (MBM)................................67 28 Human-Induced Noise Impacts by Satisfaction Independent Sample t-tests...........69 29 Number of Human-Induced Noise Types................................................................69 30 Motorized Noise Impacts by Satisfaction Independent Sample t-tests....................70 31 Number of Motorized Noise Types Chosen.............................................................71 32 Activity Style and Satisfaction Independent Sample t-tests.....................................72 33 Cross-tabulation of Boater Groups and Impacts of Human Induced Noise.............74 34 Number of HIN Types and Activity Style Independent t-tests................................75 35 Interference Index and Activity Style Independent Sample t-tests..........................76 36 Number of Motorized Noise Types and Activity Style t-tests.................................77 37 MBI/MBM Index and Activity Style Independent Sample t-tests...........................78 38 MBI Index items and Activity Style Independent Sample t-tests............................79 39 Cross-tabulation of Boater Groups and Motor Boating Management Opinions......80 40 MBM/MBI Index and Human-Induced Noise Independent Sample t-tests.............81 41 MBI Index items and Human-Induced Noise Independent Sample t-tests..............82 42 Cross-tabulation of HIN and Opinions of Motor Boating Management..................83 43 MBM/MBI Index and Motorized Noise Independent Sample t-tests......................84 44 MBI Index Items and Motorized Noise Independent Sample t-tests.......................85 45 Motorized Noise and Opinions of Motor Boating Management Actions................86 46 "Other" Noise Category Response List..................................................................117 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 Conceptual Model....................................................................................................38 2 Waldo Lake and Vicinity Site Map..........................................................................45 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science in Recreational Studies HUMAN-INDUCED NOISE IMPACTS ON BOATERS AT WALDO LAKE, OREGON By Joseph Kuhn August 2004 Chair: John J. Confer Major Department: Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management The purpose of this study was to identify the impacts of noise on boaters in the Waldo Lake area, and to determine if the presence of noise affected the individual boaters outdoor experiences. In addition, this study examined the relationships and differences between the boaters based on their activity choice, experiences with noise, and overall feelings towards impacts and management actions towards motorized boating. Visitor perceptions and opinions were obtained through on-site, personal or face-to-face interview surveys conducted at various recreation sites at Waldo Lake, Oregon. This study found that the presence of human-induced noise could significantly impact the experiences and satisfaction levels of boaters at Waldo Lake, Oregon. In addition, this study revealed that there were asymmetrical conflicts present between motorized and non-motorized boaters based upon noise and motor boating as a whole. Specifically it was concluded that non-motorized boaters are more sensitive to noise x

PAGE 11

impacts. Satisfaction levels among the non-motorized group were decreased by the presence of noise, and significant differences existed in the attitudes and opinions of boating impacts and management actions to reduce (control) motorized recreation. Understanding the preferences, tolerances, and desires of varied recreationists can assist managers in developing more effective management strategies. These strategies could reduce the occurrence of conflict and lead to increased satisfaction among the multiple users of Waldo Lake. It is important for recreation managers to carefully assess issues that arise in natural settings, and to carefully choose management strategies that will produce the highest level of benefit for visitors to the area. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Perhaps the landscape features that attract the most interest are lakes (Smith, 1992). Lakes are considered an important ecosystem, supplying subsistence, residence and recreation to millions of organisms. People, in particular, enjoy lakes for many reasons including: aesthetic qualities, commercial uses, and recreational uses (Miller, 1992; Smith, 1992). However, the popularity of these ecosystems for human use has led to an array of environmental impacts that can disrupt the overall health of the system and the other organisms within it (Asplund, 2000; Klessig, 2000; Miller, 1992). Due to the variety of impacts that can occur on lake systems, management of these areas is an on-going concern. Proper lake management includes several important tasks that help maintain an attractive water-based recreation setting. Certain characteristics (e.g., healthy watersheds and landscapes, clean water, and undisturbed natural viewsheds and soundscapes) are essential to the quality of an outdoor recreation experience (National Recreation Lake Study, 1999). Multiple human activities affect certain environmental settings, such as natural soundscapes, and have led resource managers to evaluate the amount of regulation and management applied to these types of ecosystems (Larson & Hammitt, 1981). The balance between recreational use and management needs to assure the continued satisfaction of the various user groups without sacrificing the overall quality of the lake and its attributes. 1

PAGE 13

2 Maintaining such a balance between the recreational use and management of lakes is particularly important in the U.S. A recent survey conducted by the American Recreation Coalition (2001) determined that nearly 17 million boats, operated by an estimated 76 million people, are in use across the United States today. Furthermore, more than half of all U.S. adults enjoy lakes for their multitude of activities (Mele, 1993; The National Recreation Lakes Study, 1999). These activities include hunting, fishing, hiking, boating, bird watching, wildlife photography, and a variety of other activities (The National Recreation Lakes Study, 1999). Some of these recreational activities can cause adverse effects to the natural soundscape of an area by allowing elevated levels of noise to infiltrate the natural environment thus, negatively impacting the experiences of others who also enjoy these recreational areas. The Willamette National Forest (WNF) was originally established as part of the Cascade Range Forest Reserve in 1893 by President Grover Cleveland. The area has been under the supervision of the United States Forest Service (USFS) since 1905, but was not officially added to the National Forest System until 1933 (USDA Forest Service, 2004). Congress also added the forest to the Oregon Cascades National Recreation Area in 1984 in order to: protect the natural area; and enhance the recreational value, as perceived by the many visitors to the area (USDA Forest Service, 2004). The WNF is comprised of 380,000 acres of wilderness, and it includes seven major peaks of the Cascades: Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, Three-Fingered Jack, Diamond Peak, and The Three Sisters. The forest, itself, extends for 110 miles along the western side of the Cascade Mountain Range, extending from the Mt. Jefferson area (which is east of Salem) to the Calapooya Mountains (which are northeast of Roseburg, Oregon)

PAGE 14

3 (USDA Forest Service, 2004). Moreover, the WNF is considered one of the most diverse and productive forests in the National Forest System, and it is comprised of approximately 1.7 million acres (USDA Forest Service, 2004). The landscape throughout the forest includes high, snow-capped mountains, narrow canyons, wooded slopes, streams and lakes. These various offerings, in turn, supply many recreational activities to visitors (USDA Forest Service, 2004). In particular, Waldo Lake, located within the boundaries of the WNF in central Oregon, administers many different recreational uses. Resource managers in the WNF have identified the need to better understand: 1) the visitors to Waldo Lake within the context of the National Forest and; 2) the role that Waldo Lake plays in relation to other lakes in Central Oregon. Since Waldo Lake is considered one of the purest lakes on earth in terms of water quality and clarity (Williams, 2002), there is heightened interest to examine the impacts of various recreational activities and user groups. Specifically, area managers are beginning to research the potential conflicts that exist between user groups following the admittance of motorized activities on and around the lake. Besides decreasing water quality through pollution, motorized activities also generate noise pollution, which impacts other visitors and detracts from the overall experience to the area and the adjacent wilderness. Past scientific research related to lakes and recreation has concentrated on the conflicts associated with motorized and non-motorized activities and their use in recreational areas. However, studies of different user groups in association with the occurrence of noise in the natural environment have not been as exhaustive. This study utilizes the concepts of conflict, tolerance, satisfaction and norms to determine if different perceptions of noise impacts exist between boating groups at Waldo Lake. A normative

PAGE 15

4 approach employs impact indicators, and standards of quality, to identify and estimate threshold and tolerance levels visitors hold during their recreation experience (Manning, 1999). Past research has indicated that differences in tolerance levels and perceptions may exist between groups participating in different activities, such as motorized and non-motorized boating (Adelman, Heberlein & Bonnicksen, 1982). Previous studies have used photographs, video clips, or questionnaires describing different levels of degradation, to determine what the typical acceptability level is for selected impact indicators (Freimund, Vaske, Donnelly & Miller, 2002). In this study, a survey instrument was used to determine the impacts of human-induced and motorized noise within the natural soundscape, as perceived by the different boater groups of the Waldo Lake area. Questions emphasized different types of noise as well as interference levels of noise on specific aspects of visitors experience. By determining the effects of noise generated in natural environments (like Waldo Lake), resource and recreation managers can achieve a better understanding of how to manage multi-use areas. Normative and conflict theories, including goal interference, were used as the theoretical framework for measuring the impacts caused by human-induced and mechanical noise. Information gathered using these theories has assisted in identifying different perceptions of noise between motorized and non-motorized boaters on Waldo Lake. This study examined the introduction of noise to natural soundscapes, and more specifically, the impacts of noise on boaters in the Waldo Lake area. Results can assist in future lake management by assessing the effects of recreational activities that cause excessive amounts of noise in outdoor settings.

PAGE 16

5 Statement of Research Problem Within the natural environment, the natural soundscape (or the sounds of nature) may be considered an integral aspect of visitors outdoor experiences. Over the last few decades, population increases, advances in technology, and an increasing desire to recreate in wild places, have augmented sound pollution and recreational conflict. In particular, noise-based conflicts within the natural environment are becoming more and more frequent as access to motorboats, all terrain vehicles (ATVs), and automobiles increases. Furthermore, elevated occurrences of the use of aircraft for both commercial and recreational purposes are also contributing to these types of conflicts. As a result of these and other episodes, managers have become convinced of the need to make conflict reduction a priority. In sum, increasing noise pollution not only detracts from the experiences of some users, but it can also create tension between managers and the recreationists they are trying to serve. Since boating is such a popular form of recreation in the Waldo Lake area, this project only examines noise perceptions held by motorized and non-motorized boating groups; it does not address the perceptions of terrestrial users. Moreover, for the purpose of this study, noise will be limited to types associated with humans, including the use of motorized items, the presence of loud pets, noise from electronic devices such as radios or televisions, and the incidence of loud voices within a natural environment. Thesis Statement There has not been much research conducted regarding the effects of human-induced noise on the outdoor experiences of both motorized and non-motorized boaters. The differences between the levels of noise present and the acceptability of noise in an outdoor recreation setting have also received little attention. Because natural sound

PAGE 17

6 degradation can adversely affect outdoor experiences for recreational users, it is important to study the effects of noise pollution in the natural environment. Obviously, it is not possible to test all types of noise, either naturally occurring or human-induced, as they are too numerous and often unnoticeable. After reviewing a wealth of literature involving noise, conflict, recreational norms and satisfaction, this study has been narrowed to examine the most common and logical types of noise that may negatively affect ones overall experience in the natural environment. The following research questions are expected to further outdoor recreation literature regarding different types of users and noise in lake settings. This thesis also attempts to determine if respondents activity choice plays an important role on their perceptions of human-induced noise. These noises are often produced by motorized vehicles, but they can also stem from non-mechanized sources introduced by users. Additionally, this study examines the differences in opinions regarding motorized boating impacts and proposed management actions based upon activity style and prior noise experiences. Hypotheses and Research Questions The following questions and hypotheses were investigated in this study. R1: Does the occurrence of noise affect boaters overall experiences at Waldo Lake? H1A: Human-induced noise does not affect boaters overall experiences at Waldo Lake. H1B: Motorized noise does not affect boaters overall experiences at Waldo Lake. R2: Does activity style affect overall experience differently? H2A: There is no difference in overall experience between motorized and non-motorized boaters.

PAGE 18

7 R3: Does activity style affect boater opinions about noise? H3A: There is no difference between impacts and opinions of human-induced noise between boater groups. H3B: There is no difference between impacts and opinions of motorized noise between boater groups. R4. Are the attitudes and opinions regarding impacts from motorized boating and select management actions different between boating groups? H4A: There is no difference in the attitudes regarding proposed management actions and the perception of motorized boating impacts based on activity style. H4B: Human-induced noise does not affect boaters attitudes toward proposed management or their opinions about motorized boating impacts. H4C: Motorized noise does not affect boaters attitudes toward proposed management or their opinions about motorized boating impacts. Delimitations Data were collected at the boat ramps, campsites, and day-use areas along the eastern, developed side of Waldo Lake, within the Willamette National Forest in central Oregon. Data were collected from June 20 to September 20, 2003, by means of an interview-styled questionnaire. All willing visitors above the age of 18 comprise the sample of respondents. Limitations Data collection occurred only within the Waldo Lake area, rather than several other multiple-use lakes within the Willamette National Forest or the State of Oregon. Accordingly, responses may be biased because of the strong relationships visitors had with Waldo Lake. Due to the relatively short timeframe of data collection, which only

PAGE 19

8 occurred during the 2003 summer season, the responses may not be representative of all user groups who visit the Waldo Lake area throughout the year. In addition, only respondents who participated in boating activities were included in the statistical analyses of the study, even though all respondents were allowed to participate in the study. Finally, it was assumed that respondents answered survey questions accurately and honestly. Definitions The following definitions were used for the purpose of this study. Activity style. This term is defined as the personal meanings attached to an activity such as range of experience, definitions of quality, and intensity of participation (Moore, Scott & Graefe, 1998). Within this study, activity style was operationalized as the primary power source of the boaters on Waldo Lake. Based on power source, respondents were divided into two activity style groups: motorized and non-motorized boaters. Motorized boaters. For the purposes of this study, motorized boaters consist of those respondents that listed electric, diesel or gas as the primary power source for their vessel. This was discovered through a specific survey question (Appendix A) that asked respondents to identify their boat power source. Non-motorized users. For the purposes of this study, non-motorized boaters consist of those respondents that listed wind, paddle or oar as the primary power source for their vessel. This was discovered through a specific survey question (Appendix A) that asked respondents to identify their boat power source. Conflict. Conflict is defined as a case of competition over a resource by different users (Owens, 1985). It also has been defined as the result of incompatibilities between

PAGE 20

9 different activities (Noe, Hull, & Wellman, 1982) and goal interference by anothers behavior (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Furthermore, conflict can also be perceived as a type of user dissatisfaction. For the purpose of this study, the concept of conflict was limited to noise alone. This was operationalized by employing survey questions that explored the amount of interference caused by motorized noise and human-induced noise. The former was examined in relation to four distinct aspects of the respondents outdoor experience. These aspects included: enjoyment of the area, appreciation of the sounds of nature, appreciation of the natural quiet, and appreciation of the historical and cultural significance of the area. These items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale with values ranging from 1 (not at all interfering) to 5 (extremely interfering). Human-induced noise impacts were operationalized by asking participants if such noises impacted their overall experience of the area. Tolerance. Tolerance has been viewed as the tendency to accept (or reject) lifestyles different than ones own (Carothers, Vaske & Donnelly, 2001; Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Tolerance has also been described by Ivy, Stewart and Lue (1992) as ones willingness to share resources with activity groups other than ones own. Tolerance was not directly measured within the context of the survey, but can be determined by examining the differences between interference levels and satisfaction expressed by the different boating groups. Recreational norms. For the purposes of this study, recreational norms are defined as shared standards of behavior for specific recreational areas (Patterson & Hammitt, 1990; Vaske, Shelby, Graefe & Heberlein, 1986). These norms can relate to: the acceptable number of people in an area; the amount of permissible environmental

PAGE 21

10 degradation present in an area; and, for the purpose of this study, the appropriate level of human-induced noise (Ruddell & Gramman, 1994). By measuring how strongly respondents feel about the presence of noise, an overall normative level among the respondents can be determined. Environmental impacts. Environmental impacts may be classified as any impact that causes environmental degradation to a system (Miller, 1992). The occurrence of human-induced noise, as utilized in this study, may be considered an environmental impact since it can disrupt behaviors of wildlife and detract from the overall natural soundscape, as experienced by outdoor recreationists (Ruddell & Gramman, 1994). For the purpose of this study, the occurrence of noise not normally found within the natural environment is considered an environmental impact. The questionnaire inquired as to the presence of different types of noise and measured the extent to which respondents experiences were negatively affected by noise. Noise. This term is defined as unwanted or annoying sound (Elvhammar, 2000). Gramman (1999) described noise as a psychological evaluation of sound that can be perceived differently by individuals. As such, noise is considered different than sound within the context of this study because noise tends to have a negative connotation attached to it. Often, noise is considered to be annoying or bothersome to individuals to a certain degree (Kariel, 1990). This study, then, examines specific types of noises created by humans in the natural environment. These noises can originate from the use of mechanical or motorized devices or they can be created in other forms by humans. Human-induced noise. In conjunction with the previous definition, human-induced noise is defined as the occurrence of unwanted sound in the natural

PAGE 22

11 environment that is directly attributed to other users (Gramman, 1999). As employed in this study, human-induced noise refers specifically to sounds generated by people, including mechanized sound caused by engines and other human-made devices. Sounds created in a natural area by brought items, such as loud dogs and loud stereos, were also included in this study. In particular, respondents were asked if the occurrence of human-induced noise interfered with their overall experience at Waldo Lake. In addition, specific types of human-induced noise were measured by asking respondents to choose the type(s) of noise that interfered with their experience; results were then combined to create a number of different types of noise variables, as described in Chapter four. Motorized noise. Motorized noise, for the basis of this study, is any noise created by mechanization. This type of noise is considered a subcategory of human-induced noise since it is created by humans. Motorized noise impacts were determined by asking respondents if and how they were impacted by motorized noise during their trip. Results were based on four individual interference items, which were scaled from 1 (not at all interfered) to 5 (extremely interfered). Natural soundscape. Gramman (1999:15) defined natural soundscape as the sound environment created by ongoing and more or less continuous processes within the natural environment that is being measured. The natural soundscape is distinguishable from sounds that are produced by specifiable sources of interest, such as aircraft. The natural soundscape is also sometimes described as sound created by wind, flowing water, mammals, birds and insects. This definition is closely related to that of natural quiet (see below). A combination of these definitions is applied throughout this study to describe the natural area in its pristine condition, as opposed to when noise is present.

PAGE 23

12 Self-noise. This term is defined by the National Park Service as any non-mechanical sound produced by park visitors (Gramman, 1999). Examples of self-noise include sounds created by human activities (such as running, hiking, talking, laughing and swimming) that can completely or partially mask other sounds. This term was not actually measured in the context of this study, but it is considered part of the human-induced noise variable. Natural quiet. Natural quiet is defined as ambient sound plus any self-noise generated by visitors involved in non-intrusive, non-mechanical activities (National Park Service, 1995). To reiterate, natural ambient sounds include running rivers, the wind through the trees, the sound of birds and other wildlife, and natural silence. Satisfaction. This term is defined in outdoor recreation research as the engagement in recreational activities that is expected to fulfill selected needs, motivations or other desired states (Manning, 1999). Within this study, a ten-point Likert scale (with 1 being worst experience and 10 being best experience) was used to operationalize satisfaction. An additional satisfaction measure was developed by creating an index of four individual satisfaction items; then, combining them to create a descriptive satisfaction index based on the work of Graefe and others (Drogin, Graefe & Titre, 1990; Graefe & Fedler, 1986; Graefe & Drogin, 1989). Overall, satisfaction was one of the main determinants that were used to establish differences between boating groups in terms of their perception of noise impacts. Dissatisfaction. This term is defined by Websters dictionary as the condition or feeling of being displeased or unsatisfied. In past literature, dissatisfaction has been utilized to describe the impacts certain groups or activities have on individuals (Ramthun,

PAGE 24

13 1995). For the purpose of this study, this term was used to describe a reduction in visitor satisfaction caused by human-induced noise. In particular, discontent was attributed to conflicts between groups as well as tolerance differences relating to noise.

PAGE 25

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction This chapter introduces literature related to noise impacts in outdoor settings as well as the use of a normative approach in determining impact perceptions between boater groups in the Waldo Lake area. The literature review is divided into the following seven major sections: 1. Basic background literature on the importance of lake systems for society and recreation. 2. Description of normative theory and its role in conflict, especially as it pertains to the determination of acceptable levels of impacts and tolerance levels between different user groups. 3. Examination of conflict literature between different recreation groups. a. Goal interference b. Tolerance 4. Relevant literature on noise impacts in outdoor recreation settings. 5. Examination of satisfaction and management literature and its relationship to norms and conflict. 6. Summary of findings. 7. Description of the conceptual model. 14

PAGE 26

15 Lakes Lakes offer numerous benefits to society. Firstly, they represent an aesthetic locale for the public (Klessig, 2000; Kosk, 2001; Miller, 1992; Smith, 1992). In North America, Europe and Japan, aesthetic enjoyment is one of the most common uses of lakes (Klessig, 2000). In a study of Wisconsin lakefront property owners, Klessig (1973) found that subjects were attracted to and purchased lakefront property primarily for the natural beauty and solitude of those areas. Furthermore, Klessig (2000) concluded that aesthetic values, such as beauty and solitude, were considered more important than all outdoor recreation activities when purchasing lakefront properties. Within this study, over 60% of Wisconsin lakefront property owners indicated that they had purchased their property primarily for the solitude and beauty of the lake area. Other activities such as boating, fishing and swimming accounted for an additional 20% of the responses (Klessig, 2000). A follow-up to Klessigs 1973 study, conducted in 1997 by Shifferd and Palmer, produced similar conclusions, finding that the aesthetic values of lakes remained the primary reason for visiting lake areas. A second benefit that lakes provide society involves economic opportunities (Klessig, 2000; Miller, 1992). In some parts of the world, lakes supply fish for both local consumption and export operations (Klessig, 2000). In other places, they also supply water for human consumption, industry, agricultural irrigation and hydroelectric power (Kosk, 2001; Mitsch & Gossellink, 1993). In larger lakes, transportation options, such as ferries, constitute additional economic importance (Klessig, 2000). Moreover, lakes increase economic opportunities through tourism and recreation (Klessig, 2000). Major hospitality industries have developed around lake areas to

PAGE 27

16 provide services for those who use the areas for recreation (Klessig, 2000; Miller, 1992). Communities can benefit from lakes by obtaining income through sales and services without directly harming the area (Klessig, 2000; Shifferd & Palmer, 1997). However, these tourism areas may lose some of their aesthetic or environmental qualities over time (National Recreation Lake Study, 1999). Problems such as crowding, noise pollution, litter, and other environmental degradation may occur due to over-use of these areas (Mitsch & Gossellink, 1993; Shifferd & Palmer, 1997). Additionally, lakes are a source of both emotional and environmental security (Klessig, 2000). Emotionally, lakes touch people by providing a setting for many special occasions in life. Times spent at lakes are filled with emotional attachments through both solitude and socializing (Klessig, 2000). Environmental security, on the other hand, represents attention to societys environmental needs, including clean water, clean air, natural quiet and biodiversity (Klessig, 2000). Lastly, lakes provide an abundance of recreation activities (Miller, 1992). More than half of all U.S. adults participate in recreational activities involving water-based systems such as lakes (National Recreation Lake Study, 1999). Fishing, boating, swimming, sunning, photography, wildlife-viewing, sightseeing and camping are some of the activities available in lake areas. These activities add satisfaction and enjoyment to ones life by providing natural beauty, solitude, opportunities for physical activity, and rich outdoor experiences (Klessig, 2000). Previous research has shown that people recognize the diverse recreational opportunities that lakes offer. For instance, Cordell (1999, 2003) found that water-based recreation has been steadily increasing over the last twenty years. In particular, activities

PAGE 28

17 such as motorized boating, non-motorized boating, swimming, fishing, water-skiing and wildlife viewing have all experienced increases in participation (Cordell, 1999, 2003). Within the United States, motorized boating is by far the most popular water-based activity among recreationists-increasing from approximately 47 million participants in 1994-1995 to over 51 million participants in 2000-2003 (Cordell, 2003). As participation in water-based activities continues to increase in the United States, crowding and recreational conflict increase as well (Heywood, 2002; Manning, 1999). The following section discusses normative theory and its application within recreational conflict. Because of increases in water-based activities, normative theory is important in assessing: levels of acceptable change between visitors, user preferences, and behavior patterns of different recreational groups. Normative Theory Norms are defined as standards of behavior that individuals (either alone or as a group) hold for a particular activity; for instance, what is and what is not acceptable in an outdoor recreation setting (Hall & Shelby, 1996; Vaske et al., 1986). Most normative theory is derived from the work of Jackson (1965), who proposed a norms model based on an impact acceptability curve. This model describes social norms in terms of averages of individual evaluations (Jackson, 1965). Problems such as crowding and environmental impacts are displayed on a horizontal axis, while evaluations by users are displayed vertically. The plotted curve can then be analyzed for various norm characteristics including: optimum conditions; range of acceptable conditions in recreational settings; norm strength throughout the study group; and norm crystallization or the level of agreement about certain norms (Heywood, 2002).

PAGE 29

18 Conceptually, ecological and social impact norms can be divided into three types: no tolerance, single tolerance, and multiple tolerances (Shelby et al., 1996). Specifically, these three types of impact norms describe the levels of tolerance present within a group. No-tolerance norms refer to those impacts that generally receive zero tolerance from all users of a particular area or resource (Whitaker and Shelby, 1988). A single-tolerance norm exhibits one specific level where tolerances begin to decrease; but overall there is consensus within the sample (Shelby et al., 1996). The third type, multiple-tolerance norms, refers to the presence of multiple tolerance levels, which are attributed to the existence of different user groups with different norms for a specific impact (Shelby et al., 1996; Whitaker et al., 1988). This final type of norm is normally present in conflict issues involving groups with different behavioral characteristics and activity preferences (Shelby et al., 1996). Thus, the purpose of norms is to measure collective tolerances within a group of individuals. Within this study, tolerances are related to conflicts that arise in outdoor recreation. Previous studies of boaters on the Deschutes River demonstrated that all of the norms found fit one of the previously mentioned classifications (Whitaker and Shelby, 1988). This is important in understanding the different perceptions between recreational users in this study. Although the normative approach has been widely used in encounter research, most studies have focused on ecological factors (Shelby, et al., 1996). In order to determine the differences in acceptability levels of human-induced noise between boater groups, one can first evaluate different users perceived standards of quality and limits of acceptable noise.

PAGE 30

19 Previous studies have illustrated how this concept can be related to and utilized in measuring impacts. In 1988, Shelby, Vaske & Harris examined campsite impacts in the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness in Oregon. Data was collected by asking respondents what they thought of bare ground areas that were absent of vegetation and the size of fire rings at the campsites (Shelby, et al., 1988). The scale utilized in this study ranged from totally unacceptable to totally acceptable. The results were then plotted and produced varied impact acceptability curves (Shelby, et al., 1988). Based on these findings, these authors postulated that there were definite differences in acceptability levels within the respondent group based upon a specific impact (Shelby, et al., 1988). Normative behavior has been used in previous research as an indictor of recreational conflict (Hall & Shelby, 1996). This approach has great appeal in conflict research as it can assist in identifying users determinations of regular patterns of behavior, as well as establishing standards of an individuals recreation experience that can be utilized by managers (McDonald, 1996). Recreational groups that do not share similar norms can experience some form of interpersonal or social conflict. The concept of norms has been the focus of a number of previous studies that sought to ascertain norm differences between groups and how norms affect experiences (Hall & Shelby, 1996; Heywood & Aas, 1999; Vaske, Shelby, Graefe & Heberlein, 1986). In this thesis, normative theory will provide the conceptual basis by which to measure different boating groups definitions of acceptable levels of human-induced noise in an outdoor setting. Norms have been developed as a useful tool to conceptualize, collect and organize evaluative judgments in resource management (Shelby, Vaske & Donnelly, 1996). The following discussion on conflict and tolerance in

PAGE 31

20 recreational settings will elucidate the relationships that exist between normative behavior among recreationists, the occurrence of conflict, and the tolerance of other recreationists behavior. Due to the similarities between conflict and normative theory, it should be noted that the idea of normative conflict acts as an important a bridge between the two concepts. Individuals who experience normative conflict are generally not dependent on the specific resource in question; but their groups values they are connected to during their recreational pursuits (Bury, Holland & McEwen, 1983). The relationship between groups can be determined behaviorally rather than by resource specificity. For example, conflict may arise between hunter and non-hunter groups due to differences in normative values (Bury, Holland, & McEwen, 1983). The non-hunter group may experience social-value based conflict towards the hunter groups. This conflict type is due to individuals dislike for others' activities; it is not due to goal interference during the recreational experience (Bury, Holland, & McEwen, 1983). Normative conflict and goal interference will be further elaborated within the context of conflict and tolerance. Conflict In recent years, the rapid growth of outdoor recreation has led to increased competition over limited land and water resources; subsequently, conflict, has risen between visitors participating in different types of recreation activities (Owens, 1985). The theory of conflict has been defined in previous studies in several different ways, with the same general idea that of incompatibilities between groups leading to different degrees of dissatisfaction. Ramthun (1995) described conflict as a form of dissatisfaction in which an unsatisfied individual feels that the attainment of his/her goals is influenced directly by

PAGE 32

21 the interference of another individual or group. Owens (1985), who looked mainly at mechanization differences, described conflict as a case of competition over a resource by different activities. Noe, Wellman and Buhyoff (1982) defined conflict as a result of incompatibilities between activities such as motorized versus non-motorized ventures. However, the more popular and widely accepted definition by Jacob and Schreyer (1980) states that conflict is goal interference by anothers behavior. This final interpretation of conflict is considered an illustration of interpersonal conflict. Within this definition of conflict, goal interference requires direct or indirect social contact between user groups. Direct contact refers to face-to-face encounters with another group, such as a motorized boater encountering a canoeist on a lake (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Indirect contact refers to the occurrence or evidence of certain unacceptable behaviors as viewed by one group. Examples include the sound of motorized activity in a wilderness setting or seeing snowmobile tracks in more remote areas. According to goal interference theory, when the conduct of one group is incompatible with the physical, social, or psychological goals of another individual or group, a state of conflict occurs (Gramman & Burdge, 1981). Although goal interference does not always lead to goal incompatibility, it is considered a major source of incompatibility between users (Hammitt, 1988). Outdoor recreationists may experience conflict due to the following factors: differences in the social acceptability of specific behaviors, desirability of encounters, and the affect of encounters on visitors enjoyment. While the definition of goal interference typically deals with conflicts caused by direct contact, some non-activity-based behaviors (such as those that produce noise, litter, and rowdiness) have also been described as serious conflict sources. These behaviors,

PAGE 33

22 then, also adhere to the goal interference definition (Jackson & Wong, 1982; Jackson, Haider, & Elliot, 2002; Ruddell & Gramman, 1994). Conflict can be described as a type of user dissatisfaction in which certain expected goals are unmet. This is not only due to differences in the type of use, but also to differences in beliefs and behaviors between groups or individuals. Moreover, these differences lead to incompatible ways of achieving similar goals (Gibbons & Ruddell, 1995). Earlier research studies showed that recreational conflict seemed likely between users and non-users of mechanization because of: differences in activity styles; and an inability to achieve similar recreational goals across both groups (Owens, 1985). Within the literature, a consistent conclusion is that conflict is often asymmetrical, meaning that one user group is more affected than another (Adelman, Heberlein & Bonnickson, 1982; Jackson & Wong, 1982; Knopp & Tyger, 1973; Lime, 1975; Shelby, 1980). This asymmetrical relationship between different user types can be influenced by the quality of experience desired as well as experience satisfaction. Asymmetrical conflict usually occurs when only one of the groups becomes frustrated by the inability to achieve their recreational goals due to the behavior of another individual or group. For example, Adelman et al. (1982) found that while non-motorized canoeists did not enjoy interactions with motorized boat users, motorized boaters did not mind seeing multiple canoeists. In a similar study, Jackson and Wong (1982) found that cross-country skiers disliked encounters with snowmobilers but that snowmobilers did not mind encounters with skiers. Thus, asymmetrical conflict has been noted in studies of motorized versus non-motorized groups. However, it has also been detected between skiers and snowboarders

PAGE 34

23 (Baird, 1994; Thapa & Graefe, 2004; Vaske et al., 2000), hikers and stock users (Watson, Niccolucci & Williams, 1994), and hikers and mountain bikers (Watson, Williams & Daigle, 1991). In sum, these findings show that conflict may also be linked to activity style and how users perceive each other in the outdoor setting. Furthermore, conflicts within a specific activity, such as boating, can also occur when visitors with different expectations and norms interact with each other (Confer, 1997). Conflict has also been studied between members of the same activity type who use different propulsion. For example, researchers have discovered that paddling canoeists experienced an elevated amount of conflict with motorized canoeists (Adelman et al., 1982; Peterson, 1974; Peterson, Anderson & Lime, 1982). Asymmetrical conflict has also been found between groups participating in different activities, which are separated by the mode of propulsion utilized. The competition experienced between hikers and mountain bikers and the conflict experienced between skiers and snowboarders are two examples of recreational conflict influenced by activity styles (Ramthun, 1995; Thapa & Graefe, 2004; Vaske, Carothers, Donnelly & Baird, 2000). However, symmetrical conflict can also occur between user groups in an outdoor recreational setting. In the study of skiers and snowboarders (Thapa, 1996; Thapa & Graefe, 2004), it was discovered that both groups conflicted with each other because of the presence and /or behavior of individuals from either group. Thapa (1996), in particular, discussed the influence of safety perceptions on conflicts between user groups. In this study, skiers felt that snowboarders interfered with their experience by increasing the risks of injury. Snowboarders, on the other hand, perceived the skiers as impeding their recreational goals, and they preferred not to encounter skiers, if possible, while they

PAGE 35

24 participated in their own activity (Thapa, 1996; Thapa & Graefe, 2004; Vaske et al., 2000). Within the theoretical concept of conflict, Jacob and Schreyer (1980) described four factors that can produce conflict in outdoor recreation areas. These factors are activity style, mode of experience, lifestyle tolerance, and resource specificity. Moore, Scott and Graefe (1998) defined each of these terms as follows: Activity style refers to the personal meanings attached to an activity, such as range of experience, level of skill required, definitions of quality, and intensity of participation. Mode of experience refers to different ways of experiencing and perceiving the natural environment. In this factor, participants may be involved in either a focused or unfocused mode. A focused mode of experience refers to participants who are extremely sensitive to the particular details of the environment and, thus, are more likely to encounter conflict when exposed to recreationists who are unfocused. Lifestyle tolerance refers to the users propensity to accept or reject lifestyles and beliefs that differ from his/her own. This means that recreationists who are not willing to share the natural resources they use for certain activities and are intolerant towards different lifestyles, are more prone to experience conflict (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Similarly, individuals are more likely to be tolerant of others who they perceive to be similar to themselves (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Lastly, resource specificity refers to the significance attached to a specific resource for a given experience. In summary any one of the aforementioned factors can cause conflict; but, in a majority of cases, a combination of two or more factors usually creates conflict between user groups (Thapa, 1999).

PAGE 36

25 Conflict between groups can also arise from a number of additional sources, including interpersonal and value differences. Firstly, it can arise when the physical presence of one group interferes with the goal(s) of another (Vaske, Donnelly, Wittmann & Laidlaw, 1995). For instance, wildlife viewers may experience conflict when noise, generated from motorized activities, scares away the areas birds. This example illustrates goal interference since the goals of the wildlife viewers are directly impacted by the presence of motorized users (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). In addition, this example demonstrates interpersonal conflict because the direct interactions of the user groups lead to the perception of problem conditions (Vaske et al., 1995). Secondly, conflicts can also occur between user groups that have differences in norms or values (Ruddell & Gramman, 1994; Vaske et al., 1995). This type of conflict is referred to as value or social conflicts (Vaske et al., 1995; Williams, 1993), and unlike interpersonal conflict, does not require direct interaction. Moreover, this form of conflict is related to the personal values a group places on an area or activity; thus, it is directed towards an out-group that does not share the same values or norms (Thapa & Graefe, 1999). This type of conflict is typified by the tension between hunters and anti-hunters. Instead of conflict being derived from competition over a resource or interference with recreational goals (as with interpersonal conflicts), it is due to differences in values between the two groups (Donnelly & Vaske, 1995; McShea, Wemmer & Stuwe, 1993). In conclusion, the needs, attitudes, and values that recreationists bring to an outdoor recreation setting can impact the activity and preferences sought. Different users may have different recreational goals and tolerances, which can be expressed by differences in

PAGE 37

26 either the value or presence of norms. In addition, these norms may lead to recreational conflicts and changes in tolerance levels (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Tolerance Directly linked to interpersonal and social-value conflicts is the idea of tolerance. Tolerance has been viewed as the tendency to accept (or reject) lifestyles different from ones own (Carothers, Vaske & Donnelly, 2001; Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Tolerance has also been described by Ivy, Stewart and Lue (1992) as ones willingness to share resources with different activity groups. In a 1980 study conducted by Jacob and Schreyer, it was suggested that individuals would be tolerant of others who participated in activities that were perceived to be similar. In fact, tolerance is usually connected with beliefs about a particular group rather than reactions to specific behaviors (Ivy, Stewart & Lue, 1992). Differences in activities or lifestyles can often be communicated through visual signs, such as the equipment used in varied activities (Vaske et al., 1995). Generally, it has been found that users, who exhibit a low tolerance for individuals with different lifestyles, will be more likely to experience elevated conflict (Carothers, Vaske & Donnelly, 2001). Therefore, tolerance can be viewed as an antecedent to conflict. A lack of tolerance among visitors will more likely lead to an occurrence of conflict between participants. Various levels of tolerance can be seen among individuals, and these levels are dependent on both situational and normative factors. Situational factors include: group size; motives; frequency of use; and when and where contact occurred (Vaske et al., 1986). Additionally, asymmetrical conflicts involve one group possessing a higher level of tolerance than another group (Adelman et al., 1982). For example, snowboarders have tended to be much more tolerant of the presence of skiers than vice-versa (Williams,

PAGE 38

27 Dossa & Fulton, 1994; Thapa, 1996; Thapa & Graefe, 2004). Moreover, Ivy et al. (1992) found that canoeists possessed a lower tolerance level accompanied by a greater perception of conflict in water-based settings; while, motor boaters expressed a lower degree of conflict and a higher overall tolerance level toward non-motorized groups. All in all, tolerance towards a specific recreation behavior or activity choice can assist in determining the degree of conflict experienced by various user groups in outdoor recreational settings. Furthermore, tolerance has recently developed within the greater context of group norms to address the limits of acceptable change (LAC) regarding specific impact parameters found in outdoor recreation settings (e.g., number of contacts, campsite impacts, environmental impacts dealing with litter and other types of pollution, and unacceptable behavior) (Ivy et al., 1992). In other words, tolerance is now viewed as a willingness to accept deviations from the preferred or ideal situation expected in a specific outdoor setting (Whittaker & Shelby, 1988). In conclusion, after reviewing the concepts of norms, conflict, and tolerance, it is evident that the occurrence of noise in the natural environment can lead to conflict and lower satisfaction levels between user groups. The next section describes impacts on and conflicts between visitors in outdoor recreation settings that are derived from the occurrence of noise in the natural environment. Noise Impacts and Conflicts The occurrence of noise in a natural setting continues to be an ever-increasing problem. This is precipitated as a growing number of people who want to visit natural areas, such as forests, parks and lakes, combined with a decrease in the amount of land available for such activities (Kariel, 1991). Noise in a natural environment stems from a

PAGE 39

28 wide variety of sources: some can be considered pleasing or relaxing; and some are annoying detractions from the overall recreational experience (Kariel, 1990; Mace, Bell & Loomis, 1998). The difference between sound, noise, and natural quiet is important in understanding the issues involved with noise in natural areas (Gramman, 1999; Kariel, 1991; Krause, 1999, 2001). These three terms describe different dimensions of a larger concept. Sound is usually a physical science concept defined as fluctuations in atmospheric pressures that produce an audible sensation in ones ear (Gramman, 1999). Noise, on the other hand, tends to be more psychologically based-defined as unwanted sound (or a psychological evaluation of sound) that is normally considered to be annoying or otherwise irritating to listeners in certain settings (Fiddell, 1979; Gramman, 1999; Kariel, 1990; Mace, Bell, Loomis & Haas, 2003). To clarify, certain studies have shown that noise from automobiles, for example, is less annoying in an urban setting than in a natural one (such as a trail, forest, or primitive campground) (Anderson, Mulligan, Goodman & Regen, 1983; Fiddell et al., 1996, Green & Fiddell, 1991). This is because the occurrence of automobile noise is both expected and widely accepted in more urban areas; whereas, in a natural setting such noise is deemed out of place (Anderson et al., 1983; Driver, Nash and Haas, 1987; Fidell et al., 1996; Kariel, 1990, 1991). The most in-depth definition of natural quiet was provided by the National Park Service during their report to Congress regarding aircraft flights over National Parks (Gramman, 1999; National Parks Service, 1995). The definition given was created specifically in reference to Grand Canyon National Park, where aircraft flights had become an increasingly difficult management problem for NPS staff (Gramman, 1999;

PAGE 40

29 Miller, 2001). Natural quiet was described as natural ambient sound plus any self-noise generated by visitors involved in non-intrusive, non-mechanical activities (National Park Service, 1995). To elaborate, natural ambient sounds are considered sounds such as running rivers, the wind through the trees, the sound of birds and other wildlife, and sheer natural silence. The concept of self-noise, as added by the National Park Service (NPS), means any noise generated by visitors engaged in non-intrusive, non-mechanical activities. Moreover, self-noise can, indeed, create conflicts by disrupting the enjoyment of others, and it will be utilized in the current study. Within the context of social science, the concept of noise and noise impacts has mostly been approached from a psychological perspective (Gramman, 1999). The basic assumption within this approach is that people differ in their perceptions of their environment and their acceptance of different types of sound (Gramman, 1999; Kariel, 1991; Mace, Bell and Loomis, 1998). This approach also examines variability in noise expectations based upon the actual setting in which noise occurs (Anderson et al. 1983; Kariel, 1990; Mace et al., 2003). For example, it has been noted that peoples expectations of motorized noise are dependent on an areas level of development. In more undeveloped, natural areas, mechanical noise is more likely to be evaluated negatively; this is due to the fact that visitors do not expect to hear such noise in natural surroundings (Gramman, 1999; Tarrant, Haas & Manfredo, 1995). Yet in more developed and populated areas, a mix of motorized and non-motorized sounds is regarded as normal (Gramman, 1999). Due to this setting factor, people living in more urban areas seem to be more tolerant of mechanical noises in developed areas.

PAGE 41

30 Apart from noise expectations, additional factors affect visitors perceptions of sound and noise, including: involvement in activities that deflect attention away from the noise in question (foreground task); and whether a sound is perceived as preventable or necessary (Gramman, 1999; Kariel, 1990; Miller, 2002). An example of the first criteria revolves around the noticeability of aircraft noise to visitors involved in photography; such noise does not affect the quality of the activity in general. Moreover, Miller (1995) found that the noticeability of aircraft sounds is greatly minimized if it is less than ten decibels higher than that of non-aircraft sounds. For an illustration of the second criteria, Staples (1997) refers to wilderness hikers, who may be more tolerant of aircraft noise involved in fire suppression activities than tourism-based flybys over the natural area (Staples, 1997). The social implications of noise on visitors to the natural environment have only recently started to gain attention. Specifically, natural quiet, or the sounds of nature, is highly ranked by visitors as an important aspect of their recreational experience (Mace, Bell & Loomis, 1998). The National Park Service also found that natural quiet is considered as important as solitude, space, aesthetic values, enjoyment of history, and general enjoyment of the natural area itself (Gramman, 1999; Knoph, 1983; National Park Service, 1988). Part of the value of natural sound comes from: 1) the sheer aesthetic quality of extreme natural quiet that exists in contrast to most individuals everyday life experience and; 2) the finding that natural soundscapes may have restorative properties in reducing stress in individuals (Gramman, 1999; Miedema & Vos, 2001). Conflicts in terms of noise have been mounting as the outdoor recreation desires of visitors increase (Kariel, 1990). The conflict, itself, seems to arise between those who

PAGE 42

31 desire to experience and preserve quiet areas, where natural sounds dominate, versus those who wish to utilize mechanized equipment in these quiet, natural environments. The aforementioned example of noise conflict in Grand Canyon National Park is an excellent illustration of this point. There, visitors are in conflict with tourism promoters who utilize aircraft in their tourism operations (Kariel, 1990; Miller, 2001). In this instance, the introduction of mechanized travel as a means of visiting the National Park, compromises some of the very reasons the park was established (Kariel, 1990). The overall satisfaction of an outdoor experience can also be compromised by loud parties, music, and excessive generator or ORV usage. Since it has been found that natural ambient sound is one of the main reasons for visiting natural areas, preservation efforts are needed to manage the existence of noise (Driver et al. 1987; Kariel, 1990). Satisfaction When referring to a visitors experience, quality is a term that often surfaces in the outdoor recreation field. Visitors have come to expect quality in their recreation experiences, thus, making most managers strive to provide the highest quality recreational experiences possible. Within the context of outdoor recreation, the idea of quality has been traditionally measured by the amount of satisfaction reported by various users (Manning, 1999). Satisfaction, itself, has been defined in various ways. Manning (1999) defines satisfaction as the congruence between expectations and outcomes, implying that visitors expectations for a recreational site or trip meet their overall standards. Mannell (1999), however, describes satisfaction as an indicator of the quality of leisure. And Vaske et al. (1982) states that satisfaction is dependent on the interaction between individual characteristics and the characteristics of the activity. Similarly,

PAGE 43

32 Bultena and Klessig (1969) define satisfaction as a function of the degree of congruence between aspirations and the perceived reality of experiences. As previously discussed in this chapter, the concepts of norms, conflicts, and tolerances are closely related to the concept of satisfaction. When conflicts occur, the chances of one group experiencing a decreased level of satisfaction is likely. They choose to redefine the experience to more closely reflect the reality, i.e. product shift, thereby reducing cognitive dissonance. Manning (1999) states that visitors to outdoor recreation areas often differ in ways that affect perceived quality and satisfaction. For example, visitors have widely ranging attitudes, motivations and norms. Also, several outdoor satisfaction studies have concluded that visitors report high levels of satisfaction regardless of impacts or crowding that may actually occur on the day of their visit (Heberlein & Shelby, 1977; Manning, 1999). However, Vaske, Fedler & Graefe (1986) found that environmental aspects such as weather can indeed affect satisfaction levels, which may be activity-specific in some cases. In addition, Bultena & Klessig (1969) described specific recreational goals, and environmental conditions (site quality) were good indicators of satisfying experiences. Overall, there is agreement between researchers that satisfaction is a function of both recreation settings and participant characteristics (Manning, 1999). A satisfying experience generally occurs when a visitor engages in some form of recreational activity, be it relaxing, boating, swimming, camping etc. Involvement in certain types of activities may reflect individual social norms about a specific area. Along with actual participation in an activity, recreationists experiences and satisfaction levels are tainted by norms or preferences. For instance, a previous conflict study by

PAGE 44

33 Peterson (1974) found that different boater groups possessed different norms about the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, which caused varying conflicts. A difference in satisfaction levels between users is a reoccurring theme. In a 1982 study by Vaske et al., differences in reported satisfaction levels by consumptive and non-consumptive recreationists were examined. In the context of this particular study, consumptive recreation relates to product gain such as a successful hunt, whereas non-consumptive recreation is based more on experiences (Vaske et al., 1982). Within the study, it was also found that non-consumptive users were largely more satisfied with their experiences than the consumptive group. In another study by Vaske, Fedler and Graefe (1986), it was similarly found that success in the consumptive behavior of waterfowl hunters did not always lead to increased satisfaction. Recreational conflict literature has also focused on different satisfaction levels among users. Watson et al. (1991) determined that conflicts between bikers and hikers in the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area led to differing degrees of satisfaction between users based upon different crowding perceptions and norms. Moreover, Peterson detected satisfaction differences between the various boater groups in his 1974 study of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. In his analysis of canoeists and motor boaters, perception and norm differences were responsible for a decreased level of overall satisfaction by canoeists. As stated earlier in this section, the ultimate goal for recreation managers is to provide the high quality recreation settings to visitors (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). However to reiterate, decreases in satisfaction are often attributed to conflict issues and

PAGE 45

34 norm differences. Thus, the management of outdoor areas plays a key role in understanding users and, subsequently, heightening their recreational experiences. Since the recreational and aesthetic values of outdoor areas has increased rapidly over the last several decades, the amount of energy and time devoted to management and strategies will also have to increase (Hendee & Mattson, 1997). The two main issues facing outdoor recreation management today are: to provide opportunities for quality experiences; and to limit impacts, such as noise, that could lead to conflicts and dissatisfaction among different users (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). In order to accommodate visitors wishes while at the same time maintaining the highest possible level of environmental quality, managers must employ many different management styles (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). A disparity, however, exists between managers and visitors in terms of their perceptions of recreation quality and satisfaction (LaPage, 1983). Accordingly, many managers believe that a minimal amount of management is the best strategy when dealing with visitor perceptions (LaPage, 1983). On the other hand, many recreationists petition for management to provide services such as security, information, education, and advice (LaPage, 1983). Management strategies can be broken down into direct and indirect management. Direct management, as described by Hendee and Dawson (2002), refers to the regulation of behavior through increasing restrictions and control over visitors and/or activities. This type of approach is sometimes necessary in areas where specific problems exist, but it should be carried out with care in order to grant visitors the most freedom possible (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). Examples of specific restrictions include temporal zoning, spatial zoning, activity restrictions, increased enforcement, and rationing. Again, since

PAGE 46

35 one of the main objectives of managers is to maintain quality visitor experiences, direct management and regulation should be minimized as it has been found to diminish users satisfaction (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). The second management approach, indirect management, strives to modify behavior through subtle influence (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). This modification is accomplished: by utilizing education and information; or by making access difficult by design (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). This approach also tends to receive more acceptance from both management and visitors since it is generally cheaper to implement and less intrusive (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). Indirect management techniques would, for example, rely on the usage of signs, facilities, and access points to modify the type and distribution of recreation use in an area experiencing conflicts (Stankey & Schreyer, 1987). Information and education also play key roles in indirect management (LaPage, 1983). While these tools can be used in direct management, they can also be used to expand visitors understanding, explain the role of management apropos specific issues, reduce conflicts between groups, and encourage users to follow no-trace tactics (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). For example, Lucas (1985) found that directional signs and information boards were deemed acceptable (or lacking) by various trail users. Thus, these signs were seen as an overall improvement to the recreational experience, adding education and safety features (i.e. directions) to the various trails. In sum, a review of the management literature indicates that an indirect management approach should be the first step in resolving conflict and increasing visitors satisfaction levels. This tactic would allow visitors the most freedom and would

PAGE 47

36 be subtler than the direct approach (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). However, it should be noted that a combination of the two approaches generally brings about the greatest success in conflict management (such as the boater conflicts discussed in this study). Summary Based on the literature discussed in this chapter, the use of a normative approach for analyzing noise-related conflicts in outdoor recreation areas seemed very viable. After relying on past studies as guidelines for the creation of a survey, the normative approach should produce illuminating data on: 1) users' conflicts and acceptance levels regarding noise in a natural setting and; 2) satisfaction levels of the different boating groups. This study should be able to assist natural resource managers in the future to: 1) control noise-related damage to the environment; 2) regulate dissatisfaction levels related to noise issues and; 3) identify the optimum conditions recreational users expect in outdoor recreation settings. Because perceptions of impacts vary greatly between individuals, this study will only focus on the effects of human-induced noise on the different boater groups present at Waldo Lake, Oregon.

PAGE 48

37 Conceptual Model The model depicted in Figure 1 predicts that the participating boater groups tolerance levels and noise perceptions will be influenced by activity style. Previous studies examined in this section have indicated a relationship between individuals choice of activity and their overall perceptions of human-induced noise. This correlation should apply to the current Waldo Lake study. In this thesis, a focus will be placed on the conflict between motorized and non-motorized boater groups. For the purpose of this research, activity style is seen as a mediating variable between human-induced noise and its effects on boaters overall experience. The conceptual model predicts that boaters overall experience will be influenced by activity style (motorized/non-motorized boating). The presence of different types of noise is also expected to affect boaters' overall experience.

PAGE 49

38 Figure 1: Conceptual Model. Overall Experience Activity Style (Motorized / Non-motorized) (Mediating Variable) Motorized Noise Human-Induced Noise

PAGE 50

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This chapter introduces the research methods used in this study and is divided into six sub-sections. The first section addresses the general background of the study. The second describes the area where this study was performed. The third and fourth segments detail data collection and sampling procedures as well as selection of subjects, respectively. The fifth section describes the survey instrument used, including questions pertaining to noise. Finally, the last portion briefly outlines the statistical processes used to analyze data pertaining to the Waldo Lake study. Background The research in this study was collected as part of the larger National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) study funded by the United States Forest Service (USFS). The NVUM study is currently being implemented throughout the country and focuses on understanding visitor use patterns, expectations, desires, and satisfaction levels within USDA Forest Service lands. Thesis research was conducted using a quantitative research framework. The research instrument was an on-site, interview survey designed to investigate several aspects of recreational use at Waldo Lake as well as different user groups in the area. A survey refusal sheet (Appendix B) was completed by unwilling participants in order to collect general data on non-respondents. Data recorded on this sheet included information about apparent gender, apparent race, group size, boat length, boat power, boat type, and the reason for not participating in the survey (if given). This information 39

PAGE 51

40 was used to better assess the types and numbers of different boat users in the area and, more importantly, to test for non-response bias. However, since the survey refusal sheet was rarely needed (N=6), the non-response bias was minimal. The survey (Appendix A) included many relevant items from previous visitor use surveys. Yet, questions used in the survey were also modified specifically for Waldo Lake. For example, questions dealing with user satisfaction were also included in the body of the survey. Satisfaction measures were based on prior studies, which utilized similar satisfaction statements to create a satisfaction index (Graefe & Fedler 1986, Graefe & Drogin, 1989; Robertson, & Regula, 2001). Statements were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree; statements were then combined to create the satisfaction index. Moreover, an additional ten-point, single-item, overall satisfaction measure was also utilized in this study, as was done by Graefe (1989) and others in previous work. Site Description Waldo Lake is located within the Willamette National Forest in Central Oregon. The terrain adjacent to the lake is characterized by moderate to steep slopes, numerous basins, small meadows, and rocky outcroppings (such as Mt. Yoran peaking at 7,144 feet) (Williams, 2002). Approximately 98% of the area is forested with Douglas fir, western hemlock, western fir, and some true fir (Williams, 2002). Waldo Lake, itself, covers an area of about ten square miles and is at an elevation of approximately 5,414 feet (Williams, 2002). Moreover, it is regarded as one of the largest olglitrophic lakes in Oregon, the second deepest natural lake in the state, and one of the three purest lakes on earth. Waldo Lake is adjacent to the Three Sisters Wilderness Area, and it is noted for the crystal clear water it receives from melting snow. As a result, the water chemistry of

PAGE 52

41 this pristine lake is often compared to that of distilled water. On a clear day, the extreme transparency of the lake allows for visibility down to 100 feet. This is particularly remarkable when considering the lakes average depth 128 feet. Its maximum depth is estimated at approximately 420 feet (Williams, 2002). Recreational usage of Waldo Lake dates back to the late 1800s when five access trails from the neighboring town of Oakridge were established (Williams, 2002). The first campgrounds were established in the late 1930s by the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC), and by 1960, Waldo Lakes recreational infrastructure included the same improved and upgraded facilities found today (Williams, 2002). Currently, Waldo Lake contains 205 developed campsites, equipped with bathrooms and information kiosks, spread throughout three main campgrounds. There are also three boat ramps and more than 50 primitive sites located around the lake. The lake can be reached by way of four paved access roads and numerous hiking, biking and horse trails. Although no specific visitor counts were available for Waldo Lake, the US Forest Service has experienced an increase in usage through the 1980's and 1990's (Williams, 2002). This increased use, in combination with natural events (such as the 1996 Waldo fire), has elevated concerns regarding the management of the area. Data Collection & Sampling Procedures Respondents were selected using a stratified sample in order to include the various different users of the Waldo Lake area. These groups included: boaters, campers, hikers, bikers, horseback riders, and other day visitors. Each sampling day of the thirty-day sampling period began by discerning the developed recreation site(s) that were experiencing the most use. Once this was determined, a high-volume location was surveyed for approximately two hours before another site was chosen. This was done to

PAGE 53

42 insure that a maximum number of responses would be completed over the entire sampling period. During each two-hour sampling period, different types of visitor sites (e.g., campsites, boat ramps, trailheads, etc.) were observed. Sampling of the Waldo Lake area was dependent on several factors. First and foremost, access to the site was affected by the past winters snow accumulation and subsequent melting rate. According to previous data collected by the US Forest Service, Waldo Lake is normally fully accessible around the last week of June. During this past winter, however, snow accumulation in the area was considerably lower than average; thus, leading to an earlier opening date than previous years. Past research has also shown that Waldo Lakes most popular months are between late-July and mid-September, and that the highest use days are Friday through Sunday. Based on prior visitor data, sampling for this project began on June 21, 2003 and was only conducted on weekends until July 4, 2003. Sampling days were then increased through July to include random weekday sampling periods until the end of the sampling period on September 30, 2003. Breakdowns of the number of surveys per day, per day of the week, per month, and by survey locations, are described in Tables 1 through 4, respectively. Sampling days were approximately six to eight hours in length and were concentrated at various locations (Table 4) depending on use level (as mentioned earlier in this section). At a confidence interval of 0.05, it was estimated that a 5.4% margin of error could be achieved if 400-500 respondents, of the estimated 4000-5000 summer visitors during an approximate 30-day period, were sampled successfully.

PAGE 54

43 Table 1: Surveys per Sampling Day. Survey Date n % 6/20/2003 3 1.0 6/21/2003 5 1.6 6/22/2003 3 1.0 6/24/2003 4 1.3 6/25/2003 7 2.3 6/26/2003 4 1.3 7/3/2003 8 2.6 7/4/2003 15 4.8 7/5/2003 10 3.2 7/6/2003 7 2.3 7/8/2003 5 1.6 7/9/2003 3 1.0 7/10/2003 7 2.3 7/14/2003 11 3.5 7/15/2003 5 1.6 7/16/2003 9 2.9 7/18/2003 6 1.9 7/19/2003 15 4.8 7/20/2003 7 2.3 7/21/2003 8 2.6 7/22/2003 6 1.9 7/25/2003 12 3.9 7/26/2003 6 1.9 7/27/2003 8 2.6 7/30/2003 10 3.2 7/31/2003 7 2.3 8/1/2003 8 2.6 8/2/2003 17 5.5 8/3/2003 5 1.6 8/6/2003 11 3.5 8/8/2003 16 5.1 8/9/2003 28 9.0 8/10/2003 6 1.9 8/12/2003 9 2.9 8/15/2003 2 0.6 8/16/2003 2 0.6 8/17/2003 2 0.6 8/18/2003 1 0.3 8/21/2003 2 0.6 8/24/2003 1 0.3 8/27/2003 1 0.3

PAGE 55

44 Survey Date n % 9/1/2003 1 0.3 9/2/2003 1 0.3 9/6/2003 3 1.0 9/7/2003 2 0.6 9/14/2003 1 0.3 9/20/2003 1 0.3 (n=311) Table 2: Number of Surveys per Day of Week. Day of Week n % Monday 31 10.0 Tuesday 37 11.9 Wednesday 31 10.0 Thursday 21 6.7 Friday 62 19.9 Saturday 87 28.0 Sunday 42 13.5 (n=311) Table 3: Number of Surveys per Month. Month n % June 26 8.3 July 165 53.1 August 111 35.7 September 9 2.9 (n=311) Table 4: Number of Surveys per Location. Location n % 1. North Waldo Campground 106 24.7 2. Shadow Bay Campground 72 16.7 3. Shadow Bay Boat Ramp 69 16.0 4. Islet Campground 64 14.9 5. North Waldo Boat Ramp 63 14.7 6. Islet Boat Ramp 40 9.3 7. Harralson Horse Camp 6 1.4 8. North Waldo Picnic Area 3 0.7 9. Shadow Bay Parking & Trail Head 4 0.9 10. Shadow Bay Beach Area 2 0.5 11. Islet Beach 1 0.2 (n=311)

PAGE 56

45 Figure 2: Waldo Lake and Vicinity Site Map (USDA Forest Service, 2004). The map in Figure 2 illustrates the access routes and recreation sites that were used as intercept points by the surveyor. There were three main access routes to the lake in the east, and these points contained both boat ramps and developed camp areas. There were also trailheads and day-use areas in proximity to these locations. Dispersed campsites located on the western portion of the lake were not surveyed during the data collection process due to time and transportation constraints. Instead, the overnight parking areas

PAGE 57

46 located adjacent to the Shadow Bay boat ramp, Islet Bay boat ramp, and the North Waldo boat ramp, were visited several times each sampling day in an attempt to survey dispersed campsite visitors as they returned to their vehicles. Sample points in Figure 2 are based on the numerical key established in Table 4. Selection of Subjects The sample population consisted of visitors using the area for both terrestrial and water-based recreation, including both motorized and non-motorized boating, hiking, camping, and other day-use activities. Survey locations were selected based on the amount of use observed at the different types of recreational areas per diem. Sampling days were selected as previously mentioned and were only altered during days of poor weather and extremely low visitor turnout. Surveying occurred during subjects visit, or as visitors were exiting the area. Only respondents 18-years-old and older were interviewed in this study. Only boaters who agreed to participate in the survey were included in this study in order to achieve a maximum number of responses. Interview-style surveys were implemented and all surveys were completed, coded, and analyzed by the principal investigator of this project. Instrumentation An interview-style, visitor-use questionnaire was chosen over other data collecting methods because respondents had the opportunity to ask for clarification on any of the items within the survey instrument. This type of survey was also beneficial because the surveyor was able to include all types of recreationists who used the Waldo Lake area. Survey questions not previously used in other studies were pre-tested in March 2003 in a mail survey to boaters at the Timucuan Preserve area in Jacksonville, Florida.

PAGE 58

47 The creation of the survey instrument was assisted by holding two focus groups in Springfield, Oregon. These meetings included the varied users of Waldo Lake as well as some United States Forest Service (USFS) officials. The purpose of the meetings was: 1) to obtain a better understanding of the role Waldo Lake plays in outdoor recreation in central Oregon and; 2) to determine the conflicts that existed between the user groups of Waldo Lake. During the two sessions, a common dislike for noise and motorized use was identified. Moreover, the majority of participants perceived the lakes ideal role as a place for non-motorized styles of recreation. Individuals chosen to participate in the meetings were from various motorized and non-motorized groups, and care was taken to hear arguments from both sides. Following these focus-group meetings, survey questions were created to further examine some of the more pertinent issues at Waldo Lake. In particular, questions separating recreation types and questions pertaining to noise conflicts were partially derived from the results of these meetings. Two variables were used to measure the relationship between user groups and their perceptions (of the effects) of human-induced noise. These variables investigated: the effects of mechanical noise on the respondents own outdoor experiences; and the effects of this noise on the environment around them. Questions about noise impact perceptions were presented in both Likert-styled format and as an itemized list of choices. A series of noise-related questions were used to determine the types and degrees of noise that was heard by respondents. One of these questions listed different noise types to determine what kinds of human-induced noise affected visitors. The next question in the survey was presented in a Likert-scale format and was used to determine the amount of interference these noises had on their overall recreation experience. Specifically, this was accomplished by asking respondents the

PAGE 59

48 degree to which types of noise interfered with various aspects of their experience (including enjoyment of the area, appreciation of the natural quiet, appreciation of the sounds of nature, and the appreciation of the cultural significance of the area). This perception question was measured from one (not at all interfering) to five (extremely interfering). In addition to a survey, previous studies (Burson, 2002; Krause, 2001) dealing with noise in outdoor recreation settings utilized hightech equipment (e.g., sound level meters, laptop computers, and other sound recording equipment). However, these instruments were not used to measure sounds in outdoor settings in this project due to the expense and difficulty in obtaining these instruments. Instead, survey questions were used to determine the specific types of noise present in the Waldo Lake area and to what extent these noises negatively affected visitors experiences. Data Analysis Data collected from the study site was entered into a statistical software program, SPSS 12.0, to be analyzed. A complete descriptive profile (e.g., mean, median, standard deviation, and frequency distribution) of respondents demographic and trip characteristics (gender, noise types, usage type, experience levels, activity types, length of visit, boat size and type, primary power source, and preferred management opinions) was obtained to create a picture of the typical Waldo Lake user. A new variable was then created using SPSS to collapse boat users into two distinctive headings: motorized and non-motorized primary boat users. This distinction was later compared to other noise-based variables. Next, a series of bivariate tests of correlation were conducted to confirm that all of the items in the satisfaction index were coded correctly and positively so that the

PAGE 60

49 strongly agree category was equivalent to a five. Then the satisfaction items were analyzed for reliability as a completed multi-item index. The same statistical analyses were repeated for the noise interference index, the motor boating management index, and the motor boating impact index. Subsequently, t-tests compared both human-induced and motorized noise to the satisfaction index and the ten-point satisfaction scale, which was taken directly from the survey. In particular, the Pearson-product moment correlation tested the relationships between human-induced and motorized noise variables and the satisfaction index and the 10-point satisfaction scale. Additional t-tests were also used to detect differences between boater groups in terms of noise strength, activity style, and noise impacts. Furthermore, index items were analyzed to assure valid testing of the variables. Following this, a crosstabulation was performed to examine the differences between the two different groups (motorized versus non-motorized boaters) with regards to whether or not overall experiences were negatively affected by human-induced noise. The significance of this comparison was then assessed by utilizing a Chi-Square test. This test was used to determine if there was a significant relationship between the user groups and perceptions of human-induced noise. An additional series of crosstabulations were then performed on each of the individual types of noise to assess the relationships between motorized and non-motorized groups in relation to each specific type of noise. Attention was given to identifying the types of noise that detracted from visitors overall experiences. Noise types included: dogs, cars/trucks/planes, loud music, motorboats, power generators, and other noise types. Chi-square analyses were again used to assess the significance levels of the user groups responses to noise type.

PAGE 61

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction This chapter describes the results of the on-site survey and is divided into six sections. The first section details the general user profile. In particular, concentration is placed on watercraft usage, gender, state of residence, miles traveled, visitor type, length of visit, and activity choice. The second segment presents the descriptive statistics of certain survey questions needed for hypothesis testing and is split into four subsections. Based on these results, the third portion, then, addresses the issues of satisfaction and noise, as outlined in the first research question (or hypothesis). Subsequently, section four analyzes the relationships between activity style and satisfaction levels, as described in this thesis second research question. The third research question, regarding the relationships between activity style and noise opinions, is covered in section five. Finally, differences in users opinions, in regards to motorized boating impacts and management, are highlighted; thus, investigating the fourth and final research hypothesis. General User Profile A total of 430 Waldo Lake recreationists were surveyed during the summer months of 2003 from June through September. The sample group consisted of various types of visitors with different recreational goals. For the purpose of this thesis, only boaters (n=311, see Table 5) were studied in order to better address within user group conflict. The rest of this chapter will only deal with boaters responses. The general descriptive 50

PAGE 62

51 profile of the respondents in this study is represented in tables five through thirteen below. Table 5: Usage of Watercraft. Usage of Boat N % Yes 311 72.3 No 119 27.7 Note: n=430 Within the boaters subset, individuals were divided by activity style (defined as motorized vs. non-motorized use). Activity styles were identified by asking boaters to indicate their primary boat power. Motorized users were defined as using gas, diesel, and electric power, and non-motorized users relied on paddles, sails, or oars. As seen in Table 6, the motorized boater group consisted of 27% of the boaters subset, while the non-motorized boater group represented 73%. Table 6: Boater Activity Style Based on Type of Power. Primary Power N % Gas 80 25.9 Diesel 0 0.0 Electric 4 1.3 Total Motorized boater group 84 27.2 Paddle/Oar 180 58.3 Wind/Sail 45 14.6 Non-motorized boater group 225 72.9 Note: n=309 Among the 311 boaters interviewed, two-thirds (67%) were males and one-third (33%) were females (Table 7). According to previous research by Cordell (1999), a 2:1 ratio is typical for boating and many other outdoor activities. Table 7: Gender of Respondents. Gender n % Male 202 66.7 Female 101 33.3 Note: n=311

PAGE 63

52 Respondents were also asked to indicate their state of residence. As depicted in Table 8, most of the boaters were from Oregon (94%). Only six participants were from California (2%), and five were from the state of Washington (2%). This shows that respondents were primarily from the western states surrounding Oregon. Table 8: Respondents State of Residence. State n % Oregon 290 93.9 California 6 1.9 Washington 5 1.6 Florida 2 0.6 Alaska 1 0.3 Arizona 1 0.3 New Jersey 1 0.3 Nevada 1 0.3 Ohio 1 0.3 Wisconsin 1 0.3 Note: n=309. The next survey question asked individuals to estimate the distance traveled from their residence to Waldo Lake (Table 9). Results indicate that the average distance traveled to the lake was 251 miles with a standard deviation of 766. The median distance traveled was 110 miles, and the mode equaled 70 miles. Thus, it appears that boaters traveled from a range of distances. Obviously, these results (particularly that of average distance traveled) were positively skewed by the small number of boaters (n=13) that traveled more than 500 miles to reach Waldo Lake. Moreover, since Waldo Lake is located in a relatively unpopulated portion of the state, it is not surprising that 41% of respondents traveled between 101-200 miles to reach the site. These individuals are probably from the major metropolitan areas of Ashland, Portland, and Salem. In addition, approximately 50% of boaters traveled less than 100 miles to reach the lake, probably coming from the nearby urban centers of Bend, Eugene, Corvallis, and

PAGE 64

53 Oakridge. These two previously described variables (state of residence and miles traveled) suggest that Waldo Lake is more of a local or regional attraction/destination. Table 9: Miles Traveled to Waldo Lake. Miles Traveled N % < 50 miles 24 8.1 51-70 miles 47 15.8 71-100 miles 73 24.5 101-200 miles 121 40.6 201-500 miles 20 6.7 501+ miles 13 4.4 Note: n=298; Mean=251; Std Deviation=766. A series of additional survey questions (e.g., estimated length of stay, first-time vs. repeat visit, and number of years visiting Waldo Lake) were used to further profile Waldo Lake users. In terms of trip duration (Table 10), a majority of interviewees (57%) indicated that they planned to stay at Waldo Lake for two to three days. An additional 22% of respondents intended on staying four to seven days, while less than one-tenth (9%) planned on remaining more than one week. Average length of stay was 3.8 days with a standard deviation of 3.32. As for visitor status (Table 11), over three-quarters (78%) of respondents indicated that they had visited Waldo Lake in the past, while about one-fifth (22%) were first-time visitors. It should also be noted that Waldo Lake currently has a 14-day maximum stay. Therefore it is not surprising that very few respondents reported staying longer (1%). Table 10: Average Length of Stay. Length of Stay n % 1 day or less 39 12.8 2-3 days 172 56.6 4-7 days 67 22.0 8-14 days 24 7.9 15+ days 2 0.7 Note: n=304; Mean=3.8; Std. Deviation=3.32.

PAGE 65

54 Table 11: Waldo Lake Visitor Status. First visit n % Yes 68 21.9 No 243 78.1 Note: n=311 The average number of years respondents (repeat visitors only) had been visiting Waldo Lake was 8.2 years with a standard deviation of 9.70 (Table 12). Besides the 23% of boaters who were visiting Waldo Lake for the first time, 100 (or 33% of all boaters) had been coming to Waldo Lake to recreate for 4-15 years respectively. Table 12: Amount of Years Visiting Waldo Lake. Number of Years n % First visit 68 23.3 1-3 years 76 24.9 4-15 years 100 32.8 16-25 years 33 10.8 26+ years 25 8.2 Note: n=302; Mean=8.2; Std. Deviation=9.70. Respondents were, furthermore, asked to indicate the activities they participated in during their current trip (Table 13). Activity categories were not mutually exclusive, since visitors could have participated in multiple activities. Over 98% of respondents stated that they came to the lake to relax, hang out, and escape the heat and noise of their everyday lives. Viewing natural features (97%) and wildlife (92%) were also extremely popular activities. In terms of boating activities, 78% of interviewees were involved in non-motorized water travel, which included the use of sailboats, rafts, canoes, rowboats, and kayaks. Other non-motorized activities (including swimming, games and sports) also attracted 76% of users. Motorized recreation, on the other hand, appeared to be much less popular at Waldo Lake. Driving for pleasure (32%) seems to have been the most popular mechanized activity. Furthermore, motorized water travel was participated in by 30% of

PAGE 66

55 respondents, while four wheelers and dirt bikes were used by only three percent of respondents. Respondents were also asked to select a primary activity-their main reason for coming to Waldo Lake. In response, 40% of users selected relaxing, hanging out, and escaping heat, noise etc., as their primary activity. An additional 26% of individuals pointed to non-motorized water travel, while only eight percent reported motorized water travel as their primary activity. Thus, non-motorized activities appear to have garnered more interest and participation than motorized ones. Table 13: Activities Participated in and Primary Activity While Visiting Waldo Lake. Activity type1 Primary Activity2 Description of Activity n % n % Relaxing, hanging out, escaping heat, noise, etc. 306 98.4 124 40.4 Non-motorized water travel 242 77.8 81 26.4 Camping in developed sites 235 75.6 46 15.0 Motorized water travel 92 29.6 24 7.8 Bicycling/mountain biking 85 27.3 8 2.6 Other non-motorized activities (swimming, games, sports) 238 76.5 6 2.0 Backpacking/Camping in unroaded areas 24 7.7 6 2.0 Viewing natural features 303 97.4 3 1.0 Picnic and family gatherings 224 72.0 3 1.0 Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc. 286 92.0 2 0.7 Hiking/walking 235 75.6 2 0.7 Gathering natural products (mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other) 180 57.9 2 0.7 Driving for pleasure 99 31.8 Fishing 98 31.5 Nature study 63 20.3 Visiting prehistoric/historic sites 60 19.3 Visiting a nature center/nature trail 17 5.5 Four wheeling/dirt bikes 8 2.6 Note: 1 Items were not mutually exclusive since respondents could choose more than one activity. 2 The primary activity was mutually exclusive.

PAGE 67

56 Descriptive Analysis of Noise-Related Variables This section includes the descriptive statistics that are later used in conjunction with various statistical tests to answer the research questions posed in this thesis. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percents, reliability analyses, means, and standard deviations, are described in detail as they relate to each of the following analyses. Results from this portion of the chapter are then elaborated upon as the thesis four hypotheses are addressed. Satisfaction The survey participants were asked to rate their overall experience at Waldo Lake on a ten-point Likert scale, with one being the worst possible experience and ten being the best possible experience. On average, respondents rated their experience as an 8.6 on the ten-point scale (Table 14). This indicates that most respondents were highly satisfied with their visit, which is further reinforced by the fact that only 2.6% of individuals rated their experience at or below six. In addition, no respondents rated their overall experience below four on the satisfaction scale. Table 14: Ten-Point Overall Satisfaction Scale. 10-point Satisfaction Scale n % 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 1 0.3 5 3 1.0 6 4 1.3 7 33 10.7 8 116 37.5 9 76 24.6 10 76 24.6 Note: n=309; Mean=8.6; Std. Deviation=1.10. 1=Worst experience, 10=Best possible experience.

PAGE 68

57 An additional indicator of satisfaction, the satisfaction index, was also created using multi-item scales. The satisfaction index is based on the work of Graefe (1986) and others. As depicted in Table 15, over 50% of respondents expressed (strong) satisfaction in each of the four index items. It appears, then, that most respondents enjoyed their time at Waldo Lake; and negative impacts from noise occurrences were not enough to lessen the degree of satisfaction. In fact, 95% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: Thoroughly enjoyed my trip. Table 15: Satisfaction Index Item Descriptives. Satisfaction Index Items n SD D Und A SA Mean Std Dev. 1. Disappointed with some aspects of trip 307 55.4% 25.7% 6.8% 11.4% 0.70% 1.8 1.04 2. Trip not as enjoyable as expected it to be 309 65.4 23.3 6.1 3.9 1.34 1.5 0.87 3. Trip well worth the money spent 310 1.0 3.9 11.9 26.8 56.5 4.3 0.90 4. Thoroughly enjoyed trip 310 0.3 1.6 2.6 29.0 66.5 4.6 0.66 Note: SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, Und=Undecided, A=Agree, SA=Strongly Agree. In order to test the internal consistency of the four-item satisfaction index, a reliability analysis was performed. This analysis was conducted by having respondents indicate their level of agreement with each satisfaction index item on a five-point Likert scale (with one being strongly disagree and five being strongly agree). Index items that were worded in a negative context (i.e. items one and two) were recoded to match the direction of the positive statements. Table 16 displays the results of the reliability analysis along with the means and standard deviations of each individual item. Means for each item ranged from 4.2 to 4.6, indicating that most boaters were satisfied. Also, the standard deviations of each item were relatively low (SD1.04), signifying a moderate level of agreement within the sample.

PAGE 69

58 Moreover, the standardized alpha for the satisfaction index was moderately reliable (=0.66). Table 16 demonstrates that all index items strengthened the satisfaction index, except for item three (Trip well worth the money spent). Even though this particular item did not add to the overall value of the index, the difference was regarded as minor enough so as not to warrant removal of the item from the index. Table 16: Reliability of Satisfaction Index. Mean Std Dev. Corrected Item-Total Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Satisfaction index items 1. Not disappointed with some aspects of my trip 1 4.2 1.04 0.432 0.567 2 Trip was as enjoyable as I expected it to be1 4.5 0.85 0.529 0.488 3. Trip well worth the money spent 4.4 0.91 0.260 0.679 4. Thoroughly enjoyed trip 4.6 0.66 0.520 0.528 Standardized Alpha= 0.66 Note: 1 Original items were negatively worded. Items as seen above were recoded to match existing positive statements. 1=Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree. Human-Induced Noise Descriptive statistics in this section begin by focusing on the impacts of human-induced noise on Waldo Lake users. Respondents were asked if their overall experience was impacted by human-induced noise (Table 17). In response, over one-third (35%) of all boaters affirmed that their experience had, indeed, been affected by human-induced noise. These individuals (n=108) were then asked to identify the types of noise that impacted their visit to Waldo Lake. Table 17: Human-Induced Noise Impacts on Overall Experience. Impacts by Human-Induced Noise n % Overall experience was impacted 108 34.7 Overall experience was not impacted 203 65.3 Note: n=311.

PAGE 70

59 Table 18 indicates that power generators (15%) were the most common type of noise to impact visitors overall experiences at Waldo Lake. Motorboats (12%) and dogs (12%) also seemed to interfere with respondents overall experiences. Also, cars/trucks/planes (5%) and loud music (7%) were identified by respondents, but to a lessened degree. This finding may be the result of respondents failing to identify these types of noise as impacts. It may also be related to user expectations by the respondents. Since most users have long associations with Waldo Lake, these noises may have become an expected and tolerated part of their experience. Finally, 15% of interviewees selected other types of noise as bothersome. Upon elaboration in a follow-up question, other types were defined as human yelling, rowdiness and late-night parties (see Appendix C for a list of open-ended responses). Table 18: Human-Induced Noise Types that Impacted Overall Experience. Noise Types n % Power generators 47 15.1 Other types of noise 46 14.8 Motorboats 38 12.2 Dogs 37 11.9 Loud music 23 7.4 Cars/trucks/planes 15 4.8 Note: n=108. Items are not mutually exclusive and so do not equal 100%. In analyzing the aforementioned human-induced noise variables, it was determined that it would also be important to examine the number of different types of noise chosen by individual respondents. Therefore, individuals were grouped based on the number of noises they listed as bothersome (Table 19). As stated earlier, 65% of respondents indicated that no human-induced noise affected their overall experience. However, 16% of participants indicated only one type of noise as negatively interfering with their experience, while nine percent reported two noise types and seven percent

PAGE 71

60 chose three noise types. Only two percent of users viewed four to six noise types, in combination, as bothersome. Table 19: Number of Human-Induced Noises Selected. Number of Types. n % 0 203 65.3 1 51 16.4 2 28 9.0 3 22 7.1 4 4 1.3 5 1 0.3 6 2 0.6 Note: n=311; Mean=0.7; Std. Deviation=1.12. Motorized Noise Motorized noise was examined independently of the human-induced noise variable to assess any perception differences between the boater groups in terms of the types of noise that impacted their experiences. Question 20 from the survey was used to determine if motorized noise had impacted the respondents trip to Waldo Lake (See Appendix A). This was done by selecting those respondents who chose mechanized forms of noise from the list of noise types presented in question 20 of the survey. The results of these frequencies are reported in Table 20, below. As described in Table 20, three-fourths (74%) of respondents reported that they were not bothered by motorized noise while visiting Waldo Lake. This means that in general, respondents did not choose any forms of mechanized noise from the list of noise types listed within question 20 of the survey. This finding is similar to what was reported in Table 14, where a majority of the respondents (65%) were not bothered by human-induced noise. These findings will be described in further detail to explain the hypotheses of this study.

PAGE 72

61 Table 20: Motorized Noise Impacts on Overall Experience. Impacts of Motorized Noise n % Not bothered by motorized noise 229 73.6 Bothered by motorized noise 82 26.4 Note: n=311. A frequency analysis was performed to assess the number (0-3) of different motorized noises considered irksome by each respondent (Table 21). As mentioned previously, approximately 74% of respondents were not bothered by any motorized noises. However, 21% of respondents reported negative interference by just one type of motorized noise. A small minority (5%) identified two types of noise, and only two respondents (0.6%) were bothered by three different types of motorized noise. Table 21: Number of Motorized Noises Selected. Number of Types n % 0 229 73.6 1 66 21.2 2 14 4.5 3 2 0.6 Note: n=311; Mean=0.3, Std. Deviation=0.59. Interference and Conflict A noise interference index was created to assess the degree of interference experienced by the occurrence of motorized noise on four individual aspects of outdoor recreation and appreciation. These aspects included: enjoyment of the area, appreciation of the natural quiet, appreciation of the sounds of nature, and appreciation of the historical/cultural significance of the area. This index was considered an important part of this study in examining how motorized noise actually affected visitors to Waldo Lake, and to show the differences in how the different boater groups (motorized and non-motorized) felt about these noise impacts.

PAGE 73

62 The noise interference descriptive table below examines the individual interference items used to create the noise interference index. These questions were only asked of boaters who reported that they were disturbed by motorized noise (n=82). However, all respondents (n=229) who were not bothered by motorized noise were given a one on each of the item scales. This signified that these users did not perceive interference from motorized noise. Each item was measured on a five-point Likert scale with one being not at all interfered and five being extremely interfered. As Table 22 suggests, over 70% of respondents stated that the occurrence of motorized noise did not at all interfere with their enjoyment of the area. The majority of participants also reported that motorized noise did not at all interfere with their appreciation of the natural quiet (72%) or the sounds of nature (72%). Moreover, the average Likert value of these first three items was on average 1.6 to 1.7, indicating that many individuals were not terribly bothered by motorized noise. For the fourth variable, appreciation of the historical/cultural significance of the area, 85% of individuals stated that motorized noise was not at all interfering. Table 22: Interference Index Item Descriptives. Interference Index Items Not S M VM Ext Mean Std Dev. 1. Enjoyment of area 72.7% 8.4% 11.3% 6.4% 1.3% 1.6 1.01 2. Appreciation of natural quiet 71.7 7.7 11.9 5.5 3.2 1.7 1.09 3. Appreciation of sounds of nature 72.3 6.8 11.3 5.5 4.2 1.7 1.14 4. Appreciation of the historical/cultural significance 84.6 4.5 7.1 1.6 1.9 1.3 0.83 Note: n=311; Not=Not at all, S=Slightly, M=Moderately, VM=Very Much, Ext=Extremely. Once again, a reliability analysis was utilized to determine the internal consistency of each of the four items used in the interference index. Table 23 displays the results of

PAGE 74

63 the reliability analysis along with the means and standard deviations of each individual item. Means for items in the index ranged from 1.3 to 1.6, implying that most respondents experienced only slight to no interference due to motorized noise. The standard deviations of each item were also generally low (SD 1.14), indicating a moderate level of agreement within the sample. The standardized alpha for the interference index was also highly reliable (=0.95). With the exception of item four, all items strengthened the reliability of the index. Since deleting item four did not change the reliability appreciably, it was retained. Table 23: Reliability of Noise Interference Index. Mean Std Dev. Corrected Item-Total Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted Noise Interference Index Items 1. Enjoyment of area 1.6 1.01 0.928 0.913 2. Appreciation of natural quiet 1.7 1.09 0.960 0.902 3. Appreciation of sounds of nature 1.7 1.14 0.952 0.905 4. Appreciation of the historical/cultural significance 1.3 0.83 0.681 0.983 Standardized Alpha= 0.95 Note: n=311. Motorized Boating Impacts In order to measure the different opinions of motorized boating impacts among the respondents, the motorized boating impact index (MBI) was created. This index assists in developing a picture of what the boater groups (motorized / non-motorized) feel about the impacts of boating on Waldo Lake. Table 24 presents the descriptive statistics for items related to the motorized boating impact index (MBI Index). Each of the four items in the index was measured on a five-point Likert scale, with one being strongly disagree and five being strongly

PAGE 75

64 agree. When asked about primitive recreational experiences (item one), respondents agreed (22%) or strongly agreed (51%) that motorized boating had a negative impact. Respondents also felt strongly (indicated by a mean Likert value of 4.6) that pollution by motorized vessels needed to be addressed (item two). In terms of impacts to wildlife (item 3) as well as effects on water resources (item four), respondents generally took a pro-environmental perspective. A majority of respondents (65%) strongly agreed that motorized activities negatively impacted wildlife; and the vast majority (93%) strongly disagreed that motorized boating has no affect on water quality. This fourth and final variable was negatively worded in the original survey design, and was recoded for use in the MBI index. For the purposes of this table, however, the average response was 1.4 on the five-point scale. In its original form, this item illustrates that respondents believed that motorized boating does cause adverse damage to water resources. Table 24: Motorized Boating Impact Index Item Descriptives. MBI Index Items SD D Und A SA Mean Std Dev. 1. Motor boating has a negative impact on primitive recreation 4.2% 9.0% 12.9% 22.5% 51.4% 4.1 1.17 2. Pollution from motorized boating needs to be controlled 1.0 1.6 3.2 29.3 65.0 4.6 0.73 3. Motorized activities negatively impacts wildlife 4.2 12.2 19.0 19.6 45.0 3.9 1.22 4. Motorized boating has no effect on water quality 67.8 24.8 5.5 1.6 0.3 1.4 0.70 Note: n=311; SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, Und=Undecided, A=Agree, SA=Strongly Agree. Internal consistency of the index, as determined by a reliability analysis, is presented in Table 25. To reiterate, item 4 was reworded and recoded due to its original negative tone. The means for the four items included in the MBI index ranged from 3.9 to 4.6, indicating that most respondents tended to agree or strongly agree with MBI

PAGE 76

65 statements. Standard deviations for each item were also low (SD1.22), implying a moderate level of agreement in the sample. In addition, the standardized alpha for the MBI index was highly reliable at 0.87. Table 25: Reliability of Motorized Boating Impact Index (MBI). Mean Std Dev. Corrected Item-Total Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted MBI Index Items 1. Motorized boating has negative impacts on primitive recreation 4.1 1.17 0.810 0.795 2 Pollution from motorized boating needs to be controlled 4.6 0.73 0.754 0.835 3. Motorized activities negatively impacts wildlife 3.9 1.22 0.784 0.814 4. Motorized boating has an affect on water quality1 4.6 0.70 0.674 0.860 Standardized Alpha= 0.87 Note: 1 Original items regarded as negative statements. Items reworded and recoded to match existing positive statements. 1=Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree. No items were deleted from index. Motorized Boating Management Proposed management actions were also measured in this study to determine if differences existed between the boater groups (motorized / non-motorized) in terms of their opinions about motorized management plans. In order to accomplish this, the motorized boating management index (MBM Index) was created from four individual items from the survey. Table 26 presents the descriptive statistics for the items in the motorized boating management index (MBM). Unlike previous index items, three of the MBM items were measured on a three-point scale (with one = oppose, two = not sure, and three = favor). The fourth item in the MBM index was originally based on a five-point scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). However, it was

PAGE 77

66 transformed into a three-point scale in order to match the other variables: negative responses (strongly disagree and disagree) and positive responses (strongly agree and agree) were re-categorized as oppose and favor, respectively. Within the MBM index, respondents were asked about management topics involving motorized boating. Approximately 67% of respondents favored permitting only non-motorized boats and electric motor access to the lake (2.4 mean Likert value with SD of 0.87). Moreover, 79% of interviewees supported zoning certain sections of the lake for non-motorized use. The mean Likert value for this item was 2.6 with a SD of 0.73. The next item in the index revealed that 88% of individuals advocated control over the level of noise generated by motorized recreationists. A high mean Likert value of 2.8 (with a SD of 0.55) further emphasized the level of group agreement on this issue. Finally, the last item in the MBM index demonstrated that a majority of respondents (73%) favored limiting motorized boating to four-cycle engines. Of note, this item garnered the highest percentage of not sure reactions (13%).

PAGE 78

67 Table 26: Motorized Boating Management Index Item Descriptives. MBM Index Items Oppose Not Sure Favor Mean Std Dev. 1. Only permit non-motorized boats and electric motors in Waldo Lake 25.1% 7.7% 67.2% 2.4 0.87 2. Certain sections of the lake should be limited to non-motorized boating1 15.1 5.5 79.4 2.6 0.73 3. Control the level of noise from motorized recreation 7.1 5.5 87.5 2.8 0.55 4. Limit motorized boat motors to 4-cycle engines only 14.1 12.5 73.3 2.6 0.73 Note: n=311; 1 Original survey item was on a 5-point scale with 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree. The item was transformed into a 3-point scale to match existing MBM items. Results from the reliability analysis, including means and standard deviations of each individual item, are presented in Table 27. As already touched upon, the means for the MBM index ranged from 2.4 to 2.8, indicating that most of the respondents tended to favor the MBM statements. Since standard deviations of each item were also low (SD<0.87), there appears to have been a moderate level of agreement among the sample. Furthermore, the standardized alpha for the MBM index was considered moderately reliable at 0.71. All of the individual items strengthened the reliability of the scale. Table 27: Reliability of Motorized Boating Management Index (MBM). Mean Std Dev. Corrected Item-Total Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted MBM Index Items 1. Only permit non-motorized boats and electric motors in Waldo Lake 2.4 0.87 0.601 0.580 2 Certain sections of the lake should be limited to non-motorized boating 2.6 0.73 0.492 0.651 3. Control the level of noise from motorized recreation 2.8 0.55 0.442 0.686 4. Limit motorized boat motors to 4-cycle engines only 2.6 0.73 0.487 0.654 Standardized Alpha= 0.71 Note: 1=Oppose, 2=Not sure, 3=Favor. No items were deleted from index.

PAGE 79

68 Research Questions and Hypotheses Testing R1: Does the occurrence of noise affect boaters overall experiences at Waldo Lake? H1A: Human-induced noise does not affect boaters overall experience at Waldo Lake. Previous research has determined that noises which do not regularly occur in a natural area can be seen by many as an annoyance (Anderson, Mulligan, Goodman & Regen, 1983; Fiddell et al., 1996; Green & Fiddell, 1991). Thus, this study hypothesized that an increase in the number of noise types considered bothersome by visitors would be met by a proportional decrease in overall satisfaction. To test this idea, the relationships between noise and overall satisfaction were examined. In particular, an independent sample t-test was performed with the ten-point satisfaction scale and the impacts by human-induced noise question (see Table 14). The findings of this analysis (Table 28) show that those respondents who checked yes to being bothered by human-induced noise also reported a lower level of satisfaction, on average, than their counterparts (t=-2.10, p<0.05). An additional independent sample t-test was also conducted with the satisfaction index, and it, too, revealed a significant difference in satisfaction scores between users (t= -2.46, p<0.05). Specifically, respondents who found human-induced noise interfering enjoyed significantly less satisfaction than those who were not affected by such noise (Table 28).

PAGE 80

69 Table 28: Human-Induced Noise Impacts by Satisfaction Independent Sample t-tests. Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig. 10-pt Satisfaction Scale1 Yes 8.4 1.20 -2.10 0.037 No 8.7 1.04 Satisfaction Index2 Yes 4.3 0.59 -2.46 0.014 No 4.5 0.61 Note: 1 10-point satisfaction scale was coded from 1 to 10. 1=worst possible experience and 10=best possible experience; n=309. 2 The satisfaction index ranged from 1, indicating low satisfaction, to 5, indicating high satisfaction; n=310. Table 29 depicts the relationships between the number of bothersome human-induced noise, on the one hand, and the overall 10-point satisfaction scale and satisfaction index, on the other hand. A negative relationship was found to exist between the satisfaction scale variable and the number of negatively-impacting human-induced noises chosen by respondents (p=0.020). Although a Pearsons r-value of .13 indicates a weak inverse relationship between the variables, the relationship is still significant. A significant relationship was also found to exist between the number of human-induced noises chosen by respondents and the satisfaction index. A Pearsons r-value of .20, again indicates a weak inverse relationship. In sum, these results demonstrate that as the number of bothersome noises increased, respondents satisfaction (based on both the satisfaction scale and the satisfaction index) decreased. Table 29: Number of Human-Induced Noise Types. Variables n Mean Std Dev. Correlation (r) Sig. Number of types of HIN 311 0.7 1.12 Overall satisfaction scale 309 8.6 1.10 -0.13 0.020 Satisfaction index 310 4.4 0.61 -0.20 <0.001

PAGE 81

70 H1B: Motorized noise does not affect boaters overall experiences at Waldo Lake. Motorized noise is considered a subset of the human-induced noise variable. Based upon previous studies emphasizing conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users, motorized noise was analyzed as a separate entity. To determine if the occurrence of motorized noise really impacted satisfaction experience, independent t-tests were performed. Those respondents who did not consider motorized noise as negative impacts tended to have a higher mean satisfaction value (8.6 out of 10), while those respondents that were affected by motorized noises reported a mean score of 8.4 (Table 30). Although a slight reduction in satisfaction was observed, the difference was not significant (t=1.23; p>0.05). An additional t-test was performed to determine if motorized noise had an impact on the satisfaction index. Again, a slight difference in mean satisfaction values was noted between those who were affected by motorized noise (4.3 out of 5) and those who were not (4.4 out of 5); but that difference was not significant (t=1.55, p>0.123). Table 30: Motorized Noise Impacts by Satisfaction Independent Sample t-tests. Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig. 10-pt Satisfaction Scale1 Yes 8.4 1.13 No 8.6 1.09 1.23 0.222 Satisfaction Index2 Yes 4.3 0.56 No 4.4 0.62 1.55 0.123 Note: 1 10-point satisfaction scale coded from 1 to 10. 1=worst possible experience and 10=best possible experience; n=309. 2 Satisfaction index created using four individual satisfaction items, measured on 5-point scales. 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree. Cronbachs Alpha=0.66;n=310. Table 31 depicts the relationship between satisfaction (measured by the satisfaction scale and the satisfaction index) and the number of motorized noises found bothersome

PAGE 82

71 by respondents. Results show that a significant relationship does not exist between the overall satisfaction scale variable and the number of different motorized noises identified as bothersome by respondents (p=0.257). However, a significant relationship was found between the number of negative motorized noise types and the satisfaction index. A Pearsons r-value of .128 implies a significant, but weak, inverse relationship between the variables. In summary, as respondents identified greater numbers of bothersome motorized noises, their satisfaction (as defined by the satisfaction index) decreased. Table 31: Number of Motorized Noise Types Chosen. Variables n Mean Std Dev. Correlation Sig. Number of types of MN 311 0.3 0.59 Overall satisfaction scale 309 8.6 1.10 -0.06 0.257 Satisfaction index 310 4.4 0.61 -0.13 0.025 Based upon the results described within the context of the first research question and sub-hypotheses, it can be concluded that noise can affect the satisfaction levels of boaters visiting Waldo Lake. In the case of human-induced noise impacts, decreased levels of satisfaction were reported by those who were impacted by the occurrence of human-induced noise. However, it was revealed that overall satisfaction levels were still considerably high among all of the respondents in this study, indicating that human-induced noise impacts were present at Waldo Lake, but not to an alarming degree. Also, when looking at the motorized noise impacts on satisfaction levels, no significant differences between the groups was reported. Again, respondents generally reported high levels of satisfaction in both the single-item scale and the satisfaction index, indicating that this type of noise (motorized) was not perceived as a problem for the recreational boaters at Waldo Lake. It should be noted for this sub-hypothesis that a relationship was discovered with the number of motorized noises chosen by respondents

PAGE 83

72 and the satisfaction index. As the number of noises increased, satisfaction levels were negatively affected. This relationship was only evident within the index, and not the other satisfaction measure. R2: Does activity style affect overall experience differently? H2A: There is no difference in overall experience between motorized and non-motorized boaters. The second research question of this thesis investigates the possibility that activity style (motorized boating vs. non-motorized boating) impacts respondents reported levels of satisfaction. Results in Table 32 demonstrate that there are, indeed, significant differences in satisfaction (based on the satisfaction index and the satisfaction scale) based on respondents activity choice. For example, the non-motorized group reported a mean satisfaction value of 4.5 as compared to 4.2 by motorized users. The ten-point satisfaction scale depicted similar results with the non-motorized boaters, again, reporting higher levels of satisfaction (mean=8.7) than motorized users (mean=8.2). Both of these differences were significant (p 0.002). Thus, it appears that activity style does play a significant role in the satisfaction of respondents. Table 32: Activity Style and Satisfaction Independent Sample t-tests. Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig. 10-pt Satisfaction Scale1 Motorized Boaters 8.2 1.0 Non-Motorized Boaters 8.7 1.1 -3.74 <0.001 Satisfaction Index2 Motorized Boaters 4.2 0.71 Non-Motorized Boaters 4.5 0.57 -3.09 0.002 Note: 1 10-point satisfaction scale coded from 1 to 10. 1=worst possible experience and 10=best possible experience; n=309. 2 Satisfaction index created using four individual satisfaction items, measured on 5-point scales. 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree. Cronbachs Alpha=0.66; n=310.

PAGE 84

73 R3: Does activity style affect boater opinions about noise? H3A: There is no difference between impacts and opinions of human induced noise between boater groups. The third research question in this thesis addresses the relationships between activity style and opinions regarding noise. Crosstabulation analyses with chi-square tests of significance were performed to assess significant relationships between respondent groups (motorized vs. non-motorized users) based on their reactions to certain noises (Table 33). Both activity groups were first analyzed based on whether or not respondents were negatively impacted by human-induced noise. Subsequently, activity groups were examined based on their evaluation of certain noise types (e.g., generator, motorboat, dog, car/truck/plane, loud music, other) as irksome. Among the seven previously mentioned categories, only two showed significant differences based on activity style. Approximately 40% of the non-motorized group was affected by human-induced noise as opposed to 21% of their motorized counterpart. Moreover, this difference was found to be significant (p = 0.003); thus, showing that there is a significant difference between boater groups regarding their opinions of human-induced noise. The second noise category that was statistically significant involved motorboat noise. Thirty-six non-motorized respondents complained of motorboat noise; a statement that was echoed by only one motorized user. Thus, the difference between groups was found to be significant (p < 0.001). The five other noise categories were not statistically significant by activity style.

PAGE 85

74 Table 33: Cross-tabulation of Boater Groups and Impacts of Human Induced Noise. Yes No Boater Groups n % n % 2 Sig. Human-Induced Noise Overall Experience Impacts Motorized Boaters 18 21.4 66 78.6 Non-Motorized Boaters 89 39.6 136 60.4 8.88 0.003 Individual Human-Induced Noise Types Generator Noise Impacts Motorized Boaters 8 9.5 76 90.5 Non-Motorized Boaters 38 16.9 187 83.1 2.62 0.106 Motorboat Noise Impacts Motorized Boaters 1 1.2 83 98.8 Non-Motorized Boaters 36 16.0 189 84.0 12.73 <0.001 Dog Noise Impacts Motorized Boaters 6 7.1 78 92.9 Non-Motorized Boaters 31 13.8 194 86.2 2.55 0.110 Car/Truck/Plane Noise Impacts Motorized Boaters 1 1.2 83 98.8 Non-Motorized Boaters 14 6.2 211 93.8 3.35 0.067 Loud Music Impacts Motorized Boaters 9 10.7 75 89.3 Non-Motorized Boaters 14 6.2 211 93.8 1.79 0.181 Other Noise Impacts Motorized Boaters 11 13.1 73 86.9 Non-Motorized Boaters 35 15.6 190 84.4 0.29 0.589 Differences between the number of human-induced noise types identified as bothersome by respondents and activity style was further examined (Table 34). Non

PAGE 86

75 motorized boaters found more noises bothersome (mean=0.8) than the motorized group (mean=0.4). Moreover, this difference between the two boater groups was found to have a t-value of 2.46 and to be significant (p = 0.026). These results indicate that non-motorized boaters were more sensitive to human-induced noise impacts. Table 34: Number of HIN Types and Activity Style Independent t-tests. Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig. Number of HIN Sources Motorized Boater 0.4 0.95 Non-Motorized Boater 0.8 1.16 -2.46 0.026 Note: n=309. H3B: There is no difference between impacts and opinions of motorized noise between boater groups. Beyond looking at the different perceptions of human-induced noise held by different activity groups, this study specifically examined evaluations of motorized noise. In so doing, emphasis was placed on the multi-item Interference Index (see Table 22), which used four variables to assess the levels of interference experienced by users. Incorporation of this index in an independent sample t-test revealed a significant difference between boater groups regarding the amount of interference experienced from motorized noise (Table 35). Specifically, non-motorized users reported higher levels of interference (mean=1.4-1.8) than the motorized group (mean=1.1-1.3). This finding supports the stipulation that those involved in motorized recreational activities may have a higher tolerance for motorized noise, even when they, themselves, are not involved in said activity (Ivy et al., 1992). Differences between activity groups were all significant at <0.01.

PAGE 87

76 Table 35: Interference Index and Activity Style Independent Sample t-tests. Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig. Noise Interference Index Motorized Boaters 1.2 0.65 Non-Motorized Boaters 1.6 1.02 -4.10 <0.001 1. Enjoyment of area Motorized Boaters 1.3 0.73 Non-Motorized Boaters 1.7 1.08 -3.695 <0.001 2. Appreciation of natural quiet Motorized Boaters 1.3 0.76 Non-Motorized Boaters 1.7 1.17 -4.136 <0.001 3. Appreciation of sounds of nature Motorized Boaters 1.3 0.76 Non-Motorized Boaters 1.8 1.22 -4.237 <0.001 4. Appreciation of the historical/cultural significance Motorized Boaters 1.1 0.49 Non-Motorized Boaters 1.4 0.92 -3.018 0.003 Note: n=309. An additional independent sample t-test was performed to determine the mean differences between boating groups (motorized vs. non-motorized) in regards to the number of motorized noises labeled as irritating by respondents (Table 36). Results indicated significant differences between the motorized and non-motorized boater groups (t=-4.90, p<0.001). Specifically, the non-motorized boater group chose more motorized noises (mean=0.39) than their motorized boater counterparts (mean=0.12). This finding indicates that the non-motorized group was more susceptible to motorized noise impacts than the motorized boater group.

PAGE 88

77 Table 36: Number of Motorized Noise Types and Activity Style t-tests. Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig. Number of motorized noises chosen Motorized Boaters 0.12 0.33 -4.90 <0.001 Non-Motorized Boaters 0.39 0.64 Note: n=309. From the analyses presented in this research question, it can be concluded that activity style does affect the opinions of noise between the respondents at Waldo Lake. The sub-hypotheses describe opinion differences between the boater groups by revealing that non-motorized boaters tended to be more susceptible to impacts from human-induced and motorized noise. The results also indicated that non-motorized boaters chose more individual noise types in both the human-induced and motorized noise categories, thus showing the increased susceptibility of non-motorized boaters experiencing impacts from the occurrence of noise. R4. Are the attitudes and opinions about impacts from motorized boating and select management actions different between the boating groups? H4A: There is no difference in the attitudes about proposed management and the perception of motorized boating impacts based on activity style. The fourth and final research question of this thesis looks at the possible discrepancies between the two boater groups (motorized vs. non-motorized) in terms of motorized boating impacts and proposed management actions. In general, this research question evaluates the relationships between noise, impacts, and proposed boating management. In order to accomplish this, results from the Motorized Boating Impact Index (MBI; see Tables 24 and 25) and the Motorized Boating Management Index (MBM; see Tables 26 and 27) were examined by activity style. Independent t-tests were utilized to describe the mean differences between the motorized and non-motorized boating groups based on their opinions (Table 37).

PAGE 89

78 Within the MBI index, the non-motorized boater group reported a much higher mean Likert value (mean=4.6) compared to the motorized group (mean=3.5). The difference between the boater groups in terms of this index was found to have a t-value of .60 and to be significant (p < 0.001). This finding indicates that non-motorized boaters tended to agree or strongly agree with the opinion that motorized boating can create negative impacts; whereas, the motorized group was more neutral in their beliefs. As for the MBM index, the non-motorized boater group, again, reported an increased mean Likert value (mean=2.8) compared to the motorized group (mean=2.0). The difference between the boater groups was found to have a t-value of .49 and to be significant (p < 0.001). From this statistical analysis, it can be determined that, on average, non-motorized boaters tended to favor more motorized boating regulations than the motorized group. Table 37: MBI/MBM Index and Activity Style Independent Sample t-tests. Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig. MBI Index Motorized Boaters 3.5 0.72 Non-Motorized Boaters 4.6 0.57 -14.60 <0.001 MBM Index Motorized Boaters 2.0 0.56 Non-Motorized Boaters 2.8 0.31 -12.49 <0.001 Note: n=309. In addition to the independent-sample t-tests used on the complete MBI and MBM indices, each of the four individual items in both indices was evaluated by activity style. These additional t-tests were used to distinguish the individual significance of each of the items in the MBI and MBM indexes. For the MBI index (Table 38), each individual item was significant (p < 0.001), further demonstrating differences between the two boating groups. In fact, mean scores indicate that non-motorized boaters tended to (strongly)

PAGE 90

79 agree that motorized boating poses negative impacts; while, motorized boaters, understandably, were more neutral. Table 38: MBI Index items and Activity Style Independent Sample t-tests. Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig. 1. Motorized boating has no affect on water quality1 Motorized Boaters 4.0 0.74 Non-Motorized Boaters 4.8 0.54 -9.00 <0.001 2. Motorized boating has a negative impact on primitive recreation Motorized Boaters 2.8 1.0 Non-Motorized Boaters 4.6 0.83 -13.74 <0.001 3. Pollution from motorized boating needs to be controlled Motorized Boaters 4.0 0.89 Non-Motorized Boaters 4.8 0.49 -8.09 <0.001 4. Motorized activities negatively impacts wildlife Motorized Boaters 2.6 1.1 Non-Motorized Boaters 4.4 0.91 -14.18 <0.001 Note: 1 Original items regarded as negative statements. Items reworded and recoded to match existing positive statements. 1=Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree. The individual items of the MBM index were also evaluated by activity style. Differences between the motorized and non-motorized boating groups were identified in terms of users opinions towards motorized boating management actions. However, unlike the MBI variables, the MBM items were measured on a three-point Likert scale. Nonetheless, each of the four statements was individually tested using a crosstabulation and a chi-square analysis to show the significance of existing differences between the two boater groups (Table 39). Based upon the table, each item was found to be significant (p < 0.001). Moreover, non-motorized users tended to favor additional management than their motorized counterparts. For instance, 87% of non-motorized boaters (vs. 14% of motorized users) favored limiting access to non-motorized boats and electric motors (see item one). Similar results are evident for the remaining three items.

PAGE 91

80 Table 39: Cross-tabulation of Boater Groups and Motor Boating Management Opinions. Oppose Not Sure Favor Boater Groups n % n % n % 2 Sig. 1. Only permit non-motorized boats and electric motors Motorized Boaters 61 72.6 11 13.1 12 14.3 Non-Motorized Boaters 17 7.6 13 5.8 195 86.7 154.63 <0.001 2. Certain sections of the lake should be limited to non-motorized boating1 Motorized Boaters 29 34.5 9 10.7 46 54.8 Non-Motorized Boaters 18 8.0 8 3.6 199 88.4 42.74 <0.001 3. Pollution from motorized boats needs to be controlled Motorized Boaters 17 20.2 12 14.3 55 65.5 Non-Motorized Boaters 5 2.2 5 2.2 215 95.6 50.40 <0.001 4. Limit motors to 4-cycle engines only Motorized Boaters 32 38.1 18 21.4 34 40.5 Non-Motorized Boaters 12 5.3 21 9.3 192 85.3 70.02 <0.001 Note: 1 Original survey item was on a five-point scale with 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree. The item was transformed into a 3-point scale to match existing MBM items. H4B: Human-induced noise does not affect boaters attitudes about proposed management and opinions of motorized boating impacts. MBI and MBM results were also broken down by reaction to human-induced noise (Table 40). Independent sample t-tests revealed that significant differences in opinion (concerning motorized boating impacts and management) existed between those respondents that were impacted by human-induced noise and those that were not. Within the MBM index, respondents that were bothered by human-induced noise reported a higher mean score (mean=2.8) than those that were not (mean=2.5). The differences between the groups had a reported t-value of 4.02 and were significant (p < 0.001). This

PAGE 92

81 analysis, therefore, demonstrates that individuals who reported experiencing impacts from human-induced noise tended to favor greater management of motorized boaters. Within the MBI index, respondents that were disturbed by human-induced noise reported a higher mean (mean=4.5) than their counterparts (mean=4.2). The differences in the mean scores were also significant (p < 0.001), suggesting that those respondents impacted by noise, agreed more strongly that motorized boating produces impacts. Table 40: MBM/MBI Index and Human-Induced Noise Independent Sample t-tests. Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig. MBM Index (n=309) Bothered by HIN 2.8 0.40 Not bothered by HIN 2.5 0.57 4.02 <0.001 MBI Index (n=309) Bothered by HIN 4.5 0.71 Not bothered by HIN 4.2 0.87 3.71 <0.001 Once again, each of the individual items in the MBI and MBM indexes were tested; this time in relation to human-induced noise perceptions. These additional tests were used to show the individual significance of each of the items used in the two indexes. Independent sample t-test results show that each individual MBI item was significant at the 0.001 level, except for the water quality variable, which was significant at the 0.05 level. Respondents that were bothered by human-induced noise displayed higher mean Likert scores than their counterparts, signifying that the former group (strongly) agreed that motorized boating poses negative impacts.

PAGE 93

82 Table 41: MBI Index items and Human-Induced Noise Independent Sample t-tests. Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig. 1. Motorized boating has no affect on water quality1 Bothered by HIN 4.7 0.59 Not bothered by HIN 4.5 0.75 2.23 0.026 2. Motorized boating has a negative impact on primitive recreation Bothered by HIN 4.4 1.05 Not bothered by HIN 3.9 1.20 3.70 <0.001 3. Pollution from motorized boating needs to be controlled Bothered by HIN 4.7 0.53 Not bothered by HIN 4.5 0.80 3.37 0.001 4. Motorized activities negatively impacts wildlife Bothered by HIN 4.2 1.09 Not bothered by HIN 3.7 1.27 3.29 0.001 Note: 1 Original items regarded as negative statements. Items recoded to match existing positive statements. 1=Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree. The four MBM items were also evaluated. Yet since this index consisted of three-point Likert scale statements, each statement underwent cross-tabulation to show the descriptive statistics. Chi-square analyses were also implemented to test the significance of those differences (Table 42). Index item one (only permit non-motorized boats and electric motors in Waldo Lake) generated significant opinion differences between groups (p = 0.001). Moreover, item two (limiting sections of the lake to non-motorized boating) and item four (limiting boating to four-cycle engines) were both found to have significant differences (p = 0.04). Item three (addressing pollution from motorized vehicles), however, did not generate significant responses. All in all, results depict greater support for motorized boating management by respondents that were affected by human-induced noise.

PAGE 94

83 Table 42: Cross-tabulation of HIN and Opinions of Motor Boating Management. Oppose Not Sure Favor Variables n % n % n % 2 Sig. 1. Only permit non-motorized boats and electric motors Affected by HIN 11 10.2 8 7.4 89 82.4 Not Affected by HIN 67 33.0 16 7.9 120 59.1 20.35 0.001 2. Certain sections of the lake should be limited to non-motorized boating1 Affected by HIN 9 8.3 5 4.6 94 87.0 Not Affected by HIN 38 18.7 12 5.9 153 75.4 6.45 0.040 3. Pollution from motorized boats needs to be controlled Affected by HIN 3 2.8 8 7.4 97 89.8 Not Affected by HIN 19 9.4 9 4.4 175 86.2 5.56 0.062 4. Limit motors to 4-cycle engines only Affected by HIN 9 8.3 18 16.7 81 75.0 Not Affected by HIN 35 17.2 21 10.3 147 72.4 6.26 0.044 Note: 1 Original survey item was on a five-point scale with 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree. The item was transformed into a 3-point scale to match existing MBM items. H4C: Motorized noise does not affect boaters attitudes about proposed management actions and opinions of motorized boating impacts. MBI and MBM indexes (as well as their individual items) were also examined in relation to perceptions of motorized noise (Tables 43 and 44). Similar t-tests, crosstabulations, and chi-square analyses were performed as before. Within the MBM index, respondents that were affected by motorized noise reported a higher mean Likert score (mean=2.8) than those who were not (mean=2.5). The differences between the groups had a t-value of -5.01 and were significant below 0.001. Interpretation of these

PAGE 95

84 results reveal that individuals impacted by motorized noise tended to favor greater motorized boating management. Similarly, within the MBI index, respondents that were affected by motorized noise agreed more intensely that motorized boating produced negative impacts. To illustrate, t-tests revealed that those respondents that reported being disturbed by motorized noise, reported a higher Likert score (mean=4.6) than their counterparts. This difference in mean scores was found to be significant (p < 0.001) as shown in Table 43. Table 43: MBM/MBI Index and Motorized Noise Independent Sample t-tests. Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig. MBM Index Bothered by Motorized Noise 2.8 0.34 Not bothered by Motorized Noise 2.5 0.57 -5.01 <0.001 MBI Index Bothered by Motorized Noise 4.6 0.60 Not bothered by Motorized Noise 4.2 0.87 -5.24 <0.001 Note: n=309 Again, each item in the MBI and MBM indexes was tested against the perception of motorized noise. These additional t-tests were used to show the individual significance of each of the items used in creating the MBI index (Table 44). Each individual MBI item was significant (p < 0.001) and, unsurprisingly, individuals who were irritated by motorized noise, were also more strongly in agreement that motorized boating produces negative impacts on water quality, primitive recreation, pollution, and wildlife.

PAGE 96

85 Table 44: MBI Index Items and Motorized Noise Independent Sample t-tests. Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig. 1. Motorized boating has no affect on water quality1 Bothered by Motorized Noise 4.8 0.38 Not bothered by Motorized Noise 4.5 0.76 -5.12 <0.001 2. Motorized boating has a negative impact on primitive recreation Bothered by Motorized Noise 4.6 0.87 Not bothered by Motorized Noise 3.9 1.2 -5.46 <0.001 3. Pollution from motorized boating needs to be controlled Bothered by Motorized Noise 4.8 0.47 Not bothered by Motorized Noise 4.5 0.78 -4.15 <0.001 4. Motorized activities negatively impacts wildlife Bothered by Motorized Noise 4.3 1.1 Not bothered by Motorized Noise 3.8 1.3 -3.59 <0.001 Note: 1 Original items regarded as negative statements. Items recoded to match existing positive statements. 1=Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree. Crosstabulation and chi-squared analyses of each of the MBM three-point items, produced somewhat analogous results. Two of the four management items garnered greater favor from users that had been impacted by motorized noise. For instance, index item one (only permit non-motorized boats and electric motors in Waldo Lake) produced significantly different responses (p < 0.001): 87% of bothered recreationists favored this action as opposed to 60% of unbothered individuals. Likewise, 92% of impacted respondents agreed that certain sections of the lake should be limited to non-motorized boating (item two); versus 75% of their counterparts (p = 0.007). The remaining two variables (i.e. items three and four) did not generate statistically significant replies.

PAGE 97

86 Table 45: Motorized Noise and Opinions of Motor Boating Management Actions. Oppose Not Sure Favor Variables n % n % n % 2 Sig. 1. Only permit non-motorized boats and electric motors Bothered by Motorized Noise 6 7.3 5 6.1 71 86.6 Not bothered by Motorized Noise 72 31.4 19 8.3 138 60.3 20.61 <0.001 2. Certain sections of the lake should be limited to non-motorized boating Bothered by Motorized Noise 5 6.1 2 2.4 75 91.5 Not bothered by Motorized Noise 42 18.3 15 6.6 172 75.1 9.89 0.007 3. Pollution from motorized boats needs to be controlled Bothered by Motorized Noise 2 2.4 3 3.7 77 93.9 Not bothered by Motorized Noise 20 8.7 14 6.1 195 85.2 4.58 0.101 4. Limit motors to 4-cycle engines only Bothered by Motorized Noise 8 9.8 10 12.2 64 78.0 Not bothered by Motorized Noise 36 15.7 29 12.7 164 71.6 1.87 0.393 Research question four asks if the attitudes and opinions about impacts from motorized boating and select management actions are different between the boating groups. Based upon the results from the aforementioned analyses, it can be concluded that differences between the groups do actually exist based on activity style, human-induced, and motorized noise. The findings from the sub-hypotheses indicate that non-motorized boaters tended to favor more motorized boating regulations, and also felt more strongly about the impacts at Waldo Lake created from motorized boating. Analyses describing noise impacts on these opinions also revealed that those respondents who were impacted by noise (human-induced / motorized) reported elevated levels of agreement in both the proposed

PAGE 98

87 management actions, and motorized boating impacts. It should also be noted that to a lessened degree, some of the motorized boaters did agree with management actions, and also were aware of some of the impacts that their recreational pursuits created. This indicates that motorized boaters to a degree are aware of their impacts, and do agree that something needs to be done to rectify the issues pertaining to motorized boating at Waldo Lake.

PAGE 99

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION Introduction The purpose of this study was to expand the body of knowledge pertaining to both satisfaction and conflict literature. Specifically, this study looked at the impacts of noise and how it affects visitor satisfaction and inter-group conflict among boaters at Waldo Lake. Understanding the impacts of noise on various user groups in outdoor recreation settings is important in determining alternative methods of management that may lessen the adverse effects of noise in these areas. Noise, itself, has been defined in many different ways. For the purposes of this study, the concept of human-induced noise was used to include any such noise created by humans that was unnatural in the outdoor environment. Motorized noise was also singled out in this study due to previous research that suggested that certain types of conflict between users can arise from the presence of mechanized noise. This study examined the relationships and differences between the boating groups based upon their activity choice, experiences with noise, overall feelings towards impacts, and proposed management actions towards motorized boating. It was hypothesized that noise would not affect boaters overall experiences at Waldo Lake. In addition, the study also hypothesized that activity style does not affect boaters opinions about noise, nor does it affect the overall experiences of boaters while recreating in the area. This final chapter discusses and interprets the results of the analyses and presents conclusions based on those findings as well as recommendations for future research. 88

PAGE 100

89 Summary of Findings Each of the research questions and the accompanying hypotheses, as listed in Chapter 1, are discussed here. Research Question 1: Does the Occurrence of Noise Affect Boaters Overall Experiences at Waldo Lake? H1A: Human-induced noise does not affect boaters overall experiences at Waldo Lake. Hypothesis 1(a) was rejected, indicating that human-induced noise does affect the overall experiences of the boaters at Waldo Lake. Under this hypothesis, decreased levels of satisfaction were related to the occurrence of noise and by increases in the number of noises chosen by the sample group. For this hypothesis, overall experience was operationalized by using a single-item, ten-point scale rated from the worst possible experience to the best possible experience, as utilized in many similar studies. Overall experience was also measured by creating a satisfaction index based on previous research conducted by Graefe (1986). The index was comprised of four individual attributes that describe satisfaction among the boaters. These items were tested for reliability and combined to create the satisfaction index as described in previous chapters. Through the use of an independent sample t-test, it was discovered that differences existed between boaters reporting being negatively impacted by the occurrence of human-induced noise and the extent to which the noise affected them. On average, boaters visiting the Waldo Lake area that were affected by the occurrence of human-induced noise, reported decreased levels of satisfaction. However, only one-third of the sample (35%) reported suffering any negative effects due to the occurrence of noise. Also, the levels of satisfaction reported among those respondents were still considerably

PAGE 101

90 high on the single item satisfaction scale and the multi-item satisfaction index, describing a population of boaters that were only mildly disturbed by the occurrence of noise. In terms of the relationship between the number of different noise types chosen and overall experience levels, a correlation analysis showed that as the number of individual noise types increased among respondents, their overall experience levels were diminished. In both the single-item and multi-item satisfaction indexes, weak inverse relationships were found to be significant among the boaters. These findings concur with research conducted by Gramman (1999), who discovered that the occurrence of non-natural noise created impacts (including annoyance, interference with natural quiet, interference with the sounds of nature, and interference with the enjoyment of the area) among visitors to National Parks. Kariel (1991) also found in his study that sounds that interfere with conversation, sleeping, relaxing or other activities in the natural environment could detract from the enjoyment of a visit. In addition, Mace, Bell and Loomis (1998) found that the existence of natural quiet and uninterrupted sounds of nature are highly ranked by outdoor visitors as important aspects of their recreational visits. These collective findings solidify the rejection of this hypothesis, showing that the occurrence of noise created by humans can have adverse impacts on visitors overall experiences. H1B: Motorized noise does not affect boaters overall experiences at Waldo Lake. Hypothesis 1(b) was supported. Analysis of these results indicates that the presence of motorized noise at Waldo Lake did not significantly affect boaters overall experiences to the area. For this hypothesis, overall experience (or satisfaction) was operationalized in the same manner as hypothesis one (a), by using a single-item, ten-point scale rated from the worst experience possible to the best experience possible.

PAGE 102

91 The overall experience (or satisfaction level) of the boaters was also measured by creating a multi-item index consisting of four individual satisfaction items. These items included: I thoroughly enjoyed my trip, my trip was not as enjoyable as I had expected it to be, my trip was well worth the money I spent to take it, and I was disappointed with some aspects of my trip. The individual items within the index were all rated on a one to five scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Moreover, the satisfaction index was tested for reliability before combining the individual items. The only difference between this hypothesis and hypothesis one (a) was that the type of noise measured was limited to only those that were generated from a mechanized source. When looking at the proportion of boaters who were affected by the presence of motorized noise, only 26% (n=82) stated that motorized noise impacted their experiences while recreating at Waldo Lake. From this finding, an independent sample t-test revealed that there was no significant difference between those reporting noise impacts and those who were not impacted. In addition, boaters, reported elevated levels of satisfaction on both the single-item (8.4-8.6) and multi-item (4.3-4.4) satisfaction measures regardless if they were impacted by the occurrence of motorized noise or not. This finding implies that the impact of motorized noise on boaters at Waldo Lake is not a significant impacton boaters satisfaction levels. When the number of different types of motorized noise was examined using correlation analysis, significant relationships were found only between the multi-item satisfaction index (p<0.05) and the number of motorized noises chosen by respondents. The single-item satisfaction measure, however, did not show any significant relationships between the number of noises chosen and satisfaction levels among boaters.

PAGE 103

92 These findings agree with the aircraft overflight impact study by Fidell et al. (1996): motorized noise in the form of aircraft overflights was found to insignificantly diminish respondents overall enjoyment of their outdoor recreational visits. However, this result is not supported by Grammans (1999) research, in which expectations of motorized noise were dependent on the level of development; particularly mechanized noises were more likely to be evaluated negatively in natural areas compared to more developed or urban locations. Research Question 2: Does Activity Style Affect Overall Experience Differently? H2A: There is no difference in overall experience between motorized and non-motorized boaters. Hypothesis 2(a) was rejected. The non-motorized boaters reported higher mean scores in terms of satisfaction levels than that of the motorized group, describing significant differences in satisfaction based on boating type at Waldo Lake. This finding could be attributed to the increased restrictions on motorized activities, and the lack of activities and facilities better suited for motorized watercraft at Waldo Lake. From the original sample, two distinct boating groups were created (motorized and non-motorized) by dividing the groups by the power source of their primary vessel. The activity style variable was then operationalized by using these newly created boating groups. Satisfaction, or overall experience, was operationalized by a single-item, ten-point scale rated from the worst possible experience to the best possible experience as utilized in many similar satisfaction and conflict studies (Burns, 2000, Graefe, 1986). The relationship between the activity style chosen by the respondent and their reported satisfaction levels as measured by the satisfaction index was examined using an independent sample t-test. The results showed that non-motorized boaters reported

PAGE 104

93 significantly higher levels of satisfaction during their experience at Waldo Lake than motorized boaters. Non-motorized boaters reported satisfaction levels of 4.5 on the five-point scale index and 8.7 on the ten-point satisfaction scale. It should be noted, however, that the motorized users also reported relatively high levels of satisfaction. The motorized boaters reported satisfaction scores of 4.2 on the five-point index and 8.2 on the ten-point scale. These findings are similar to that of Adelman (1982), who found that different user groups have different norms about impacts, inappropriate behaviors, etc. The study found that non-motorized boaters tended to have a more purist attitude, and it can be assumed that this purist attitude would favor motorized activity restrictions as well as stronger feelings about motorized impacts. Adelman (1982) also concluded that there is no mutual rewarding interaction between groups with differing norm values. Thus, boaters, in having their satisfaction lessened, would experience conflict and could inevitably desire increased control to reduce such conflicts. In addition, Ruddell and Gramman (1994) stated that visitors who encounter persons using unacceptable modes of backcountry travel, such as motorboats in an outdoor recreation setting, are more likely to experience some level of dissatisfaction compared to those using that particular mode of transportation at that time. Research Question 3: Does Activity Style Affect Boater Opinions about Noise? H3A: There is no difference between impacts and opinions of human induced noise between boater groups. Hypothesis 3(a) was rejected, based upon the results indicated in Chapter Four. There were significant differences found between the boater groups regarding impacts and opinions of human-induced noise. In addition, the non-motorized group reported

PAGE 105

94 higher levels of impacts due to human-induced noise than the motorized group. Also, it should be noted that over 60% of the respondents indicated that the individual noise types and noise overall did not bother them during their recreation visit. Opinions of human-induced noise were operationalized by using one dichotomous question from the survey instrument (Appendix A) that asked boaters if their experience was impacted by the occurrence of human-induced noise. In addition to this measure, each individual noise type was examined to determine if different opinions existed between the boating groups. To determine the relationship between opinions of human-induced noise and boater type, the number of different noises chosen by respondents was utilized to examine which activity style (motorized, non-motorized) chose more types of noise as the source of their conflict. A simple crosstabulation was performed on each individual noise type and the single dichotomous question, Has your overall experience to Waldo Lake been negatively impacted by human-induced noise. From this analysis, it was discovered that only 20% of the motorized group were impacted by the presence of noise, as compared to 40% of non-motorized boaters. In addition, of the six individual human-induced noise types tested, only motorboat noise resulted in significant opinion differences (non-motorized=16%; motorized=1%) between the groups. For this noise type, however, over 80% of both boating groups (motorized, non-motorized) indicated that motorboat noise did not impact their experiences. Therefore, even though motorboat noise produced opinion differences between the two boating groups, only a relatively small percent of the sample group was impacted by this noise type.

PAGE 106

95 The results describing differences between the boater groups and their opinions of human-induced noise coincides with findings from research examining asymmetrical conflict between two groups. In the 1982 study by Adelman et al., it was found that non-motorized canoeists experienced conflicts with the motorized boaters, while the motorized boaters did not mind their encounters with the canoeists. Since the non-motorized group within this study reported higher levels of human-induced noise conflict as compared to the motorized group, it has been shown that an asymmetrical conflict exists. In another study conducted by Ivey et al. (1992), it was suggested that non-motorized users tended to have a lower level of tolerance and a greater perception of conflict in water-based settings; while, motorized boaters had a higher tolerance level and a lower degree of conflict perception. This finding suggests that non-motorized users are less tolerant of impacts such as noise in an outdoor recreation setting. In addition, Ruddell and Gramman (1994) concluded that goal orientation influenced perceptions of noise-induced conflict. This indicates that visitors participating in motorized activities would tend to not experience conflict from the noise of their activity, whereas the non-motorized group would experience elevated conflict and dissatisfaction due to the occurrence of noise. H3B: There is no difference between impacts and opinions of motorized noise between boater groups. Hypothesis 3(b) was rejected. The findings of this study showed that there were significant differences between the boater groups concerning the impacts and opinions of motorized noise. Although this hypothesis was rejected, it should be noted that both the reported levels of interference and the number of motorized noise types chosen by

PAGE 107

96 boaters, were low thus revealing that the impacts experienced from motorized noise at Waldo Lake is a minor concern to the sample group. For this hypothesis, the interference variable was operationalized by creating a multi-item index describing the levels of interference experienced by boaters due to the occurrence of motorized noise. This interference index consisted of four individual items. These items included: enjoyment of the area, appreciation of the natural quiet, appreciation of the sounds of nature, and appreciation of the historical/cultural significance of the area. The individual items within the index were all rated on a one to five scale from not at all interfered to extremely interfered. These items were tested for reliability and combined to create the interference index. For this sub-hypothesis, the only difference between this test and previous hypotheses was that the type of noise measured was limited to only those generated from a mechanized source. In addition to the index described above, the number of different motorized noises chosen by respondents was also examined. The number of different noise types chosen by respondents was utilized to examine which activity style (motorized, non-motorized) selected more types of motorized noise as sources of their conflict. The differences in interference levels between the boater groups were analyzed using an independent sample t-test. From the analysis, a significant difference in the level of interference due to motorized noise was found between the respondent groups, with non-motorized users indicating higher levels of interference than the motorized group. However, descriptive statistics revealed that over 72% of the respondents stated that motorized noise did not interfere with their experience at Waldo Lake at all. This was apparent in each of the individual interference index items as well.

PAGE 108

97 Through the use of an additional t-test, it was also discovered that there were differences in the number of motorized noises chosen by the individual boating groups. Specifically, non-motorized boaters, on average, chose more types of motorized noise than their motorized boating counterparts. This result indicates that non-motorized boaters were more prone to experience noise impacts than the motorized group. Previous literature by Gramman (1999) suggests that perception of noise is influenced by activity style: particularly, motorized activities are not viewed as conflict issues to those participating in them. In the same study, Gramman also reported that visitors on motorized trips down the Colorado River were less likely to be impacted by aircraft overflights than those involved in non-motorized activities; again, solidifying differences in motorized noise perception between the boater groups. In addition, Kariel (1990) discovered that there was a close relationship between ownership of certain noise-producing items and annoyance at their sound meaning that ATV users, for example, were less annoyed by ATV noise than non-owners. Research Question 4: Are the Attitudes and Opinions Regarding Impacts from Motorized Boating and Select Management Actions Different Between Boating Groups? H4A: There is no difference in the attitudes regarding proposed management actions and the perception of motorized boating impacts based on activity style. Hypothesis 4(a) was rejected. There are significant differences in attitudes about proposed management actions and motorized boating impacts based upon activity style. In sum, non-motorized boaters tended to favor management actions, while they also agreed with the statements regarding negative impacts caused by motorized boating at higher levels than their motor boating counterparts.

PAGE 109

98 The boating impacts and proposed management variables were operationalized by creating the motorized boating management (MBM) index and the motorized boating impact (MBI) index, as described in Chapter Four. These indices were both created by using individual items taken directly from the survey instrument (See Appendix A). The items in the motorized boating impact (MBI) index were all five-point, Likert scale questions, with one being strongly disagree and five being strongly agree. The motorized boating management (MBM) index items were based on three-point, Likert scale statements, with one being oppose management actions, two being unsure of management actions, and three being support of proposed management actions. The relationship between activity style (motorized or non-motorized boating) and the MBM and MBI indexes were examined by using independent sample t-tests. Crosstabulation analysis was used to compare percentages and prove relationships between the boating groups. Based upon the analyses, significant mean differences were found between the groups in reference to their opinions in both the MBI and MBM indices. The analyses showed that non-motorized boaters were more likely to agree with proposed management actions, and they were also more likely to agree that motorized boating caused negative impacts to the area. These findings are related to the idea that conflict relationships between groups can often be described behaviorally rather than by resource specificity. In the study of hunter and non-hunter groups by Bury, Holland & McEwen (1983), it was found that conflicts arose based on norm values. This conflict type occurred because of one groups dislike for the specific activity being participated in by the other. This, in turn, could lead to one group favoring management actions as well as the strengthening of negative opinions

PAGE 110

99 about the problem activity (in this case hunting). Also, non-motorized users have been found to have a more purist or environmentally grounded attitude (Manning, 1999), meaning they possess a lower tolerance for conflicts with motorized groups. This decreased tolerance may eventually lead to a desire for increased management actions in order to diminish the amount of inter-group conflict (Stankey & Schreyer, 1987). H4B: Human-induced noise does not affect boaters attitudes toward proposed management or their opinions about motorized boating impacts. Hypothesis 4(b) was rejected. Boaters who reported being bothered by human-induced noise tended to be in favor of increased management actions, and they also tended to agree that motorized boating negatively impacts the area. In this hypothesis, human-induced noise was examined to determine if its occurrence in an outdoor recreation experience affected respondents opinions about proposed management actions and motorized boating impacts. The motorized boating management (MBM) and motorized boating impact (MBI) variables were operationalized by creating indices, which are described in detail in Chapter Four. The human-induced noise variable was operationalized through the use of a single dichotomous question taken directly from the survey instrument (See Appendix A). A series of independent sample t-tests and crosstabulations were used in the analysis of this hypothesis. In the case of proposed management actions, it was revealed that respondents who had been affected by human-induced noise were more likely to favor management actions to reduce the presence of noise conflicts. In addition, those respondents who were bothered by human-induced noise also tended to agree that motorized boating caused the impacts at Waldo Lake.

PAGE 111

100 The fact that those respondents who were bothered by the occurrence of human-induced noise also tended to have stronger opinions on boating impacts and management actions, is not surprising. In relation to the idea of asymmetrical conflict, the group who experienced impacts from human-induced noise generally experienced more conflict and dissatisfaction than that of the other group. This in turn would lead to a lower level of tolerance as described by Adelman et al. (1982). H4C: Motorized noise does not affect boaters attitudes towards proposed management or opinions about motorized boating impacts. This hypothesis was rejected. Significant differences were found between boaters who were impacted by motorized noise and those who were not in regards to how each felt about proposed management actions and impacts from motorized boating. The respondents who were bothered by the presence of motorized noise during their visit, tended to experience increased conflicts and decreased satisfaction, as described in detail in Chapter Four. These findings indicate that these individuals would favor increased management actions since they would target motorized use above all else. This finding is related to the prior hypothesis in which individuals who were bothered by human-induced noise had different opinions of management actions and impacts from motorized boating. If certain recreationists are bothered by the noise produced from motorized recreation, they will experience decreased satisfaction and will inevitably have elevated feelings against motorized activities. In addition, it should be noted that Kariel (1990) found that individuals involved in motorized recreation often had higher tolerance levels towards noise and a lower perception that their motorized activity did any harm to others; thus, those respondents produced lower mean scores as they were not as bothered by the occurrence of motorized noise.

PAGE 112

101 Conclusions This study documented conflict issues between motorized and non-motorized boater groups at Waldo Lake. Most conflicts were caused by decreases in individuals overall experiences, the presence of noise, and opposing opinions regarding potential management actions. The conflicts assessed within this study were found to be limited and asymmetrical, meaning that one user group (non-motorized boaters) experienced slightly more impacts than the other (motorized boaters). Overall, non-motorized boaters reported lower satisfaction levels due to noise and the presence of motorized activities. However, the existing conflict between boaters brings to light underlying facts that make it necessary to exercise caution when formulating conclusions based on the data collected. Currently, the USFS is considering changing the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) at Waldo Lake to include only non-motorized recreation. Since Waldo Lake is surrounded by designated wilderness areas and the majority of users are currently participating in non-motorized forms of recreation, this idea seems viable. Not only would limiting the use of motorized boats on Waldo Lake provide visitors with continued enjoyment, but it would also protect such a rare and beautiful ecosystem. In so doing, non-motorized recreationists would be guaranteed a large area to enjoy nature to its fullest extent and experience a truly wonderful place. When looking at the sample, it is evident that non-motorized boaters are less satisfied due to the occurrence of noise. Non-motorized boaters did favor more motorized boating regulations, and they felt that motorized boating caused some negative impacts. However, upon closer scrutiny of the sample, only about one-third of the non-motorized boaters were impacted by noise (motorized or human-induced). Moreover,

PAGE 113

102 boaters, overall, reported elevated levels of satisfaction whether they were impacted by noise or not. Therefore, noise may have had a slight impact on some boaters, but probably not to the point where their recreational experience at Waldo Lake was irreversibly damaged. Of the two categories of noise studied, human-induced noises caused greater dissatisfaction among the boaters than motorized one. These findings may be due to: (1) the limited amount of motorized recreation at Waldo Lake; (2) the location of Waldo Lake; (3) the sampling being conducted during peak season; or (4) crowding issues. For example, human-induced noises, such as loud people, music, or generators, often occur throughout the day and then into the night when most respondents would desire a quieter, more relaxing setting. Noise from recreational activities, such as motor boating, normally occurs only during the busier daylight hours when most respondents are involved in their own recreational pursuits; thus, decreasing their awareness of specific types of noise. In addition, the size of Waldo Lake plays a key role in the degree of noise impact as experienced in this study. Often, annoyance from noise must occur within close proximity for it to impact the respondents levels of satisfaction. With an approximate area of ten miles, recreational noise is frequently too far away to have any influence. It should also be noted that tolerance could cause visitors to become accustomed to certain types of noise in water-based settings. In Oregon, most large-sized lakes allow large numbers of visitors and motorized recreation. Visitors who frequent these areas for extended periods of time can develop tolerances to certain noise types, thus reducing the amount of conflict they experience.

PAGE 114

103 Activity style was also examined as a variable for affecting satisfaction levels. Previous research has suggested that visitors who participate in a particular activity enjoy encounters with others involved in the same activity. Similar results were found in this study. The non-motorized group, which accounts for almost two-thirds of the sample, was more satisfied with their overall experiences as compared to the motorized respondents. This could be because Waldo Lake is known as an exceptional place for non-motorized activities and the non-motorized group was able to encounter several others participating in non-motorized activities and few involved in motorized ones. However, both groups showed high levels of satisfaction regardless of their activity style. Waldo Lake boaters have differing opinions about potential management actions and motorized impacts. Prior to analyzing the data collected, the findings suggested that non-motorized boaters favored more regulations against the use of motorized watercraft and were in agreement that motorized boating caused specific impacts on Waldo Lake. Upon examining the data, however, some surprising trends were also discovered among motorized boaters. First, the management index showed that a large number of motorized users actually agreed with some of the proposed actions for Waldo Lake, including separating activity groups and reducing pollution. Second, the motorized boating impact index demonstrated that motorized users tended to agree that they caused pollution and negatively affected water quality. These findings describe a motorized group that is sensitive to the impacts caused by their activities. While they want to retain their rights of access to and use of Waldo Lake, they also appear willing to compromise in order to alleviate conflicts.

PAGE 115

104 Based on the data described above, the conceptual model discussed in Chapter Two, the noise / conflict model, holds true for the findings of this study. The model predicted that the perceptions and tolerances for noise impacts would be influenced by activity style. Also, the model predicted that activity choice would act as a mediating variable on the amount of noise that impacted satisfaction levels. It also correctly predicted that the perception of noise would affect boaters overall experiences directly. All of these theoretical relationships were displayed within the context of this research to a limited degree. This study incorporated the use of multi-item indices to describe differences in satisfaction, noise impacts, and proposed management actions. All of these indices proved valuable to this study since the measurements provided detailed results. These detailed results led to a greater understanding of the conflict and noise impact situations currently occurring at Waldo Lake. Utilizing noise as an indicator of satisfaction and conflict between groups has proven to be important in understanding the perceptions and desires of the visitors to the area. Some unexpected and interesting insights into the perceptions of noise were also discovered from the results of this study. Overall, it seems that the main underlying issue may not be the impacts of noise but the current activities allowed at one of the purest lakes in the world. From the results, it can be concluded that noise is only a small portion of the current activity conflicts experienced at Waldo Lake. Non-motorized boaters from this study were only slightly impacted by the occurrence of noise, but they still wanted motorized recreation removed from the area; thus, leading to the conclusion that other variables may be needed to further describe the conflict issues between boaters.

PAGE 116

105 Future Research Additional study is certainly justified for the impacts of noise on boaters in lake-based settings. While results have shown that noise has a limited effect on the satisfaction levels of boater groups, the existence of noise conflicts should be evaluated in future studies to determine if similar results are consistently experienced at other recreational lakes. Additionally, it may be appropriate to measure noises that are created by visitors aloneabsent from the presence of any mechanized device-to see if impacts and conflicts develop between the boating groups. Also, to further the understanding of noise impacts in outdoor areas, future research should include other user groups such as terrestrial and wilderness users. Implications found in this study as well as in previous research describe conflicting issues among multiple user groups, not just boaters as depicted in this study. It would be interesting to assess the different perceptions of noise and other environmental impacts between groups that are involved in totally different types of recreational experiences. Are the differences between terrestrialand aquatic-based users more defined or apparent than that of the activity-based differences defined in this study? The use of noise as an indicator of conflict should, furthermore, be added to other conflict measures to create a clearer image of what preferences exist among visitors to water-based recreation areas. Previous conflict research has utilized other environmental factors, such as litter, to determine if conflicts exist among users and if these conflicts detract from the overall experiences of individuals. Moreover, additional noise types should be added to similar studies in order to provide participants more choice in the types of noise that impacted their experiences. In addition, other environmental

PAGE 117

106 indicators could be added to future noise impact studies in an attempt to better understand the environmental attitudes of boaters in water-based studies. Due to the special nature of Waldo Lake, future studies should also attempt to test the noise impact variable at other locations that have better represented groups of motorized and non-motorized recreationists. Since the Waldo Lake areas surveyed in this thesis already contained many restrictions towards the use of motorized activities and consisted mostly of non-motorized users, future studies should include areas that do not exhibit these characteristics. In areas without such restrictions, the occurrence of noise may be more apparent; areas where motorized recreation is currently the norm might include visitors that have increased levels of impacts due to this type of recreational activity. Moreover, it is also recommended that future studies on user preferences, in accordance with the occurrence of noise in lake-based settings, be expanded to include several lakes within a relatively close proximity of each other. In Oregon, recreational lakes abound, with several large-sized, multi-use lakes existing within a short distance of each other. By including these other lakes in the survey process, an overall picture of user preferences and desires could be more fully understood, and any differences between motorized and non-motorized lakes would become more apparent. Future research in this area should attempt to increase the quality of the scales used to measure interference, impacts, management, and satisfaction. The four items used to create the previously mentioned indices are too small, and these indices could benefit from being refined by other researchers. Also, the interference index contained an item that did not seem to be well understood by the respondents. The item asking if motorized noise interfered with respondents appreciation of the cultural/historical aspects of the

PAGE 118

107 area did not seem to fit the Waldo Lake area since historical sites were limited. Hence, better indicators of noise interference could prove helpful in examining these impacts. Moreover, an additional measure of noise in outdoor settings should include an objective measure, meaning that the actual audible levels of noise should be measured using recording equipment and decibel meters to assess the levels of acceptable change and tolerance levels of noise among different user groups. Along with this type of measurement, additional survey questions dealing with noise impacts and preferences could have been added to enhance the understanding of how Waldo Lake area users really felt about the occurrence of noise. The current study did not include this objective measure due to cost and equipment constraints. In areas where motorized noise is not usually present, audible measurements of this type may uncover more drastic differences between visitors to these areas. Lastly, future research should include additional demographic information about the visitors of these areas. Variables such age, ethnicity, and income would be interesting variables to analyze: not only to clarify the picture of the general Waldo Lake user, but also to determine if these demographic variables determine certain values and preferences in term of noise impacts, activity choice, and satisfaction levels. As stated in Chapter One, there has not been much research regarding the effects of noise on outdoor experiences of boaters and differences in the acceptance levels of noise in an outdoor recreational setting. Because sound degradation can adversely affect visitors overall experiences to an area, continued research in the field of noise impacts is pertinent in understanding the preferences of outdoor recreationists.

PAGE 119

108 Management Implications The desire to recreate in a pristine natural setting is an ever-increasing demand that managers must face. Due to the wide variety of activities, preferences, and expectations among visitors, the goal of recreational management becomes even more difficult as does the task of reducing conflict between all of the various users of natural areas. Conflicts arise due to activity incompatibilities, norm differences, perceived impacts, and lifestyle tolerances. The occurrence of noise in the natural environment is an increasingly difficult issue to control due to crowding, development encroachment, and motorized activities (including aircraft flights, ORVs, chainsaws and motorboats). The intention of this study was not to detail the negative aspects of any one recreational activity, but to describe current issues involving noise and motorized water travel as seen by the various users of Waldo Lake. The first step in attempting to control, understand, and prevent impacts and conflicts due to noise and user conflicts is to determine the differences that exist between conflicting groups and activities. This study utilizes a survey to attempt to understand the different perceptions of noise and satisfaction between the boating groups present at Waldo Lake. The results of this study can assist managers of other water-based recreation sites by describing user preferences and perceived impacts of noise and certain motorized activities. This study also can assist in determining exactly what types of noise are most damaging to the overall experiences of the varied users to lakes and other water-based recreation areas. As discussed in the management literature (Hendee & Dawson, 2002) and as witnessed during the data collection, indirect management seems to be the most viable approach in decreasing conflicts and noise impacts at Waldo Lake. By utilizing education and information practices, managers can assist users in understanding: why

PAGE 120

109 certain restrictions need to be implemented, why conflicts exist between specific users and activity styles, and why it is important to understand the needs and desires of all those who wish to recreate in outdoor areas (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). Several management strategies come to light as a result of this study that may assist in decreasing the current issues at Waldo Lake and other recreational lakes. First, locational or temporal zoning for activity use may decrease conflicts, as shown in this study through agreement from both motorized and non-motorized boaters of this management action. Also, there seems to be a special attachment to Waldo Lake based particularly upon its aesthetic beauty and its adjacent location to wilderness areas. Due to these findings, managers may want to reassess the current recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) for Waldo Lake and consider that there are several other multi-use lakes in close proximity to the area. Currently there are no larger-sized lakes set aside for primary use by non-motorized users. As a result, motorized impacts and activity-based conflicts are increasingly common at Waldo Lake. Managers have already placed several restrictions on motorized use at Waldo Lake, but conflicts persist. Even though these restrictions have lowered the overall number of motorized vessels on Waldo Lake, additional management is needed to further decrease conflicts and lower the occurrence of noise in this area.

PAGE 121

APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT Waldo Lake Visitor Survey Survey ID#_______ Interviewer___________________# of people at site________ Date_____________ Location_____________________ # of watercrafts at site________ Time_____________ Gender_____________________ Background level ____________ Interviewer Script Hello, I am (name and affiliation, i.e. University student, etc.). Have you already been approached and interviewed? Yes Thank you for your time No Continue We are conducting a study for the US Forest Service of visitors to the Waldo Lake recreation areas. The information visitors give us will be used to help managers better serve the visiting public and protect Waldo Lakes natural and cultural resources. You have been selected as part of a random sample of visitors to participate in this survey. Participation is voluntary and if you choose to participate, everything you tell us will be kept strictly confidential. The survey will take about 10 minutes to complete. May we proceed with the interview? Yes Go to question If NO Thank you for your time 1. Is this your first visit to Waldo Lake? ______ Yes ______ No [If no], In what year did you make your first visit to Waldo Lake? year 2. How many days did you spend at Waldo Lake in 2002? _______ Days 3. How many days do you plan to spend at Waldo Lake during this trip? _____ Days ____ Not Sure 4. In what activities on this list did you participate (or do you plan to participate in) during this recreation visit at Waldo Lake? 5. Which of those is your primary activity for this recreation visit to Waldo Lake? Question 4 answers Question 5 answer Camping in developed sites (family or group sites) Backpacking, camping in unroaded areas Picnicking and family day gatherings in developed sites (family or group sites) (circle all that apply) Viewing wildlife, birds, flowers, fish, etc. on NF lands (circle all that apply) Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers, etc. on NF lands (circle all that apply) Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/areas (circle all that apply) Visiting a nature center or nature trail (circle all that apply) Nature study General/other-relaxing, hanging out, escaping heat, noise, etc. Fishingall types Huntingall types 4-wheelers, dirt bikes, etc. (circle all that apply) Driving for pleasure on roads Motorized water travel (boats, ski sleds, etc.) Other motorized land/air activities (plane, other) Hiking or walking Horseback riding Bicycling, including mountain bikes (circle all that apply) Nonmotorized water travel (sailboarding, kayaking, rafting, canoe, etc.) (circle all that apply) Other nonmotorized activities (swimming, games, and sports) Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other natural products (circle all that apply) 110

PAGE 122

111 5a. What areas of the lake did you visit on this trip? (ASK REPONDENT TO DRAW ROUTE FOLLOWED ON MAP) 5b. Where did you spend the most time on this trip ____________________________________________________________________ Name of location(s) (CIRCLE LOCATION(S) ON MAP AND LABEL MOST) 6. Where is your permanent home? Country_______/State____/County_______ /Zip code_________ 7. About how many miles is it from your permanent home to Waldo Lake? _______ miles 8. How many people are in your group on this trip to Waldo Lake? _______ people 8a. Are you part of an organized group? _________Yes _________No 8b. If yes, please list the name of the group:______________________________ This section of the survey asks you about your use of watercraft on this trip to Waldo Lake. 9. ________Yes _______No Did you/will you use some sort of watercraft on this trip to Waldo Lake? (IF YES, ask the rest of the questions on this page) 10. What type of watercraft did you use on this trip? [Check the type of each boat] 11. What is the length of this boat? [Write length of each boat next to the type] ____/____ Canoe or Kayak ____/____ Sailboat ____/____ Fishing/Bass Boat ____/____ Cruiser (> 25ft) ____/____ Inflatable boat ____/____ Pontoon Boat ____/____ Runabout (<24 feet) ____/____ Sailboard ____/____ Other_____________ ____/____ Other_____________ 12. What is your primary boat power? What is your secondary boat power? ___ Gas ___ Paddle/Oar ___ Gas ___ Paddle/Oar ___ Diesel ___ Wind/Sail ___ Diesel ___ Wind/Sail ___ Electric ___ Other, _______ ___ Electric ___ Other, _______ What is the horsepower of your primary power source? ___________________ hp What is the horsepower of your secondary power source? ___________________ hp (If motorized) Is your primary power source: ______ 2 cycle _____ 4 cycle (If motorized) Is your secondary power source: ______ 2 cycle _____ 4 cycle

PAGE 123

112 ASK ONLY FOR ELECTRIC MOTOR USERS: 13. What type of battery source do you use? (How many batteries) ______ 12 volt battery ______ 24 volt battery _____Other Battery type: _________________________ 14. How do you charge your battery(ies)? _____ Electric charger at home _____ Solar charger _____ Electric charger on site _____ Other _____ Gas powered charger on your vessel 15. Would you support a solar powered recharge station at the surrounding boat ramps that would be funded by a user fee? ___ yes ___no 16. If yes, how often would you use it? ___ Not Sure ___ Never ___ Sometimes ___ Often ___ Always 17. Following are some statements about this visit to Waldo Lake. For each statement, please circle the response that best describes your feelings about your visit to this area. If the statement does not apply, do not answer the question. SD D Undec A SA NA I avoided my favorite parts of Waldo Lake because there were too many people 1 2 3 4 5 I thoroughly enjoyed my trip 1 2 3 4 5 My trip was not as enjoyable as I expected it to be 1 2 3 4 5 There were too many watercraft on the lake 1 2 3 4 5 I thought the recreation area and its surroundings were in good condition 1 2 3 4 5 I stayed off the lake during parts of the day because there were too many boats on the lake 1 2 3 4 5 I wish there were more watercraft on the lake during my visit 1 2 3 4 5 I did not participate in some boating activities because of crowded conditions at the lake 1 2 3 4 5 My trip was well worth the money I spent to take it 1 2 3 4 5 There were too many people at the lake 1 2 3 4 5 I was disappointed with some aspects of my trip 1 2 3 4 5 The number of people at the recreation area reduced my enjoyment 1 2 3 4 5 The behavior of other people at the recreation area lowered the quality of my experience 1 2 3 4 5 (If agree or strongly agree with above statement) How did other peoples behavior reduce your enjoyment?

PAGE 124

113 18. Would you favor or oppose each of the following management actions for Waldo Lake: FAVOR OPPOSE NOT SURE Establish Off Limit Zones to protect sensitive areas 1 2 3 Zoning the waters to provide for specific uses at specific places 1 2 3 Only permit non-motorized boats and electric motors in Waldo lake 1 2 3 Limit the size and power of boats using Waldo Lake 1 2 3 Restrict boat use in certain areas 1 2 3 Limit the number of boats on the lake at one time 1 2 3 Control the level of noise from motorized recreation 1 2 3 Limit motorized boat motors to 4-cycle engines only 1 2 3 Zone activities to provide for different boat uses at different times 1 2 3 19. For each item below please circle the response that is closest to the way you feel about Waldo Lake. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Motorized boating has a negative impact on primitive recreation experiences 1 2 3 4 5 Certain sections of the lake should be limited to non-motorized boating 1 2 3 4 5 Motorized boating has no affect on water quality 1 2 3 4 5 Pollution from motorized boating needs to be controlled 1 2 3 4 5 Motorized activities negatively impact wildlife 1 2 3 4 5 Litter is not a problem at Waldo Lake 1 2 3 4 5 I am aware of visible plant destruction along the shores of Waldo Lake 1 2 3 4 5 The shorelines are in good condition at Waldo Lake 1 2 3 4 5 20. Has your overall experience to Waldo Lake been negatively impacted by human-induced noise? ___ yes ___ no If yes, which types of noise (check all that apply) _____ Power generators _____ Cars/trucks/planes (circle all that apply) _____ Motorboats _____ Loud music _____ Dogs _____ Other (please list) __________________________ 21. How much did the sounds of motorized human activity (cars, airplanes, boats, etc.) interfere with the following aspects of your trip to Waldo Lake? Did motorized sounds interfere with your: Not at all Slightly Moderately Very much Extremely Enjoyment of the area 1 2 3 4 5 Appreciation of the natural quiet 1 2 3 4 5 Appreciation of the sounds of nature 1 2 3 4 5 Appreciation of the historical/cultural significance 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 125

114 For repeat visitors only: Circle answer below 22. Within the past few years, do you think the amount of boating use has been: Increasing Not changing very much Decreasing Dont know Circle answer below 23. Within the past few years, do you think the environmental quality (water quality, noise pollution, litter, etc.) at Waldo Lake has been: Improved Not changing very much Degraded Dont know 24. On a scale of one to ten, how would you rate your overall experience at Waldo Lake, with a rating of 10 being the best possible experience, and a rating of 1 being the worst possible experience you can imagine? ______ 25. If you could ask resource managers to improve some things about the way people experience the Waldo Lake area, what would you ask them to do? ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 26. How did the number of people you saw during this visit to Waldo Lake compare with what you expected to see? _____ A lot less than you expected _____ A little more than you expected _____ A lot more than you expected _____ A little less than you expected _____ You didn't have any expectations _____ About what you expected 27. During this visit how crowded did you feel at Waldo Lake? [Circle one number] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Crowded Slightly Crowded Moderately Crowded Extremely Crowded 28. How acceptable was the number of other people you saw at the lake on this trip? [Circle one number] +4 +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Very Acceptable Neither acceptable nor unacceptable Very Unacceptable 29. On this trip, would you say that the number of other people at the lake? [Circle one number] +4 +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Enhanced your enjoyment Neither enhanced nor detracted from your enjoyment Detracted from your enjoyment 30. Overall, on this trip, would you like to have seen: [Circle one number] +4 +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Far more people at the lake The same number of people as you saw Far less people at the lake 31. Was Waldo Lake your primary destination for this trip? ______ Yes No 32. Finally, on this trip did you recreate just at Waldo Lake or did you go to other National Forests, parks, or recreation areas? ____ Just Waldo Lake ____ Other places (please list) ____________________________________________________________________________ Thank You

PAGE 126

115

PAGE 127

APPENDIX B SURVEY REFUSAL FORM 2003 Waldo Lake Noise Impact Study Refusal Sheet Date ______________________________ Location ___________________________ Interviewer _________________________ Time ______________________________ Boat Length (approximate)____________ft. Boat type: ___ Cabin Cruiser ___ Row Boat ___ Runabout ___ Canoe or Kayak ___ House Boat ___ Pontoon Boat ___ Sailboat ___ Waverunner/jetski ___ Bass Boat ___ Sailboard ___ Other Describe ______________ Power: ___ Outboard ___ Sail Only ___ Inboard ___ Paddle/oar only ___ Inboard/Outboard ___ Other___________ Number in Party: ___________total Gender: _____male _____female Apparent Race: _________________ Reason:_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 116

PAGE 128

APPENDIX C ADDITIONAL TABLE Table 46: "Other" Noise Category Response List. "Other" Noise Category Open-Ended Responses n % Loud Noisy People Loud people 16 34.8 People 6 13 Loud people late night 3 6.5 Motorcycles 3 6.5 Boats early am 1 2.2 Crying children 1 2.2 Fireworks, loud drunk people late night 1 2.2 Loud engines 1 2.2 Loud late night campers 1 2.2 Loud late night people 1 2.2 Loud partying 1 2.2 Loud people at night 1 2.2 Loud/rowdy people all noises too early in the am 1 2.2 Noisy campers 1 2.2 People yelling 1 2.2 People whooping 1 2.2 People yelling late at night 1 2.2 Rowdiness 1 2.2 Rowdy people 1 2.2 Shouting people 1 2.2 Shouting people on mountain bikes 1 2.2 Yelling late night 1 2.2 117

PAGE 129

LIST OF REFERENCES Adelman, B.J.E., Heberlein T.A. & Bonnicksen, T.M. (1982). Social psychological explanations for the persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences, 5(1), 45-61. The American Recreation Coalition. (2001). Recreation Research and Statistics. Retrieved May 1, 2004 from the World Wide Web: www.funoutdoors.com/research.html Anderson, T.W., Mulligan, B.E., Goodman, L.S., Regen, H.Z. (1983). Effects of sound on preferences for outdoor settings. Environment and Behavior, 15, 539-566. Asplund, T.R. (2000). The effects of motorized watercraft on aquatic ecosystems. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Integrated Science Services & University of Wisconsin-Madison, Water Chemistry Program, PUBL-SS-948-00. Baird, B. (1994). Recreation conflict between skiers and snowboarders. Unpublished masters thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Basman, C.M., Manfredo, M.J., Barro, S.C., Vaske, J.J., & Watson, A. (1996). Norm Accessibility: An exploratory study of backcountry and front country recreational norms. Journal of Leisure Sciences, 18(2), 177-192 Bultena, C. & Klessig, L. (1969). Satisfaction in camping: A conceptualization and guide to social research. Journal of Leisure Research, 1, 348-364. Bury, R.L., Holland, S.M., & McEwen, D.N. (1983). Analyzing recreational conflict: understanding why conflict occurs in requisite to managing that conflict. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 3(5), 401-403. Carothers, P., Vaske, J.J., & Donnelly, M.P. (2001). Social values versus interpersonal conflict among hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences, 23(1), 47-61. Cessford, G. (2002). Perception and reality of conflict: Walkers and mountain bikers on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand. In Arnberger, A., Brandenburg, C., & Muhar, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas, (pp. 102-108). Brodenkultur University, Vienna, Austria. 118

PAGE 130

119 Confer, J.J. (1997). A spatial analysis of water-based recreation impact parameters and users perceptions of experiential and environmental conditions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Hotel, Restaurant and Recreation Management, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 226 pp. Cordell, H.K. (1999). Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing. Cordell, H.K. (2003). Outdoor Recreation for the 21st Century A Report to the Nation: The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Dailey, T., & Redman, D. (1975). Guidelines for roadless area campsite spacing to minimize impact of human-related noise, USDA Forest Service General Technical ReportPNW-35. Dellora, G.B., Martin, B.V., & Saunders, R.E. (1984). Motorized recreational vehicles: Perception and recreational conflict. Environmental Report #17, Monash University, Graduate School of Environmental Science. Donnelly, M.P., & Vaske, J.J. (1995). Predicting attitudes toward a proposed moose hunt. Society and Natural Resources, 8, 307-319. Driver, B.L., Nash, R., & Haas, G. (1987). Wilderness benefits: A state-of-knowledge view. In Proceedings, National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State of Knowledge, Future Directions. Fort Collins, Colorado, compiled by R.C. Lucas, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, INT-220, 294-319. Drogin, E.B., Graefe, A.R., & Titre, J. (1990). Factors affecting boating satisfaction: A replication and comparative analysis. In: Proceedings of the 1990 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. USDA Forest Service; General Technical Report NE-145. Elvhammar, H. (2000). Environmental noise effects in residential and recreational areas. In Seminar on Noise, Arranged by the Finnish Association of Natural Protection. Retrieved April 28, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://arkisto.sll.fi/tiedotus/pressreleases/elvhammarNoise.html Fiddell, S. (1979). Community response to noise. In Handbook of Noise Control (2nd Edition), ed. C.Harris, 36.1-36.8. New York, McGraw-Hill. Fiddell, S. Silvati, L., Howe, R., Pearsons, K.S., Tabachnick, B., Knopf, R.C., Gramman, J., Buchanan, T. (1996). Effects of aircraft overflights on wilderness recreationists. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100(5), 2909-2918. Freimund, W.A., Vaske, J.J., Donnelly, M.P., & Miller, T.A. (2002). Using video surveys to access dispersed backcountry visitor norms. Leisure Sciences, 24, 349-362.

PAGE 131

120 Gibbons, S., & Ruddell, J.E. (1995). The effect of goal orientation and place dependence on select goal interferences among winter backcountry users. Leisure Sciences, 17, 171-181. Graefe, A.R., & Fedler, A.J. (1986). Situational and subjective determinants of satisfaction in marine recreational fishing. Leisure Sciences, 8(3), 275-295. Graefe, A.R., & Drogin, E.B. (1989). Factors affecting boating satisfaction at Raystown Lake. In: Proceedings of the 1989 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. General Technical Report NE-132. Gramman, J.H. (1999). The effect of mechanical noise and natural sound on visitor experiences in units of the National Park system. Social Science Research Review, 1(1), 1-16. Gramman, J.H., & Burdge, R. (1981). The effect of recreation goals on conflict perceptions: The case of water skiers and fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research, 13(1), 15-27. Green, D.M. & Fidell, S. (1991). Variability in the criterion for reporting annoyance in community noise surveys. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 234-243. Hall, T., & Shelby, B. (1996). Who cares about encounters? Differences between those with and without Norms. Journal of Leisure Sciences, 18(1), 7-22. Hammitt, W.E. (1988). The spectrum of conflict in outdoor recreation. In Outdoor recreation benchmark, Proceedings of a National Outdoor Recreation Forum, USDA Forest Service S.E. Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report SE-52, Tampa, Florida. 439-450. Hammitt, W. & Cole, D. (1998). Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. New York, NY: Wiley. Harrison, R.T. (1974). Sound propagation and annoyance under forest conditions. USDA Forest Service, Equipment and Development Test Report 7120-6. San Dimas Equipment Development Center, San Dimas, CA. Harrison, R.T., Clark, R., & Stankey, G. (1980). Predicting noise impacts on recreationists. USDA Forest Service Project # 2688. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. Heberlein, T.A. & Shelby, B.B. (1977). Carrying capacity, values, and the satisfaction model: A replyto Griest. Journal of Leisure Research, 9(2), 142-148.

PAGE 132

121 Hendee, J.C. & Mattson, D.J. (1997). Wildlife in wilderness: A north American and international perspective. In J.C. Hendee & C.P. Dawson (Ed.), Wilderness management: Stewardship and protection of resources and values (pp. 321-349). Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing. Hendee J.C. & Dawson, C.P. (2002). Wilderness management: Stewardship and protection of resources and values. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing. Heywood, J.L., & Aas, O. (1999). Social norms and encounter preferences for cross country skiing with dogs in Norway. Leisure Sciences, 21, 133-144. Heywood, J.L. (2002). The cognitive and emotional components of behavior norms in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences, 24, 271-281. Ivy, M., Stewart, W.P., & Lue, C.C. (1992). Exploring the role of tolerance in recreational conflict. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(4), 348-360. Jackson, E.L. (1965). Structural characteristics of norms. In I.D. Steiner & M.F. Fishbein (EDS.) Current studies in social psychology, 301-309. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston. Jackson, E.L., & Wong, R.A.G. (1982). Perceived conflict between urban cross-country skiers and snowmobilers in Alberta. Journal of Leisure Research, 14(1), 47-62. Jackson, S., Haider, W., &Elliot, T. (2002). Resolving inter-group conflict in winter recreation: Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site, British Columbia. In Arnberger, A., Brandenburg, C., & Muhar, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas, (pp. 109-114). Brodenkultur University, Vienna, Austria. Jacob, G.R., & Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal of leisure Research, 12, 368-380. Kariel, H.G. (1980). Mountaineers and the general public: A comparison of their evaluation of sounds in a recreational environment. Leisure Sciences, 3, 155-167. Kariel, H.G. (1990). Factors affecting response to noise in outdoor recreation environments. The Canadian Geographer, 34(2), 142-149. Kariel, H.G. (1991). Noise in rural recreation environments. Canadian Acoustical Society, 19(5), 3-10. Klessig, L.L. (1973). Recreational properties owners and their institutional alternativesfor resource protection. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Klessig, L.L. (2000). Lakes and society: The contribution of lakes to sustainable societies. Journal of Lakes and Reservoirs, 6, 95-101.

PAGE 133

122 Kosk, A. (2001). Management issues of the lake Peipsi/Chudskoe region. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research and Management, 6, 231-235. Knopf, R.C. (1983). Recreational needs and behavior in natural settings. In: Behavior and the Natural Environment. Edited by I Altman & J. Wohlwill, Plenum, New York. Knopp, T.B., & Tyger, J.D. (1973). Study of conflict in recreational land use: Snowmobiling vs. ski-touring. Journal of Leisure Research, 5, 6-17. Krause, B.L. (1999). Loss of natural soundscapes within the Americas. Acoustical Society of America, FICAN Symposium on Preservation of Natural Quiet (pp. 80-84). Berkeley, CA: Heyday Press. Krause, B.L. (2001). Loss of natural soundscape: Global implications of its effects on humans and other creatures. San Francisco World Affairs Council. Retrieved April 20, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.wildsanctuary.com LaPage, W.F. (1983). Recreation resource management for visitor satisfaction. In S.R. Lieber & D.R. Fesenmaier (Ed.), Recreation Planning and Management (pp. 279-286). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Larson, G.L. & Hammit, W.E. (1981). Management concerns for swimming, tubing, and wading in the Great Smokey Mountains National Park. Journal of Environmental Management, 5(4), 353-362. Lime, D.W. (1975). Sources of congestionand visitor dissatisfaction in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. In: Proceedings of the Quetico-Superior Foundation 1975, Institute on the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. (pp.68-82). Minneapolis, MN: Quetico-Superior Foundation. Lucas, R.C. (1985). Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and use patterns in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex 1970-1982. Res.Pap.INT-345. Ogden, Utah: USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. p. 32 Mace, B.L., Bell, P.A., & Loomis, R.J. (1998). Aesthetic, affective, and cognitive effects of noise on natural landscape assessment. Society & Natural Resources, 12, 225-242. Mace, B.L., Bell, P.A., Loomis, R.J., & Haas, G.E. (2003). Source attribution of helicopter noise in pristine National Park landscapes. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 21(3), 97-119. Manning, R.E. (1999). Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. McDonald, C.D. (1996). Normative perspectives on outdoor recreation behavior. Journal of Leisure Sciences, 18(1), 1-7.

PAGE 134

123 McShea, W.J., Wemmer, C., & Stuwe, M. (1993). Conflict of interests: A public hunt at National zoos conservation and recreation center. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21, 492-497. Mele, A. (1993). Polluting for Pleasure. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. Miedema, H.M.E. & Vos, H. (1998). Exposure-response relationship for transportation noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104(6), 3432-3445. Miller, N. (1995). Memorandum on review of noise impact analyses conducted for the disposal and reuse of Homestead Air Force Base, Florida. Burlington, MA: Harris, Miller & Miller & Hanson, INC. Miller, T.G. (1992). Living in the Environment 7th edition. Wadsworth Publishing Company. Belmont, California. Miller, N.P. (2001). Effects of military aircraft overflights on recreational users of National Parks. International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering. Hague, Netherlands. Miller, N.P. (2002). Transportation noise and recreational lands. International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering. Dearborn, MI Mitsch, W.J., & Gosselink, J.G. (1993). Wetlands. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Moore, R.L., Scott, D., & Graefe, A.R. (1998). The effects of activity differences on recreation experiences along a suburban greenway trail. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(2), 35-53. National Park Service (1988). Management Policies. Washington, D.C., USDI National Park Service. National Park Service (1995). Report on the effects of aircraft overflights on the National Park System. Denver, CO: USDI National Park Service. National Recreation Lake Study. (1999). Executive Summary. Retrieved April 15, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.doi.gov/nrls/ Noe, F.P., Wellman, J.D., & Buhyoff, G. (1982). Perception of conflict between off-road and non-off-road vehicle users in a leisure setting. Journal of Environmental Systems, 11(3), 223-233. Noe, F.P., Hull, R.B., & Wellman, J.D. (1982). Normative response and normative activation among ORV users within a seashore environment. Leisure Sciences, 5(2), 127-142.

PAGE 135

124 Oliver, S., Roggenbuck, J., & Watson, A. (1985). Education to reduce impacts in forest campgrounds. Journal of Forestry, 83, 234-236. Owens, P.L. (1985). Conflict as a social interaction process in environment and behavior research: The example of leisure and recreational research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 243-259. Patterson, M.E., & Hammitt, W.E. (1990). Backcountry encounter norms, actual reported encounters, and their relationship to wilderness solitude. Journal of Leisure Research, 22(3), 259-275. Peterson, G.L. (1974). A comparison of the sentiments and perceptions of wilderness managers and canoeists in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Journal of Leisure Research, 6(3), 194-206. Peterson, G.L., Anderson, D.H. & Lime D.W. (1982). Multiple-use site demand analysis: an application to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research, 14,(1), 27-36. Ramthun, R. (1995). Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences, 17, 159-169. Ruddell, E.J., & Gramman, J.H. (1994). Goal orientation, norms, and noise-induced conflict among recreation area users. Journal of Leisure Sciences, 16, 93-104. Shelby, B. (1980). Contrasting recreational experiences: Motors and oars in the Grand Canyon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 35, 129-131. Shelby, B., Vaske, J.J., & Harris, R. (1988). User standards for ecological impacts at wilderness campsites. Journal of Leisure Research, 20(3), 245-256. Shelby, B., Vaske, J.J., & Donnelly, M.P. (1996). Norms, standards, and natural resources. Journal of Leisure Sciences, 18(2), 103-124. Shifferd, P. & Palmer, S. (1997). Being at a lake: Problems of organization in a vacation community. Report prepared at Northland College, Ashland, Wisconsin for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Northland College, Ashland. Smith, R.L. (1992). Elements of Ecology 3rd edition. HarperCollins. New York, NY. Stankey, G. & Schreyer, R, (1987). Attitudes toward wilderness and factors affecting visitor behavior: A state-of-knowledge review. Proceedings-National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-knowledge, Future Directions. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-220, 246-293. Staples, S. (1997). Public Policy and environmental noise: Modeling exposure or understanding effects. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 2063-2067.

PAGE 136

125 Stewart, W. (1997). On-site wilderness recreation experiences. In: Final report to the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service. Tarrant, M.A., Haas, G.E., & Manfredo, M.J. (1995). Factors affecting visitor evaluations of aircraft overflights of wilderness. Society & Natural Resources, 8, 351-360. Thapa, B. (1996). The role of tolerance in recreational conflict: The case of adult skiers and snowboarders. Unpublished Masters Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Thapa, B., & Graefe, A.R. (1999). Gender and age group differences in recreational conflict and tolerance among adult skiers and snowboarders (pp.219-226). In Proceedings of the 1998 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Tech. Rep. NE-255). Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. Thapa, B., & Graefe, A.R. (2004). Recreational conflicts and tolerance among skiers and snowboarders. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 22(1), 37-52. USDA Forest Service. (2004). Willamette National Forest. Retrieved May 1, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/willamette/ Vaske, J.J., Donnelly, M.P., Heberlein, T.A., & Shelby, B. (1982). Differences in reported satisfaction ratings by consumptive and non-consumptive recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research, 14, 195-206. Vaske, J.J., Fedler, A.J. & Graefe, A.R. (1986). Multiple determinants of satisfaction from a specific waterfowl hunting trip. Leisures Sciences, 8(2), 149-166. Vaske, J.J., Shelby, B., Graefe, A.R., & Heberlein, T.A. (1986). Backcountry encounter norms: Theory, method, and empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research, 18, 137-153. Vaske, J.J., Donnelly, M.P., Wittmann, K., & Laidlaw, S. (1995). Interpersonal versus social-values conflict. Leisure Sciences, 17, 205-222. Vaske, J.J., Carothers, P., Donnelly, M.P., & Baird, B. (2000). recreation conflict between skiers and snowboarders. Leisure Sciences, 24(3), 297-313. Watson, A.E., Williams, D.R., & Daigle, J.J. (1991). Sources of conflict between hikers and mountain bike riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9(3), 59-71. Watson, A.E., Niccolucci, M.J., & Williams, D.R. (1994). The nature of conflict between hikers and recreational stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(4), 372-385.

PAGE 137

126 Williams, D.R. (1993). Conflict in the great outdoors. Parks and Recreation, 28(9), 28-30, 30, 32-35, 122. Williams, J. (2002). Waldo Lake basin management. US dept. of Agriculture Forest Service website. Retrieved February 18, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/willamette/manage/waldolake/index.html Williams, P.W., Dossa, K.B., & Fulton, A. (1994). Tensions on the slopes: Managing conflict between skiers and snowboarders. Journal of Applied Recreation, 28(9), 191-213. Whittaker, D., & Shelby, B. (1988). Types of norms for recreation impacts: Extending the social norms concept. Journal of Leisure Research, 20(4), 261-273.

PAGE 138

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH The author of this thesis was born in Paterson, NJ; raised in southern NJ; completed high school in Marlton, NJ; and attended college in Pomona, NJ. He received a Bachelor of Science in environmental studies from the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey and moved to Florida and began a career as an environmental scientist and later as an environmental analyst. He later returned to the University of Florida to pursue a graduate degree in the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism. His coursework focused on outdoor recreation and natural resource management. Upon graduation, Joseph hopes to pursue a career in park planning and management with one of the federal land agencies utilizing his knowledge and experience in both the environmental science and outdoor recreation fields. 127


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0006820/00001

Material Information

Title: Human-Induced Noise Impacts on Boaters at Waldo Lake, Oregon
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0006820:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0006820/00001

Material Information

Title: Human-Induced Noise Impacts on Boaters at Waldo Lake, Oregon
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0006820:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











HUMAN-INDUCED NOISE IMPACTS ON BOATERS
AT WALDO LAKE, OREGON














By

JOSEPH KUHN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE INT RECREATIONAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004
































Copyright 2004

by

Joseph Kuhn
















ACKNOWLEDGE1VENTS

Firstly, I wish to sincerely thank Dr. John Confer for his help and guidance

throughout my entire graduate experience here at the University of Florida. As my

advisor, friend, supervisor and mentor, we successfully completed many projects

throughout my stay and gave each other many words of wisdom concerning home

improvement issues. I also wish to thank my co-chair Dr. Robert Burns. I would have

never been able to experience the wild beauty of Oregon for two consecutive summers

without his belief in my skills as a researcher. Dr. Burns hired me as part of the NVTUM

proj ect even before I was a student at this University. Again, without his trust in me to

assist in the NVTUMV proj ect, I may have never even been a graduate student. I would also

like to thank Dr. Taylor Stein. Taylor is an excellent instructor, and I learned a lot about

planning and nature-based tourism through his classes. His input into this thesis is

appreciated.

I would also like to thank my family for all of their love and continued support in

all of the decisions I have made throughout life no matter how strange they seemed to be.

I thank my dad especially, to whom I dedicate this thesis, for he made me who I am today

and I am proud to be his son.

In addition, I would like to thank all of the graduate students who put up with me

through thick and thin during the creation of this thesis the party is at my place!!!!i

Lastly, I want to thank Sarah Farmer. She has been a continued inspiration to me

throughout our relationship.






















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


ACKNOWLEDGE1VENT S ................. ................. iii...__ .....


LI ST OF T ABLE S ............. ............ .............. vii...


LIST OF FIGURES .............. .................... ix


AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........x


CHAPTERS


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


Background .................. .......... .... ...............1.......
Statement of Research Problem ................. ...............5................
Thesis Statem ent ................... ........... ...............5.......

Hypotheses and Research Questions .............. ...............6.....
Delimitations ................. ...............7...............
Limitations ................. ...............7.................
D efinitions .............. ...............8.....


2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............14................


Introducti on ................. ...............14.................
Lakes ................. ...............15.................

Normative Theory............... ...............17.
Conflict .............. ...............20....
Tolerance ........................... ..............2

Noise Impacts and Conflicts ................. ...............27................
Satisfaction .............. ...............3 1....

Summary ................. ...............36.................
Conceptual Model ................. ...............37.................


3 IVETHODOLOGY .............. ...............39....


Background ................. ...............39.................
Site Description .............. .......... ............4
Data Collection and Sampling Procedures .............. ...............41....
Selection of Subj ects ................. ...............46................












Instrumentation ............. ...... ._ ...............46....
Data Analy sis............... ...............48


4 RE SULT S .............. ...............50....


Introducti on ............. ...... ._ ...............50....
General User Profile .............. ............. .... ...............5
Descriptive Analysis of Noise-Related Variables .................... ............... 5
Satisfaction .............. ...............56....
Human-Induced Noi se ................. ...............58...............
M otorized Noi se .............. ...............60....
Interference and Conflict............... ...............61
Motorized Boating Impacts .............. ...............63....
Motorized Boating Management ......... ......._.._.._ ......... ............6
Research Questions and Hypotheses Testing .............. ...............68....
Research Question 1 .............. ...............68....
Research Question 2 ...._.._ ................ ........_.._.........7
Research Question 3 .............. ...............73....
Research Question 4 ......_. ................ ........_.._.........7


5 CONCLU SION/DI SCU S SION ................. ......... ...............88......


Introducti on ................. ...............88.................
Summary of Findings .............. .... .... ...... ... .. ......... ........8
Research Question 1: Does the Occurrence of Noise Affect Boaters' Overall
Experiences at Waldo Lake? ................ ...............89................
Hypothesis 1A................. ...............89.
H ypothesis IB .... ................... ..... ....... ......... ... ........9
Research Question 2: Does Activity Style Affect Overall Experience
Differently? ............. ...............92.....
H ypothesi s 2A ........._.._..... .... ... .._...... ........._....... ... .. ...........9
Research Question 3: Does Activity Style Affect Boaters Opinions About
N oise? ............ ...............93.....

Hypothesis 3A................ ...............93..
H ypothesis 3B ............... ............... .. ..... .. .. .. .......9
Research Question 4: Are the Attitudes and Opinions Regarding Proposed
Management Actions Different Between Boating Groups? ............ ................97
Hypothesis 4A ........._..... ...._... ...............97.....
Hypothesis 4B .............. ...............99....
Hypothesis 4c. ............. ...............100....
Conclusions............... ..............10
Future Research ................. ................. 105........ ....

Management Implications .............. ...............108....


APPENDIX


A SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................. ...............110................












B SURVEY REFUSAL FORM ................. ......... ...............116 ....


C ADDITIONAL TABLE ................. ...............117................


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............118................


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............127......... ......


















LIST OF TABLES


Table pg


1 Surveys per Sampling Day. .............. ...............43....

2 Number of Surveys per Day of Week. ......___ ..... .._._ ...............44..

3 Number of Surveys per Month. ........._... ....._._ ...............44.

4 Number of Surveys per Location. ............. ...............44.....

5 Usage of Watercraft. .......___..........__ ........._. ...._._ ...._.__.....51

6 Boater Activity Style Based on Type of Power. ............_ .....___ ........._....5 1

7 Gender of Respondents. ........._.. ......___ ...............51...

8 Respondents' State of Residence. ............. ...............52.....

9 Miles Traveled to Waldo Lake. .............. ...............53....

10 Average Length of Stay ................. ...............53........... ...

11 W aldo Lake Visitor Status. ............. ...............54.....

12 Amount of Years Visiting Waldo Lake. ................ ................. ...............54

13 Activities Participated in and Primary Activity While Visiting Waldo Lake.........55

14 Ten-Point Overall Satisfaction Scale. ............. ...............56.....


15 Satisfaction Index Item Descriptives............... ..............5

16 Reliability of Satisfaction Index. ........._.. ....... ........ .......58..

17 Human-Induced Noise Impacts on Overall Experience .................... ...............5

18 Human-Induced Noise Types that Impacted Overall Experience. ...........................59

19 Number of Human-Induced Noises Selected. ......___ .... ... ._ ................60


20 Motorized Noise Impacts on Overall Experience. ............. .....................6

21 Number of Motorized Noises Selected. ........._ ...... ......___.........6









22 Interference Index Item Descriptives. ............. ...............62.....

23 Reliability of Noise Interference Index. .............. ...............63....

24 Motorized Boating Impact Index Item Descriptives. ............... ...................6

25 Reliability of Motorized Boating Impact Index (MBI) ................. ............... .....65

26 Motorized Boating Management Index Item Descriptives. ............. ...................67

27 Reliability of Motorized Boating Management Index (MBM). .............. ..... ........._.67

28 Human-Induced Noise Impacts by Satisfaction Independent Sample t-tests.........69

29 Number of Human-Induced Noise Types. .......___......... ___ .........__ ......69

30 Motorized Noise Impacts by Satisfaction Independent Sample t-tests. ...................70

31 Number of Motorized Noise Types Chosen. ....._____ .... ... .__ ...........__....71

32 Activity Style and Satisfaction Independent Sample t-tests............... ................7

33 Cross-tabulation of Boater Groups and Impacts of Human Induced Noise. ............74

34 Number of HIN Types and Activity Style Independent t-tests. ............. ..... ..........75

35 Interference Index and Activity Style Independent Sample t-tests. .........................76

36 Number of Motorized Noise Types and Activity Style t-tests. ............. ..............77

37 MBI/MBM Index and Activity Style Independent Sample t-tests. ..........................78

38 MBI Index items and Activity Style Independent Sample t-tests. ...........................79

39 Cross-tabulation of Boater Groups and Motor Boating Management Opinions......80

40 MBM/MBI Index and Human-Induced Noise Independent Sample t-tests. ............81

41 MBI Index items and Human-Induced Noise Independent Sample t-tests. .............82

42 Cross-tabulation of HIN and Opinions of Motor Boating Management. .................83

43 MBM/MBI Index and Motorized Noise Independent Sample t-tests. .....................84

44 MBI Index Items and Motorized Noise Independent Sample t-tests. ......................85

45 Motorized Noise and Opinions of Motor Boating Management Actions. ..............86

46 "Other" Noise Category Response List ................. ...............117..............

















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure pg

1 Conceptual M odel. ............. ...............3 8....

2 Waldo Lake and Vicinity Site Map ................. ...............45........... ..
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Science in Recreational Studies

HUMAN-INDUCED NOISE IMPACTS ON BOATERS
AT WALDO LAKE, OREGON

By

Joseph Kuhn

August 2004

Chair: John J. Confer
Major Department: Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management

The purpose of this study was to identify the impacts of noise on boaters in the

Waldo Lake area, and to determine if the presence of noise affected the individual

boaters' outdoor experiences. In addition, this study examined the relationships and

differences between the boaters based on their activity choice, experiences with noise,

and overall feelings towards impacts and management actions towards motorized

boating. Visitor perceptions and opinions were obtained through on-site, personal or

face-to-face interview surveys conducted at various recreation sites at Waldo Lake,

Oregon.

This study found that the presence of human-induced noise could significantly

impact the experiences and satisfaction levels of boaters at Waldo Lake, Oregon. In

addition, this study revealed that there were asymmetrical conflicts present between

motorized and non-motorized boaters based upon noise and motor boating as a whole.

Specifically it was concluded that non-motorized boaters are more sensitive to noise










impacts. Satisfaction levels among the non-motorized group were decreased by the

presence of noise, and significant differences existed in the attitudes and opinions of

boating impacts and management actions to reduce (control) motorized recreation.

Understanding the preferences, tolerances, and desires of varied recreationists can

assist managers in developing more effective management strategies. These strategies

could reduce the occurrence of conflict and lead to increased satisfaction among the

multiple users of Waldo Lake. It is important for recreation managers to carefully assess

issues that arise in natural settings, and to carefully choose management strategies that

will produce the highest level of benefit for visitors to the area.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Background

Perhaps the landscape features that attract the most interest are lakes (Smith, 1992).

Lakes are considered an important ecosystem, supplying subsistence, residence and

recreation to millions of organisms. People, in particular, enj oy lakes for many reasons

including: aesthetic qualities, commercial uses, and recreational uses (Miller, 1992;

Smith, 1992). However, the popularity of these ecosystems for human use has led to an

array of environmental impacts that can disrupt the overall health of the system and the

other organisms within it (Asplund, 2000; Klessig, 2000; Miller, 1992). Due to the

variety of impacts that can occur on lake systems, management of these areas is an on-

gomng concern.

Proper lake management includes several important tasks that help maintain an

attractive water-based recreation setting. Certain characteristics (e.g., healthy watersheds

and landscapes, clean water, and undisturbed natural viewsheds and soundscapes) are

essential to the quality of an outdoor recreation experience (National Recreation Lake

Study, 1999). Multiple human activities affect certain environmental settings, such as

natural soundscapes, and have led resource managers to evaluate the amount of

regulation and management applied to these types of ecosystems (Larson & Hammitt,

1981). The balance between recreational use and management needs to assure the

continued satisfaction of the various user groups without sacrificing the overall quality of

the lake and its attributes.









Maintaining such a balance between the recreational use and management of lakes

is particularly important in the U.S. A recent survey conducted by the American

Recreation Coalition (2001) determined that nearly 17 million boats, operated by an

estimated 76 million people, are in use across the United States today. Furthermore,

more than half of all U. S. adults enj oy lakes for their multitude of activities (Mele, 1993;

The National Recreation Lakes Study, 1999). These activities include hunting, fishing,

hiking, boating, bird watching, wildlife photography, and a variety of other activities

(The National Recreation Lakes Study, 1999). Some of these recreational activities can

cause adverse effects to the natural soundscape of an area by allowing elevated levels of

noise to infiltrate the natural environment thus, negatively impacting the experiences of

others who also enj oy these recreational areas.

The Willamette National Forest (WNF) was originally established as part of the

Cascade Range Forest Reserve in 1893 by President Grover Cleveland. The area has

been under the supervision of the United States Forest Service (USFS) since 1905, but

was not officially added to the National Forest System until 1933 (USDA Forest Service,

2004). Congress also added the forest to the Oregon Cascades National Recreation Area

in 1984 in order to: "protect the natural area; and enhance the recreational value, as

perceived by the many visitors to the area" (USDA Forest Service, 2004).

The WNF is comprised of 3 80,000 acres of wilderness, and it includes seven maj or

peaks of the Cascades: Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, Three-Fingered Jack, Diamond

Peak, and The Three Sisters. The forest, itself, extends for 110 miles along the western

side of the Cascade Mountain Range, extending from the Mt. Jefferson area (which is

east of Salem) to the Calapooya Mountains (which are northeast of Roseburg, Oregon)










(USDA Forest Service, 2004). Moreover, the WNF is considered one of the most diverse

and productive forests in the National Forest System, and it is comprised of

approximately 1.7 million acres (USDA Forest Service, 2004). The landscape throughout

the forest includes high, snow-capped mountains, narrow canyons, wooded slopes,

streams and lakes. These various offerings, in turn, supply many recreational activities to

visitors (USDA Forest Service, 2004). In particular, Waldo Lake, located within the

boundaries of the WNF in central Oregon, administers many different recreational uses.

Resource managers in the WNF have identified the need to better understand: 1)

the visitors to Waldo Lake within the context of the National Forest and; 2) the role that

Waldo Lake plays in relation to other lakes in Central Oregon. Since Waldo Lake is

considered one of the purest lakes on earth in terms of water quality and clarity

(Williams, 2002), there is heightened interest to examine the impacts of various

recreational activities and user groups. Specifically, area managers are beginning to

research the potential conflicts that exist between user groups following the admittance of

motorized activities on and around the lake. Besides decreasing water quality through

pollution, motorized activities also generate noise pollution, which impacts other visitors

and detracts from the overall experience to the area and the adj acent wilderness.

Past scientific research related to lakes and recreation has concentrated on the

conflicts associated with motorized and non-motorized activities and their use in

recreational areas. However, studies of different user groups in association with the

occurrence of noise in the natural environment have not been as exhaustive. This study

utilizes the concepts of conflict, tolerance, satisfaction and norms to determine if different

perceptions of noise impacts exist between boating groups at Waldo Lake. A normative










approach employs impact indicators, and standards of quality, to identify and estimate

threshold and tolerance levels visitors hold during their recreation experience (Manning,

1999). Past research has indicated that differences in tolerance levels and perceptions

may exist between groups participating in different activities, such as motorized and non-

motorized boating (Adelman, Heberlein & Bonnicksen, 1982).

Previous studies have used photographs, video clips, or questionnaires describing

different levels of degradation, to determine what the typical acceptability level is for

selected impact indicators (Freimund, Vaske, Donnelly & Miller, 2002). In this study, a

survey instrument was used to determine the impacts of human-induced and motorized

noise within the natural soundscape, as perceived by the different boater groups of the

Waldo Lake area. Questions emphasized different types of noise as well as interference

levels of noise on specific aspects of visitors' experience. By determining the effects of

noise generated in natural environments (like Waldo Lake), resource and recreation

managers can achieve a better understanding of how to manage multi-use areas.

Normative and conflict theories, including goal interference, were used as the

theoretical framework for measuring the impacts caused by human-induced and

mechanical noise. Information gathered using these theories has assisted in identifying

different perceptions of noise between motorized and non-motorized boaters on Waldo

Lake. This study examined the introduction of noise to natural soundscapes, and more

specifically, the impacts of noise on boaters in the Waldo Lake area. Results can assist in

future lake management by assessing the effects of recreational activities that cause

excessive amounts of noise in outdoor settings.









Statement of Research Problem

Within the natural environment, the natural soundscape (or the sounds of nature)

may be considered an integral aspect of visitors' outdoor experiences. Over the last few

decades, population increases, advances in technology, and an increasing desire to

recreate in wild places, have augmented sound pollution and recreational conflict. In

particular, noise-based conflicts within the natural environment are becoming more and

more frequent as access to motorboats, all terrain vehicles (ATVs), and automobiles

increases. Furthermore, elevated occurrences of the use of aircraft for both commercial

and recreational purposes are also contributing to these types of conflicts. As a result of

these and other episodes, managers have become convinced of the need to make conflict

reduction a priority. In sum, increasing noise pollution not only detracts from the

experiences of some users, but it can also create tension between managers and the

recreationists they are trying to serve.

Since boating is such a popular form of recreation in the Waldo Lake area, this

proj ect only examines noise perceptions held by motorized and non-motorized boating

groups; it does not address the perceptions of terrestrial users. Moreover, for the purpose

of this study, noise will be limited to types associated with humans, including the use of

motorized items, the presence of loud pets, noise from electronic devices such as radios

or televisions, and the incidence of loud voices within a natural environment.

Thesis Statement

There has not been much research conducted regarding the effects of human-

induced noise on the outdoor experiences of both motorized and non-motorized boaters.

The differences between the levels of noise present and the acceptability of noise in an

outdoor recreation setting have also received little attention. Because natural sound










degradation can adversely affect outdoor experiences for recreational users, it is

important to study the effects of noise pollution in the natural environment. Obviously, it

is not possible to test all types of noise, either naturally occurring or human-induced, as

they are too numerous and often unnoticeable. After reviewing a wealth of literature

involving noise, conflict, recreational norms and satisfaction, this study has been

narrowed to examine the most common and logical types of noise that may negatively

affect one's overall experience in the natural environment. The following research

questions are expected to further outdoor recreation literature regarding different types of

users and noise in lake settings.

This thesis also attempts to determine if respondents' activity choice plays an

important role on their perceptions of human-induced noise. These noises are often

produced by motorized vehicles, but they can also stem from non-mechanized sources

introduced by users. Additionally, this study examines the differences in opinions

regarding motorized boating impacts and proposed management actions based upon

activity style and prior noise experiences.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

The following questions and hypotheses were investigated in this study.

R1: Does the occurrence of noise affect boaters' overall experiences at Waldo Lake?

HIA: Human-induced noise does not affect boaters' overall experiences at Waldo

Lake.

HiB: Motorized noise does not affect boaters' overall experiences at Waldo Lake.

R2: Does activity style affect overall experience differently?

H2A: There is no difference in overall experience between motorized and non-

motorized boaters.










R3: Does activity style affect boater opinions about noise?

H3A: There is no difference between impacts and opinions of human-induced noise

between boater groups.

H3B: There is no difference between impacts and opinions of motorized noise

between boater groups.

R4. Are the attitudes and opinions regarding impacts from motorized boating and select

management actions different between boating groups?

H4A: There is no difference in the attitudes regarding proposed management

actions and the perception of motorized boating impacts based on activity style.

H4B: Human-induced noise does not affect boaters' attitudes toward proposed

management or their opinions about motorized boating impacts.

H4c: Motorized noise does not affect boaters' attitudes toward proposed

management or their opinions about motorized boating impacts.

Delimitations

Data were collected at the boat ramps, campsites, and day-use areas along the

eastern, developed side of Waldo Lake, within the Willamette National Forest in central

Oregon. Data were collected from June 20 to September 20, 2003, by means of an

interview-styled questionnaire. All willing visitors above the age of 18 comprise the

sample of respondents.

Limitations

Data collection occurred only within the Waldo Lake area, rather than several other

multiple-use lakes within the Willamette National Forest or the State of Oregon.

Accordingly, responses may be biased because of the strong relationships visitors had

with Waldo Lake. Due to the relatively short timeframe of data collection, which only










occurred during the 2003 summer season, the responses may not be representative of all

user groups who visit the Waldo Lake area throughout the year. In addition, only

respondents who participated in boating activities were included in the statistical analyses

of the study, even though all respondents were allowed to participate in the study.

Finally, it was assumed that respondents answered survey questions accurately and

honestly .

Definitions

The following definitions were used for the purpose of this study.

Activity style. This term is defined as the personal meanings attached to an

activity such as range of experience, definitions of quality, and intensity of participation

(Moore, Scott & Graefe, 1998). Within this study, activity style was operationalized as

the primary power source of the boaters on Waldo Lake. Based on power source,

respondents were divided into two activity style groups: motorized and non-motorized

boaters .

Motorized boaters. For the purposes of this study, motorized boaters consist of

those respondents that listed electric, diesel or gas as the primary power source for their

vessel. This was discovered through a specific survey question (Appendix A) that asked

respondents to identify their boat power source.

Non-motorized users. For the purposes of this study, non-motorized boaters

consist of those respondents that listed wind, paddle or oar as the primary power source

for their vessel. This was discovered through a specific survey question (Appendix A)

that asked respondents to identify their boat power source.

Conflict. Conflict is defined as a case of competition over a resource by different

users (Owens, 1985). It also has been defined as the result of incompatibilities between









different activities (Noe, Hull, & Wellman, 1982) and goal interference by another' s

behavior (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Furthermore, conflict can also be perceived as a type

of user dissatisfaction. For the purpose of this study, the concept of conflict was limited

to noise alone. This was operationalized by employing survey questions that explored the

amount of interference caused by motorized noise and human-induced noise. The former

was examined in relation to four distinct aspects of the respondents' outdoor experience.

These aspects included: enj oyment of the area, appreciation of the sounds of nature,

appreciation of the natural quiet, and appreciation of the historical and cultural

significance of the area. These items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale with

values ranging from 1 ("not at all interfering") to 5 ("extremely interfering"). Human-

induced noise impacts were operationalized by asking participants if such noises

impacted their overall experience of the area.

Tolerance. Tolerance has been viewed as the tendency to accept (or rej ect)

lifestyles different than one's own (Carothers, Vaske & Donnelly, 2001; Jacob &

Schreyer, 1980). Tolerance has also been described by Ivy, Stewart and Lue (1992) as

one's willingness to share resources with activity groups other than one's own.

Tolerance was not directly measured within the context of the survey, but can be

determined by examining the differences between interference levels and satisfaction

expressed by the different boating groups.

Recreational norms. For the purposes of this study, recreational norms are

defined as shared standards of behavior for specific recreational areas (Patterson &

Hammitt, 1990; Vaske, Shelby, Graefe & Heberlein, 1986). These norms can relate to:

the acceptable number of people in an area; the amount of permissible environmental










degradation present in an area; and, for the purpose of this study, the appropriate level of

human-induced noise (Ruddell & Gramman, 1994). By measuring how strongly

respondents feel about the presence of noise, an overall normative level among the

respondents can be determined.

Environmental impacts. Environmental impacts may be classified as any

impact that causes environmental degradation to a system (Miller, 1992). The occurrence

of human-induced noise, as utilized in this study, may be considered an environmental

impact since it can disrupt behaviors of wildlife and detract from the overall natural

soundscape, as experienced by outdoor recreationists (Ruddell & Gramman, 1994). For

the purpose of this study, the occurrence of noise not normally found within the natural

environment is considered an environmental impact. The questionnaire inquired as to the

presence of different types of noise and measured the extent to which respondents'

experiences were negatively affected by noise.

Noise. This term is defined as unwanted or annoying sound (Elvhammar, 2000).

Gramman (1999) described noise as a psychological evaluation of sound that can be

perceived differently by individuals. As such, noise is considered different than sound

within the context of this study because noise tends to have a negative connotation

attached to it. Often, noise is considered to be annoying or bothersome to individuals to a

certain degree (Kariel, 1990). This study, then, examines specific types of noises created

by humans in the natural environment. These noises can originate from the use of

mechanical or motorized devices or they can be created in other forms by humans.

Human-induced noise. In conjunction with the previous definition, human-

induced noise is defined as the occurrence of"unwanted sound in the natural









environment that is directly attributed to other users" (Gramman, 1999). As employed in

this study, human-induced noise refers specifically to sounds generated by people,

including mechanized sound caused by engines and other human-made devices. Sounds

created in a natural area by brought items, such as loud dogs and loud stereos, were also

included in this study. In particular, respondents were asked if the occurrence of human-

induced noise interfered with their overall experience at Waldo Lake. In addition,

specific types of human-induced noise were measured by asking respondents to choose

the type(s) of noise that interfered with their experience; results were then combined to

create a number of different types of noise variables, as described in Chapter four.

Motorized noise. Motorized noise, for the basis of this study, is any noise

created by mechanization. This type of noise is considered a subcategory of human-

induced noise since it is created by humans. Motorized noise impacts were determined

by asking respondents if and how they were impacted by motorized noise during their

trip. Results were based on four individual interference items, which were scaled from 1

("not at all interfered") to 5 ("extremely interfered").

Natural soundscape. Gramman (1999:15) defined natural soundscape as "the

sound environment created by ongoing and more or less continuous processes within the

natural environment that is being measured. The natural soundscape is distinguishable

from sounds that are produced by specifiable sources of interest, such as aircraft." The

natural soundscape is also sometimes described as sound created by wind, flowing water,

mammals, birds and insects. This definition is closely related to that of natural quiet (see

below). A combination of these definitions is applied throughout this study to describe

the natural area in its pristine condition, as opposed to when noise is present.









Self-noise. This term is defined by the National Park Service as any non-

mechanical sound produced by park visitors (Gramman, 1999). Examples of self-noise

include sounds created by human activities (such as running, hiking, talking, laughing

and swimming) that can completely or partially mask other sounds. This term was not

actually measured in the context of this study, but it is considered part of the human-

induced noise variable.

Natural quiet. Natural quiet is defined as ambient sound plus any self-noise

generated by visitors involved in non-intrusive, non-mechanical activities (National Park

Service, 1995). To reiterate, natural ambient sounds include running rivers, the wind

through the trees, the sound of birds and other wildlife, and natural silence.

Satisfaction. This term is defined in outdoor recreation research as the

engagement in recreational activities that is expected to fulfill selected needs, motivations

or other desired states (Manning, 1999). Within this study, a ten-point Likert scale (with

1 being "worst experience" and 10 being "best experience") was used to operationalize

satisfaction. An additional satisfaction measure was developed by creating an index of

four individual satisfaction items; then, combining them to create a descriptive

satisfaction index based on the work of Graefe and others (Drogin, Graefe & Titre, 1990;

Graefe & Fedler, 1986; Graefe & Drogin, 1989). Overall, satisfaction was one of the

main determinants that were used to establish differences between boating groups in

terms of their perception of noise impacts.

Dissatisfaction. This term is defined by Webster' s dictionary as the condition or

feeling of being displeased or unsatisfied. In past literature, dissatisfaction has been

utilized to describe the impacts certain groups or activities have on individuals (Ramthun,










1995). For the purpose of this study, this term was used to describe a reduction in visitor

satisfaction caused by human-induced noise. In particular, discontent was attributed to

conflicts between groups as well as tolerance differences relating to noise.















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter introduces literature related to noise impacts in outdoor settings as

well as the use of a normative approach in determining impact perceptions between

boater groups in the Waldo Lake area. The literature review is divided into the following

seven maj or sections:

1. Basic background literature on the importance of lake systems for society and
recreation.

2. Description of normative theory and its role in conflict, especially as it pertains to
the determination of acceptable levels of impacts and tolerance levels between
different user groups.

3. Examination of conflict literature between different recreation groups.

a. Goal interference

b. Tolerance

4. Relevant literature on noise impacts in outdoor recreation settings.

5. Examination of satisfaction and management literature and its relationship to norms
and conflict.

6. Summary of findings.

7. Description of the conceptual model.












Lakes

Lakes offer numerous benefits to society. Firstly, they represent an aesthetic locale

for the public (Klessig, 2000; Kosk, 2001; Miller, 1992; Smith, 1992). In North America,

Europe and Japan, aesthetic enj oyment is one of the most common uses of lakes (Klessig,

2000). In a study of Wisconsin lakefront property owners, Klessig (1973) found that

subj ects were attracted to and purchased lakefront property primarily for the natural

beauty and solitude of those areas. Furthermore, Klessig (2000) concluded that aesthetic

values, such as beauty and solitude, were considered more important than all outdoor

recreation activities when purchasing lakefront properties. Within this study, over 60%

of Wisconsin lakefront property owners indicated that they had purchased their property

primarily for the solitude and beauty of the lake area. Other activities such as boating,

fishing and swimming accounted for an additional 20% of the responses (Klessig, 2000).

A follow-up to Klessig's 1973 study, conducted in 1997 by Shifferd and Palmer,

produced similar conclusions, finding that the aesthetic values of lakes remained the

primary reason for visiting lake areas.

A second benefit that lakes provide society involves economic opportunities

(Klessig, 2000; Miller, 1992). In some parts of the world, lakes supply fish for both local

consumption and export operations (Klessig, 2000). In other places, they also supply

water for human consumption, industry, agricultural irrigation and hydroelectric power

(Kosk, 2001; Mitsch & Gossellink, 1993). In larger lakes, transportation options, such as

ferries, constitute additional economic importance (Klessig, 2000).

Moreover, lakes increase economic opportunities through tourism and recreation

(Klessig, 2000). Major hospitality industries have developed around lake areas to










provide services for those who use the areas for recreation (Klessig, 2000; Miller, 1992).

Communities can benefit from lakes by obtaining income through sales and services

without directly harming the area (Klessig, 2000; Shifferd & Palmer, 1997). However,

these tourism areas may lose some of their aesthetic or environmental qualities over time

(National Recreation Lake Study, 1999). Problems such as crowding, noise pollution,

litter, and other environmental degradation may occur due to over-use of these areas

(Mitsch & Gossellink, 1993; Shifferd & Palmer, 1997).

Additionally, lakes are a source of both emotional and environmental security

(Klessig, 2000). Emotionally, lakes "touch people by providing a setting for many

special occasions in life. Times spent at lakes are filled with emotional attachments

through both solitude and socializing (Klessig, 2000). Environmental security, on the

other hand, represents attention to society's environmental needs, including clean water,

clean air, natural quiet and biodiversity (Klessig, 2000).

Lastly, lakes provide an abundance of recreation activities (Miller, 1992). More

than half of all U.S. adults participate in recreational activities involving water-based

systems such as lakes (National Recreation Lake Study, 1999). Fishing, boating,

swimming, sunning, photography, wildlife-viewing, sightseeing and camping are some of

the activities available in lake areas. These activities add satisfaction and enjoyment to

one's life by providing natural beauty, solitude, opportunities for physical activity, and

rich outdoor experiences (Klessig, 2000).

Previous research has shown that people recognize the diverse recreational

opportunities that lakes offer. For instance, Cordell (1999, 2003) found that water-based

recreation has been steadily increasing over the last twenty years. In particular, activities









such as motorized boating, non-motorized boating, swimming, fishing, water-skiing and

wildlife viewing have all experienced increases in participation (Cordell, 1999, 2003).

Within the United States, motorized boating is by far the most popular water-based

activity among recreationists-increasing from approximately 47 million participants in

1994-1995 to over 51 million participants in 2000-2003 (Cordell, 2003).

As participation in water-based activities continues to increase in the United States,

crowding and recreational conflict increase as well (Heywood, 2002; Manning, 1999).

The following section discusses normative theory and its application within recreational

conflict. Because of increases in water-based activities, normative theory is important in

assessing: levels of acceptable change between visitors, user preferences, and behavior

patterns of different recreational groups.

Normative Theory

Norms are defined as standards of behavior that individuals (either alone or as a

group) hold for a particular activity; for instance, what is and what is not acceptable in an

outdoor recreation setting (Hall & Shelby, 1996; Vaske et al., 1986). Most normative

theory is derived from the work of Jackson (1965), who proposed a norms model based

on an impact acceptability curve. This model describes social norms in terms of averages

of individual evaluations (Jackson, 1965). Problems such as crowding and environmental

impacts are displayed on a horizontal axis, while evaluations by users are displayed

vertically. The plotted curve can then be analyzed for various norm characteristics

including: optimum conditions; range of acceptable conditions in recreational settings;

norm strength throughout the study group; and norm crystallization or the level of

agreement about certain norms (Heywood, 2002).










Conceptually, ecological and social impact norms can be divided into three types:

no tolerance, single tolerance, and multiple tolerances (Shelby et al., 1996). Specifically,

these three types of impact norms describe the levels of tolerance present within a group.

No-tolerance norms refer to those impacts that generally receive zero tolerance from all

users of a particular area or resource (Whitaker and Shelby, 1988). A single-tolerance

norm exhibits one specific level where tolerances begin to decrease; but overall there is

consensus within the sample (Shelby et al., 1996). The third type, multiple-tolerance

norms, refers to the presence of multiple tolerance levels, which are attributed to the

existence of different user groups with different norms for a specific impact (Shelby et

al., 1996; Whitaker et al., 1988). This final type of norm is normally present in conflict

issues involving groups with different behavioral characteristics and activity preferences

(Shelby et al., 1996). Thus, the purpose of norms is to measure collective tolerances

within a group of individuals. Within this study, tolerances are related to conflicts that

arise in outdoor recreation.

Previous studies of boaters on the Deschutes River demonstrated that all of the

norms found fit one of the previously mentioned classifications (Whitaker and Shelby,

1988). This is important in understanding the different perceptions between recreational

users in this study. Although the normative approach has been widely used in encounter

research, most studies have focused on ecological factors (Shelby, et al., 1996). In order

to determine the differences in acceptability levels of human-induced noise between

boater groups, one can first evaluate different users' perceived standards of quality and

limits of acceptable noise.









Previous studies have illustrated how this concept can be related to and utilized in

measuring impacts. In 1988, Shelby, Vaske & Harris examined campsite impacts in the

Mt. Jefferson Wilderness in Oregon. Data was collected by asking respondents what they

thought of bare ground areas that were absent of vegetation and the size of Gire rings at

the campsites (Shelby, et al., 1988). The scale utilized in this study ranged from "totally

unacceptable" to "totally acceptable." The results were then plotted and produced varied

impact acceptability curves (Shelby, et al., 1988). Based on these Eindings, these authors

postulated that there were definite differences in acceptability levels within the

respondent group based upon a specific impact (Shelby, et al., 1988).

Normative behavior has been used in previous research as an indicator of

recreational conflict (Hall & Shelby, 1996). This approach has great appeal in conflict

research as it can assist in identifying users' determinations of regular patterns of

behavior, as well as establishing standards of an individual's recreation experience that

can be utilized by managers (McDonald, 1996). Recreational groups that do not share

similar norms can experience some form of interpersonal or social conflict. The concept

of norms has been the focus of a number of previous studies that sought to ascertain norm

differences between groups and how norms affect experiences (Hall & Shelby, 1996;

Heywood & Aas, 1999; Vaske, Shelby, Graefe & Heberlein, 1986).

In this thesis, normative theory will provide the conceptual basis by which to

measure different boating groups' definitions of acceptable levels of human-induced

noise in an outdoor setting. Norms have been developed as a useful tool to

conceptualize, collect and organize evaluative judgments in resource management

(Shelby, Vaske & Donnelly, 1996). The following discussion on conflict and tolerance in










recreational settings will elucidate the relationships that exist between normative

behavior among recreationists, the occurrence of conflict, and the tolerance of other

recreationists' behavior.

Due to the similarities between conflict and normative theory, it should be noted

that the idea of normative conflict acts as an important a bridge between the two

concepts. Individuals who experience normative conflict are generally not dependent on

the specific resource in question; but their group's values they are connected to during

their recreational pursuits (Bury, Holland & McEwen, 1983). The relationship between

groups can be determined behaviorally rather than by resource specifieity. For example,

conflict may arise between hunter and non-hunter groups due to differences in normative

values (Bury, Holland, & McEwen, 1983). The non-hunter group may experience social-

value based conflict towards the hunter groups. This conflict type is due to individuals'

dislike for others' activities; it is not due to goal interference during the recreational

experience (Bury, Holland, & McEwen, 1983). Normative conflict and goal interference

will be further elaborated within the context of conflict and tolerance.

Conflict

In recent years, the rapid growth of outdoor recreation has led to increased

competition over limited land and water resources; subsequently, conflict, has risen

between visitors participating in different types of recreation activities (Owens, 1985).

The theory of conflict has been defined in previous studies in several different ways, with

the same general idea that of incompatibilities between groups leading to different

degrees of dissatisfaction.

Ramthun (1995) described conflict as a form of dissatisfaction in which an

unsatisfied individual feels that the attainment of his/her goals is influenced directly by









the interference of another individual or group. Owens (1985), who looked mainly at

mechanization differences, described conflict as a case of competition over a resource by

different activities. Noe, Wellman and Buhyoff (1982) defined conflict as a result of

incompatibilities between activities such as motorized versus non-motorized ventures.

However, the more popular and widely accepted definition by Jacob and Schreyer (1980)

states that conflict is goal interference by another's behavior. This final interpretation of

conflict is considered an illustration of interpersonal conflict.

Within this definition of conflict, goal interference requires direct or indirect social

contact between user groups. Direct contact refers to face-to-face encounters with

another group, such as a motorized boater encountering a canoeist on a lake (Jacob &

Schreyer, 1980). Indirect contact refers to the occurrence or evidence of certain

unacceptable behaviors as viewed by one group. Examples include the sound of

motorized activity in a wilderness setting or seeing snowmobile tracks in more remote

areas. According to goal interference theory, when the conduct of one group is

incompatible with the physical, social, or psychological goals of another individual or

group, a state of conflict occurs (Gramman & Burdge, 1981). Although goal interference

does not always lead to goal incompatibility, it is considered a maj or source of

incompatibility between users (Hammitt, 1988). Outdoor recreationists may experience

conflict due to the following factors: differences in the social acceptability of specific

behaviors, desirability of encounters, and the affect of encounters on visitors' enjoyment.

While the definition of goal interference typically deals with conflicts caused by

direct contact, some non-activity-based behaviors (such as those that produce noise, litter,

and rowdiness) have also been described as serious conflict sources. These behaviors,










then, also adhere to the goal interference definition (Jackson & Wong, 1982; Jackson,

Haider, & Elliot, 2002; Ruddell & Gramman, 1994). Conflict can be described as a type

of user dissatisfaction in which certain expected goals are unmet. This is not only due to

differences in the type of use, but also to differences in beliefs and behaviors between

groups or individuals. Moreover, these differences lead to incompatible ways of

achieving similar goals (Gibbons & Ruddell, 1995). Earlier research studies showed that

recreational conflict seemed likely between users and non-users of mechanization

because of: differences in activity styles; and an inability to achieve similar recreational

goals across both groups (Owens, 1985).

Within the literature, a consistent conclusion is that conflict is often asymmetrical,

meaning that one user group is more affected than another (Adelman, Heberlein &

Bonnickson, 1982; Jackson & Wong, 1982; Knopp & Tyger, 1973; Lime, 1975; Shelby,

1980). This asymmetrical relationship between different user types can be influenced by

the quality of experience desired as well as experience satisfaction. Asymmetrical

conflict usually occurs when only one of the groups becomes frustrated by the inability to

achieve their recreational goals due to the behavior of another individual or group. For

example, Adelman et al. (1982) found that while non-motorized canoeists did not enj oy

interactions with motorized boat users, motorized boaters did not mind seeing multiple

canoeists. In a similar study, Jackson and Wong (1982) found that cross-country skiers

disliked encounters with snowmobilers but that snowmobilers did not mind encounters

with skiers.

Thus, asymmetrical conflict has been noted in studies of motorized versus non-

motorized groups. However, it has also been detected between skiers and snowboarders










(Baird, 1994; Thapa & Graefe, 2004; Vaske et al., 2000), hikers and stock users (Watson,

Niccolucci & Williams, 1994), and hikers and mountain bikers (Watson, Williams &

Daigle, 1991). In sum, these findings show that conflict may also be linked to activity

style and how users perceive each other in the outdoor setting. Furthermore, conflicts

within a specific activity, such as boating, can also occur when visitors with different

expectations and norms interact with each other (Confer, 1997).

Conflict has also been studied between members of the same activity type who use

different propulsion. For example, researchers have discovered that paddling canoeists

experienced an elevated amount of conflict with motorized canoeists (Adelman et al.,

1982; Peterson, 1974; Peterson, Anderson & Lime, 1982). Asymmetrical conflict has

also been found between groups participating in different activities, which are separated

by the mode of propulsion utilized. The competition experienced between hikers and

mountain bikers and the conflict experienced between skiers and snowboarders are two

examples of recreational conflict influenced by activity styles (Ramthun, 1995; Thapa &

Graefe, 2004; Vaske, Carothers, Donnelly & Baird, 2000).

However, symmetrical conflict can also occur between user groups in an outdoor

recreational setting. In the study of skiers and snowboarders (Thapa, 1996; Thapa &

Graefe, 2004), it was discovered that both groups conflicted with each other because of

the presence and /or behavior of individuals from either group. Thapa (1996), in

particular, discussed the influence of safety perceptions on conflicts between user groups.

In this study, skiers felt that snowboarders interfered with their experience by increasing

the risks of injury. Snowboarders, on the other hand, perceived the skiers as impeding

their recreational goals, and they preferred not to encounter skiers, if possible, while they










participated in their own activity (Thapa, 1996; Thapa & Graefe, 2004; Vaske et al.,

2000).

Within the theoretical concept of conflict, Jacob and Schreyer (1980) described

four factors that can produce conflict in outdoor recreation areas. These factors are

activity style, mode of experience, lifestyle tolerance, and resource specificity. Moore,

Scott and Graefe (1998) defined each of these terms as follows: Activity style refers to

the personal meanings attached to an activity, such as range of experience, level of skill

required, definitions of quality, and intensity of participation. M~ode of experience refers

to different ways of experiencing and perceiving the natural environment. In this factor,

participants may be involved in either a focused or unfocused mode. A focused mode of

experience refers to participants who are extremely sensitive to the particular details of

the environment and, thus, are more likely to encounter conflict when exposed to

recreationists who are unfocused. Lifestyle tolerance refers to the user' s propensity to

accept or rej ect lifestyles and beliefs that differ from his/her own. This means that

recreationists who are not willing to share the natural resources they use for certain

activities and are intolerant towards different lifestyles, are more prone to experience

conflict (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Similarly, individuals are more likely to be tolerant of

others who they perceive to be similar to themselves (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Lastly,

resource specificity refers to the significance attached to a specific resource for a given

experience. In summary any one of the aforementioned factors can cause conflict; but, in

a majority of cases, a combination of two or more factors usually creates conflict between

user groups (Thapa, 1999).









Conflict between groups can also arise from a number of additional sources,

including interpersonal and value differences. Firstly, it can arise when the physical

presence of one group interferes with the goals) of another (Vaske, Donnelly, Wittmann

& Laidlaw, 1995). For instance, wildlife viewers may experience conflict when noise,

generated from motorized activities, scares away the area's birds. This example

illustrates goal interference since the goals of the wildlife viewers are directly impacted

by the presence of motorized users (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). In addition, this example

demonstrates interpersonal conflict because the direct interactions of the user groups lead

to the perception of problem conditions (Vaske et al., 1995).

Secondly, conflicts can also occur between user groups that have differences in

norms or values (Ruddell & Gramman, 1994; Vaske et al., 1995). This type of conflict is

referred to as value or social conflicts (Vaske et al., 1995; Williams, 1993), and unlike

interpersonal conflict, does not require direct interaction. Moreover, this form of conflict

is related to the personal values a group places on an area or activity; thus, it is directed

towards an "out-group" that does not share the same values or norms (Thapa & Graefe,

1999). This type of conflict is typified by the tension between hunters and anti-hunters.

Instead of conflict being derived from competition over a resource or interference with

recreational goals (as with interpersonal conflicts), it is due to differences in values

between the two groups (Donnelly & Vaske, 1995; McShea, Wemmer & Stuwe, 1993).

In conclusion, the needs, attitudes, and values that recreationists bring to an outdoor

recreation setting can impact the activity and preferences sought. Different users may

have different recreational goals and tolerances, which can be expressed by differences in









either the value or presence of norms. In addition, these norms may lead to recreational

conflicts and changes in tolerance levels (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980).

Tolerance

Directly linked to interpersonal and social-value conflicts is the idea of tolerance.

Tolerance has been viewed as the tendency to accept (or rej ect) lifestyles different from

one's own (Carothers, Vaske & Donnelly, 2001; Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Tolerance has

also been described by Ivy, Stewart and Lue (1992) as one' s willingness to share

resources with different activity groups. In a 1980 study conducted by Jacob and

Schreyer, it was suggested that individuals would be tolerant of others who participated

in activities that were perceived to be similar. In fact, tolerance is usually connected with

beliefs about a particular group rather than reactions to specific behaviors (Ivy, Stewart &

Lue, 1992). Differences in activities or lifestyles can often be communicated through

visual signs, such as the equipment used in varied activities (Vaske et al., 1995).

Generally, it has been found that users, who exhibit a low tolerance for individuals with

different lifestyles, will be more likely to experience elevated conflict (Carothers, Vaske

& Donnelly, 2001). Therefore, tolerance can be viewed as an antecedent to conflict. A

lack of tolerance among visitors will more likely lead to an occurrence of conflict

between participants.

Various levels of tolerance can be seen among individuals, and these levels are

dependent on both situational and normative factors. Situational factors include: group

size; motives; frequency of use; and when and where contact occurred (Vaske et al.,

1986). Additionally, asymmetrical conflicts involve one group possessing a higher level

of tolerance than another group (Adelman et al., 1982). For example, snowboarders have

tended to be much more tolerant of the presence of skiers than vice-versa (Williams,










Dossa & Fulton, 1994; Thapa, 1996; Thapa & Graefe, 2004). Moreover, Ivy et al. (1992)

found that canoeists possessed a lower tolerance level accompanied by a greater

perception of conflict in water-based settings; while, motor boaters expressed a lower

degree of conflict and a higher overall tolerance level toward non-motorized groups. All

in all, tolerance towards a specific recreation behavior or activity choice can assist in

determining the degree of conflict experienced by various user groups in outdoor

recreational settings.

Furthermore, tolerance has recently developed within the greater context of group

norms to address the limits of acceptable change (LAC) regarding specific impact

parameters found in outdoor recreation settings (e.g., number of contacts, campsite

impacts, environmental impacts dealing with litter and other types of pollution, and

unacceptable behavior) (Ivy et al., 1992). In other words, tolerance is now viewed as a

willingness to accept deviations from the preferred or ideal situation expected in a

specific outdoor setting (Whittaker & Shelby, 1988).

In conclusion, after reviewing the concepts of norms, conflict, and tolerance, it is

evident that the occurrence of noise in the natural environment can lead to conflict and

lower satisfaction levels between user groups. The next section describes impacts on and

conflicts between visitors in outdoor recreation settings that are derived from the

occurrence of noise in the natural environment.

Noise Impacts and Conflicts

The occurrence of noise in a natural setting continues to be an ever-increasing

problem. This is precipitated as a growing number of people who want to visit natural

areas, such as forests, parks and lakes, combined with a decrease in the amount of land

available for such activities (Kariel, 1991). Noise in a natural environment stems from a









wide variety of sources: some can be considered pleasing or relaxing; and some are

annoying detractions from the overall recreational experience (Kariel, 1990; Mace, Bell

& Loomis, 1998).

The difference between sound, noise, and natural quiet is important in

understanding the issues involved with noise in natural areas (Gramman, 1999; Kariel,

1991; Krause, 1999, 2001). These three terms describe different dimensions of a larger

concept. Sound is usually a physical science concept defined as fluctuations in

atmospheric pressures that produce an audible sensation in one's ear (Gramman, 1999).

Noise, on the other hand, tends to be more psychologically based-defined as unwanted

sound (or a psychological evaluation of sound) that is normally considered to be

annoying or otherwise irritating to listeners in certain settings (Fiddell, 1979; Gramman,

1999; Kariel, 1990; Mace, Bell, Loomis & Haas, 2003). To clarify, certain studies have

shown that noise from automobiles, for example, is less annoying in an urban setting than

in a natural one (such as a trail, forest, or primitive campground) (Anderson, Mulligan,

Goodman & Regen, 1983; Fiddell et al., 1996, Green & Fiddell, 1991). This is because

the occurrence of automobile noise is both expected and widely accepted in more urban

areas; whereas, in a natural setting such noise is deemed out of place (Anderson et al.,

1983; Driver, Nash and Haas, 1987; Fidell et al., 1996; Kariel, 1990, 1991).

The most in-depth definition of natural quiet was provided by the National Park

Service during their report to Congress regarding aircraft flights over National Parks

(Gramman, 1999; National Parks Service, 1995). The definition given was created

specifically in reference to Grand Canyon National Park, where aircraft flights had

become an increasingly difficult management problem for NPS staff (Gramman, 1999;









Miller, 2001). Natural quiet was described as natural ambient sound plus any self-noise

generated by visitors involved in non-intrusive, non-mechanical activities (National Park

Service, 1995). To elaborate, natural ambient sounds are considered sounds such as

running rivers, the wind through the trees, the sound of birds and other wildlife, and sheer

natural silence. The concept of self-noise, as added by the National Park Service (NPS),

means any noise generated by visitors engaged in non-intrusive, non-mechanical

activities. Moreover, self-noise can, indeed, create conflicts by disrupting the enj oyment

of others, and it will be utilized in the current study.

Within the context of social science, the concept of noise and noise impacts has

mostly been approached from a psychological perspective (Gramman, 1999). The basic

assumption within this approach is that people differ in their perceptions of their

environment and their acceptance of different types of sound (Gramman, 1999; Kariel,

1991; Mace, Bell and Loomis, 1998). This approach also examines variability in noise

expectations based upon the actual setting in which noise occurs (Anderson et al. 1983;

Kariel, 1990; Mace et al., 2003). For example, it has been noted that people's

expectations of motorized noise are dependent on an area' s level of development. In

more undeveloped, natural areas, mechanical noise is more likely to be evaluated

negatively; this is due to the fact that visitors do not expect to hear such noise in natural

surroundings (Gramman, 1999; Tarrant, Haas & Manfredo, 1995). Yet in more

developed and populated areas, a mix of motorized and non-motorized sounds is regarded

as normal (Gramman, 1999). Due to this setting factor, people living in more urban areas

seem to be more tolerant of mechanical noises in developed areas.










Apart from noise expectations, additional factors affect visitors' perceptions of

sound and noise, including: involvement in activities that deflect attention away from the

noise in question (foreground task); and whether a sound is perceived as preventable or

necessary (Gramman, 1999; Kariel, 1990; Miller, 2002). An example of the first criteria

revolves around the noticeability of aircraft noise to visitors involved in photography;

such noise does not affect the quality of the activity in general. Moreover, Miller (1995)

found that the noticeability of aircraft sounds is greatly minimized if it is less than ten

decibels higher than that of non-aircraft sounds. For an illustration of the second criteria,

Staples (1997) refers to wilderness hikers, who may be more tolerant of aircraft noise

involved in fire suppression activities than tourism-based flybys over the natural area

(Staples, 1997).

The social implications of noise on visitors to the natural environment have only

recently started to gain attention. Specifically, natural quiet, or the sounds of nature, is

highly ranked by visitors as an important aspect of their recreational experience (Mace,

Bell & Loomis, 1998). The National Park Service also found that natural quiet is

considered as important as solitude, space, aesthetic values, enj oyment of history, and

general enj oyment of the natural area itself (Gramman, 1999; Knoph, 1983; National

Park Service, 1988). Part of the value of natural sound comes from: 1) the sheer aesthetic

quality of extreme natural quiet that exists in contrast to most individuals' everyday life

experience and; 2) the finding that natural soundscapes may have restorative properties in

reducing stress in individuals (Gramman, 1999; Miedema & Vos, 2001).

Conflicts in terms of noise have been mounting as the outdoor recreation desires of

visitors increase (Kariel, 1990). The conflict, itself, seems to arise between those who









desire to experience and preserve quiet areas, where natural sounds dominate, versus

those who wish to utilize mechanized equipment in these quiet, natural environments.

The aforementioned example of noise conflict in Grand Canyon National Park is an

excellent illustration of this point. There, visitors are in conflict with tourism promoters

who utilize aircraft in their tourism operations (Kariel, 1990; Miller, 2001). In this

instance, the introduction of mechanized travel as a means of visiting the National Park,

compromises some of the very reasons the park was established (Kariel, 1990). The

overall satisfaction of an outdoor experience can also be compromised by loud parties,

music, and excessive generator or ORV usage. Since it has been found that natural

ambient sound is one of the main reasons for visiting natural areas, preservation efforts

are needed to manage the existence of noise (Driver et al. 1987; Kariel, 1990).

Satisfaction

When referring to a visitor' s experience, quality is a term that often surfaces in the

outdoor recreation field. Visitors have come to expect quality in their recreation

experiences, thus, making most managers strive to provide the highest quality

recreational experiences possible. Within the context of outdoor recreation, the idea of

quality has been traditionally measured by the amount of satisfaction reported by various

users (Manning, 1999). Satisfaction, itself, has been defined in various ways. Manning

(1999) defines satisfaction as the congruence between expectations and outcomes,

implying that visitors' expectations for a recreational site or trip meet their overall

standards. Mannell (1999), however, describes satisfaction as an indicator of the quality

of leisure. And Vaske et al. (1982) states that satisfaction is dependent on the interaction

between individual characteristics and the characteristics of the activity. Similarly,









Bultena and Klessig (1969) define satisfaction as a function of the degree of congruence

between aspirations and the perceived reality of experiences.

As previously discussed in this chapter, the concepts of norms, conflicts, and

tolerances are closely related to the concept of satisfaction. When conflicts occur, the

chances of one group experiencing a decreased level of satisfaction is likely. They

choose to redefine the experience to more closely reflect the reality, i.e. product shift,

thereby reducing cognitive dissonance. Manning (1999) states that visitors to outdoor

recreation areas often differ in ways that affect perceived quality and satisfaction. For

example, visitors have widely ranging attitudes, motivations and norms. Also, several

outdoor satisfaction studies have concluded that visitors report high levels of satisfaction

regardless of impacts or crowding that may actually occur on the day of their visit

(Heberlein & Shelby, 1977; Manning, 1999). However, Vaske, Fedler & Graefe (1986)

found that environmental aspects such as weather can indeed affect satisfaction levels,

which may be activity-specific in some cases. In addition, Bultena & Klessig (1969)

described specific recreational goals, and environmental conditions (site quality) were

good indicators of satisfying experiences. Overall, there is agreement between

researchers that satisfaction is a function of both recreation settings and participant

characteristics (Manning, 1999).

A satisfying experience generally occurs when a visitor engages in some form of

recreational activity, be it relaxing, boating, swimming, camping etc. Involvement in

certain types of activities may reflect individual social norms about a specific area.

Along with actual participation in an activity, recreationists' experiences and satisfaction

levels are tainted by norms or preferences. For instance, a previous conflict study by










Peterson (1974) found that different boater groups possessed different norms about the

Boundary Waters Canoe Area, which caused varying conflicts.

A difference in satisfaction levels between users is a reoccurring theme. In a 1982

study by Vaske et al., differences in reported satisfaction levels by consumptive and non-

consumptive recreationists were examined. In the context of this particular study,

consumptive recreation relates to product gain such as a successful hunt, whereas non-

consumptive recreation is based more on experiences (Vaske et al., 1982). Within the

study, it was also found that non-consumptive users were largely more satisfied with their

experiences than the consumptive group. In another study by Vaske, Fedler and Graefe

(1986), it was similarly found that success in the consumptive behavior of waterfowl

hunters did not always lead to increased satisfaction.

Recreational conflict literature has also focused on different satisfaction levels

among users. Watson et al. (1991) determined that conflicts between bikers and hikers in

the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area led to differing degrees of satisfaction between

users based upon different crowding perceptions and norms. Moreover, Peterson

detected satisfaction differences between the various boater groups in his 1974 study of

the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. In his analysis of canoeists and motor boaters,

perception and norm differences were responsible for a decreased level of overall

satisfaction by canoeists.

As stated earlier in this section, the ultimate goal for recreation managers is to

provide the high quality recreation settings to visitors (Hendee & Dawson, 2002).

However to reiterate, decreases in satisfaction are often attributed to conflict issues and









norm differences. Thus, the management of outdoor areas plays a key role in

understanding users and, subsequently, heightening their recreational experiences.

Since the recreational and aesthetic values of outdoor areas has increased rapidly

over the last several decades, the amount of energy and time devoted to management and

strategies will also have to increase (Hendee & Mattson, 1997). The two main issues

facing outdoor recreation management today are: to provide opportunities for quality

experiences; and to limit impacts, such as noise, that could lead to conflicts and

dissatisfaction among different users (Hendee & Dawson, 2002).

In order to accommodate visitors' wishes while at the same time maintaining the

highest possible level of environmental quality, managers must employ many different

management styles (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). A disparity, however, exists between

managers and visitors in terms of their perceptions of recreation quality and satisfaction

(LaPage, 1983). Accordingly, many managers believe that a minimal amount of

management is the best strategy when dealing with visitor perceptions (LaPage, 1983).

On the other hand, many recreationists petition for management to provide services such

as security, information, education, and advice (LaPage, 1983).

Management strategies can be broken down into direct and indirect management.

Direct management, as described by Hendee and Dawson (2002), refers to the regulation

of behavior through increasing restrictions and control over visitors and/or activities.

This type of approach is sometimes necessary in areas where specific problems exist, but

it should be carried out with care in order to grant visitors the most freedom possible

(Hendee & Dawson, 2002). Examples of specific restrictions include temporal zoning,

spatial zoning, activity restrictions, increased enforcement, and rationing. Again, since









one of the main obj ectives of managers is to maintain quality visitor experiences, direct

management and regulation should be minimized as it has been found to diminish users'

satisfaction (Hendee & Dawson, 2002).

The second management approach, indirect management, strives to modify

behavior through subtle influence (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). This modification is

accomplished: by utilizing education and information; or by making access difficult by

design (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). This approach also tends to receive more acceptance

from both management and visitors since it is generally cheaper to implement and less

intrusive (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). Indirect management techniques would, for

example, rely on the usage of signs, facilities, and access points to modify the type and

distribution of recreation use in an area experiencing conflicts (Stankey & Schreyer,

1987).

Information and education also play key roles in indirect management (LaPage,

1983). While these tools can be used in direct management, they can also be used to

expand visitors' understanding, explain the role of management apropos specific issues,

reduce conflicts between groups, and encourage users' to follow no-trace tactics (Hendee

& Dawson, 2002). For example, Lucas (1985) found that directional signs and

information boards were deemed acceptable (or lacking) by various trail users. Thus,

these signs were seen as an overall improvement to the recreational experience, adding

education and safety features (i.e. directions) to the various trails.

In sum, a review of the management literature indicates that an indirect

management approach should be the first step in resolving conflict and increasing

visitors' satisfaction levels. This tactic would allow visitors the most freedom and would









be subtler than the direct approach (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). However, it should be

noted that a combination of the two approaches generally brings about the greatest

success in conflict management (such as the boater conflicts discussed in this study).

Summary

Based on the literature discussed in this chapter, the use of a normative approach

for analyzing noise-related conflicts in outdoor recreation areas seemed very viable.

After relying on past studies as guidelines for the creation of a survey, the normative

approach should produce illuminating data on: 1) users' conflicts and acceptance levels

regarding noise in a natural setting and; 2) satisfaction levels of the different boating

groups. This study should be able to assist natural resource managers in the future to: 1)

control noise-related damage to the environment; 2) regulate dissatisfaction levels related

to noise issues and; 3) identify the optimum conditions recreational users expect in

outdoor recreation settings. Because perceptions of impacts vary greatly between

individuals, this study will only focus on the effects of human-induced noise on the

different boater groups present at Waldo Lake, Oregon.











Conceptual Model

The model depicted in Figure 1 predicts that the participating boater groups'

tolerance levels and noise perceptions will be influenced by activity style. Previous

studies examined in this section have indicated a relationship between individuals' choice

of activity and their overall perceptions of human-induced noise. This correlation should

apply to the current Waldo Lake study. In this thesis, a focus will be placed on the

conflict between motorized and non-motorized boater groups. For the purpose of this

research, activity style is seen as a mediating variable between human-induced noise and

its effects on boaters' overall experience. The conceptual model predicts that boaters'

overall experience will be influenced by activity style (motorized/non-motorized

boating). The presence of different types of noise is also expected to affect boaters'

overall experience.























Activity Style
(Motorized / Non-motorized)
(Mediating Variable)


Human-Induced Noise


Motorized
Noise


Overall
Experience


Figure 1: Conceptual Model.















CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

This chapter introduces the research methods used in this study and is divided into

six sub-sections. The first section addresses the general background of the study. The

second describes the area where this study was performed. The third and fourth segments

detail data collection and sampling procedures as well as selection of subj ects,

respectively. The fifth section describes the survey instrument used, including questions

pertaining to noise. Finally, the last portion briefly outlines the statistical processes used

to analyze data pertaining to the Waldo Lake study.

Background

The research in this study was collected as part of the larger National Visitor Use

Monitoring (NVTUM) study funded by the United States Forest Service (USFS). The

NVTUM study is currently being implemented throughout the country and focuses on

understanding visitor use patterns, expectations, desires, and satisfaction levels within

USDA Forest Service lands.

Thesis research was conducted using a quantitative research framework. The

research instrument was an on-site, interview survey designed to investigate several

aspects of recreational use at Waldo Lake as well as different user groups in the area. A

survey refusal sheet (Appendix B) was completed by unwilling participants in order to

collect general data on non-respondents. Data recorded on this sheet included

information about apparent gender, apparent race, group size, boat length, boat power,

boat type, and the reason for not participating in the survey (if given). This information









was used to better assess the types and numbers of different boat users in the area and,

more importantly, to test for non-response bias. However, since the survey refusal sheet

was rarely needed (N=6), the non-response bias was minimal.

The survey (Appendix A) included many relevant items from previous visitor use

surveys. Yet, questions used in the survey were also modified specifically for Waldo

Lake. For example, questions dealing with user satisfaction were also included in the

body of the survey. Satisfaction measures were based on prior studies, which utilized

similar satisfaction statements to create a satisfaction index (Graefe & Fedler 1986,

Graefe & Drogin, 1989; Robertson, & Regula, 2001). Statements were measured on a

Hyve-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree"; statements

were then combined to create the satisfaction index. Moreover, an additional ten-point,

single-item, overall satisfaction measure was also utilized in this study, as was done by

Graefe (1989) and others in previous work.

Site Description

Waldo Lake is located within the Willamette National Forest in Central Oregon.

The terrain adj acent to the lake is characterized by moderate to steep slopes, numerous

basins, small meadows, and rocky outcroppings (such as Mt. Yoran peaking at 7, 144

feet) (Williams, 2002). Approximately 98% of the area is forested with Douglas fir,

western hemlock, western fir, and some true fir (Williams, 2002). Waldo Lake, itself,

covers an area of about ten square miles and is at an elevation of approximately 5,414

feet (Williams, 2002). Moreover, it is regarded as one of the largest olglitrophic lakes in

Oregon, the second deepest natural lake in the state, and one of the three purest lakes on

earth. Waldo Lake is adj acent to the Three Sisters Wilderness Area, and it is noted for

the crystal clear water it receives from melting snow. As a result, the water chemistry of









this pristine lake is often compared to that of distilled water. On a clear day, the extreme

transparency of the lake allows for visibility down to 100 feet. This is particularly

remarkable when considering the lake's average depth 128 feet. Its maximum depth is

estimated at approximately 420 feet (Williams, 2002).

Recreational usage of Waldo Lake dates back to the late 1800's when five access

trails from the neighboring town of Oakridge were established (Williams, 2002). The

first campgrounds were established in the late 1930's by the Civilian Conservation Corp

(CCC), and by 1960, Waldo Lake' s recreational infrastructure included the same

improved and upgraded facilities found today (Williams, 2002). Currently, Waldo Lake

contains 205 developed campsites, equipped with bathrooms and information kiosks,

spread throughout three main campgrounds. There are also three boat ramps and more

than 50 primitive sites located around the lake. The lake can be reached by way of four

paved access roads and numerous hiking, biking and horse trails. Although no specific

visitor counts were available for Waldo Lake, the US Forest Service has experienced an

increase in usage through the 1980's and 1990's (Williams, 2002). This increased use, in

combination with natural events (such as the 1996 Waldo fire), has elevated concerns

regarding the management of the area.

Data Collection & Sampling Procedures

Respondents were selected using a stratified sample in order to include the various

different users of the Waldo Lake area. These groups included: boaters, campers, hikers,

bikers, horseback riders, and other day visitors. Each sampling day of the thirty-day

sampling period began by discerning the developed recreation site(s) that were

experiencing the most use. Once this was determined, a high-volume location was

surveyed for approximately two hours before another site was chosen. This was done to









insure that a maximum number of responses would be completed over the entire

sampling period. During each two-hour sampling period, different types of visitor sites

(e.g., campsites, boat ramps, trailheads, etc.) were observed. Sampling of the Waldo

Lake area was dependent on several factors. First and foremost, access to the site was

affected by the past winter' s snow accumulation and subsequent melting rate. According

to previous data collected by the US Forest Service, Waldo Lake is normally fully

accessible around the last week of June. During this past winter, however, snow

accumulation in the area was considerably lower than average; thus, leading to an earlier

opening date than previous years. Past research has also shown that Waldo Lake's most

popular months are between late-July and mid-September, and that the highest use days

are Friday through Sunday.

Based on prior visitor data, sampling for this project began on June 21, 2003 and

was only conducted on weekends until July 4, 2003. Sampling days were then increased

through July to include random weekday sampling periods until the end of the sampling

period on September 30, 2003. Breakdowns of the number of surveys per day, per day of

the week, per month, and by survey locations, are described in Tables 1 through 4,

respectively. Sampling days were approximately six to eight hours in length and were

concentrated at various locations (Table 4) depending on use level (as mentioned earlier

in this section). At a confidence interval of 0.05, it was estimated that a 5.4% margin of

error could be achieved if 400-500 respondents, of the estimated 4000-5000 summer

visitors during an approximate 30-day period, were sampled successfully.












Table 1: Surveys per Sampling Day.
Survey Date n %
6/20/2003 3 1.0
6/21/2003 5 1.6
6/22/2003 3 1.0
6/24/2003 4 1.3
6/25/2003 7 2.3
6/26/2003 4 1.3
7/3/2003 8 2.6
7/4/2003 15 4.8
7/5/2003 10 3.2
7/6/2003 7 2.3
7/8/2003 5 1.6
7/9/2003 3 1.0
7/10/2003 7 2.3
7/14/2003 11 3.5
7/15/2003 5 1.6
7/16/2003 9 2.9
7/18/2003 6 1.9
7/19/2003 15 4.8
7/20/2003 7 2.3
7/21/2003 8 2.6
7/22/2003 6 1.9
7/25/2003 12 3.9
7/26/2003 6 1.9
7/27/2003 8 2.6
7/30/2003 10 3.2
7/31/2003 7 2.3
8/1/2003 8 2.6
8/2/2003 17 5.5
8/3/2003 5 1.6
8/6/2003 11 3.5
8/8/2003 16 5.1
8/9/2003 28 9.0
8/10/2003 6 1.9
8/12/2003 9 2.9
8/15/2003 2 0.6
8/16/2003 2 0.6
8/17/2003 2 0.6
8/18/2003 1 0.3
8/21/2003 2 0.6
8/24/2003 1 0.3
8/27/2003 1 0.3











Survey Date n %
9/1/2003 1 0.3
9/2/2003 1 0.3
9/6/2003 3 1.0
9/7/2003 2 0.6
9/14/2003 1 0.3
9/20/2003 10.3
(n= 3 11

Table 2: Number of Surveys per Day of Week.
Day of Week n %
Monday 3 1 10.0
Tuesday 37 11.9
Wednesday 3 1 10.0
Thursday 21 6.7
Friday 62 19.9
Saturday 87 28.0
Sunday 42 13.5
(n= 3 11

Table 3: Number of Surveys per Month.
Month n %
June 26 8.3
July 165 53.1
August 111 35.7
September 9 2.9
(n= 3 11


n %
106 24.7
72 16.7
69 16.0
64 14.9
63 14.7
40 9.3
6 1.4
3 0.7
4 0.9
2 0.5
1 0.2


Table 4: Number of Surveys per Location.
Location
1. North Waldo Campground
2. Shadow Bay Campground
3. Shadow Bay Boat Ramp
4. Islet Campground
5. North Waldo Boat Ramp
6. Islet Boat Ramp
7. Harralson Horse Camp
8. North Waldo Picnic Area
9. Shadow Bay Parking & Trail Head
10. Shadow Bay Beach Area
11. Islet Beach
(n= 3 11




































Fiue2:W lo aead iiit ieMa UDAFrs Srie,20)

The ma nFgr lutae h cesrue n erainststa eeue
asitrep onsbytesrvyr hrewr hremi ccs ote otelaei h

eat n hs point containd bthl boat ~ rap n eeoe am ra.Teewr
als tr ihead and da-s ra npoiiyt hselctos ipre apie

loae ntewetr oto o h aewrentsree during jthedt oleto

process du otm n rnpraincntant.Ised h vrih akn ra









located adj acent to the Shadow Bay boat ramp, Islet Bay boat ramp, and the North Waldo

boat ramp, were visited several times each sampling day in an attempt to survey

dispersed campsite visitors as they returned to their vehicles. Sample points in Figure 2

are based on the numerical key established in Table 4.

Selection of Subjects

The sample population consisted of visitors using the area for both terrestrial and

water-based recreation, including both motorized and non-motorized boating, hiking,

camping, and other day-use activities. Survey locations were selected based on the

amount of use observed at the different types of recreational areas per diem. Sampling

days were selected as previously mentioned and were only altered during days of poor

weather and extremely low visitor turnout. Surveying occurred during subjects' visit, or

as visitors were exiting the area. Only respondents 18-years-old and older were

interviewed in this study. Only boaters who agreed to participate in the survey were

included in this study in order to achieve a maximum number of responses. Interview-

style surveys were implemented and all surveys were completed, coded, and analyzed by

the principal investigator of this proj ect.

Instrumentation

An interview-style, visitor-use questionnaire was chosen over other data collecting

methods because respondents had the opportunity to ask for clarification on any of the

items within the survey instrument. This type of survey was also beneficial because the

surveyor was able to include all types of recreationists who used the Waldo Lake area.

Survey questions not previously used in other studies were pre-tested in March 2003 in a

mail survey to boaters at the Timucuan Preserve area in Jacksonville, Florida.









The creation of the survey instrument was assisted by holding two focus groups in

Springfield, Oregon. These meetings included the varied users of Waldo Lake as well as

some United States Forest Service (USFS) officials. The purpose of the meetings was: 1)

to obtain a better understanding of the role Waldo Lake plays in outdoor recreation in

central Oregon and; 2) to determine the conflicts that existed between the user groups of

Waldo Lake. During the two sessions, a common dislike for noise and motorized use

was identified. Moreover, the maj ority of participants perceived the lake' s ideal role as a

place for non-motorized styles of recreation. Individuals chosen to participate in the

meetings were from various motorized and non-motorized groups, and care was taken to

hear arguments from both sides.

Following these focus-group meetings, survey questions were created to further

examine some of the more pertinent issues at Waldo Lake. In particular, questions

separating recreation types and questions pertaining to noise conflicts were partially

derived from the results of these meetings. Two variables were used to measure the

relationship between user groups and their perceptions (of the effects) of human-induced

noise. These variables investigated: the effects of mechanical noise on the respondent' s

own outdoor experiences; and the effects of this noise on the environment around them.

Questions about noise impact perceptions were presented in both Likert-styled format

and as an itemized list of choices. A series of noise-related questions were used to

determine the types and degrees of noise that was heard by respondents. One of these

questions listed different noise types to determine what kinds of human-induced noise

affected visitors. The next question in the survey was presented in a Likert-scale format

and was used to determine the amount of interference these noises had on their overall

recreation experience. Specifically, this was accomplished by asking respondents the










degree to which types of noise interfered with various aspects of their experience

(including enj oyment of the area, appreciation of the natural quiet, appreciation of the

sounds of nature, and the appreciation of the cultural significance of the area). This

perception question was measured from one ("not at all interfering") to five ("extremely

interfering").

In addition to a survey, previous studies (Burson, 2002; Krause, 2001) dealing with

noise in outdoor recreation settings utilized high-tech equipment (e.g., sound level

meters, laptop computers, and other sound recording equipment). However, these

instruments were not used to measure sounds in outdoor settings in this proj ect due to the

expense and difficulty in obtaining these instruments. Instead, survey questions were

used to determine the specific types of noise present in the Waldo Lake area and to what

extent these noises negatively affected visitors' experiences.

Data Analysis

Data collected from the study site was entered into a statistical software program,

SPSS 12.0, to be analyzed. A complete descriptive profile (e.g., mean, median, standard

deviation, and frequency distribution) of respondents' demographic and trip

characteristics (gender, noise types, usage type, experience levels, activity types, length

of visit, boat size and type, primary power source, and preferred management opinions)

was obtained to create a picture of the typical Waldo Lake user. A new variable was then

created using SPSS to collapse boat users into two distinctive headings: motorized and

non-motorized primary boat users. This distinction was later compared to other noise-

based variables.

Next, a series of bivariate tests of correlation were conducted to confirm that all of

the items in the satisfaction index were coded correctly and positively so that the










"strongly agree" category was equivalent to a Hyve. Then the satisfaction items were

analyzed for reliability as a completed multi-item index. The same statistical analyses

were repeated for the noise interference index, the motor boating management index, and

the motor boating impact index.

Subsequently, t-tests compared both human-induced and motorized noise to the

satisfaction index and the ten-point satisfaction scale, which was taken directly from the

survey. In particular, the Pearson-product moment correlation tested the relationships

between human-induced and motorized noise variables and the satisfaction index and the

10-point satisfaction scale. Additional t-tests were also used to detect differences

between boater groups in terms of noise strength, activity style, and noise impacts.

Furthermore, index items were analyzed to assure valid testing of the variables.

Following this, a crosstabulation was performed to examine the differences

between the two different groups (motorized versus non-motorized boaters) with regards

to whether or not overall experiences were negatively affected by human-induced noise.

The significance of this comparison was then assessed by utilizing a Chi-Square test.

This test was used to determine if there was a significant relationship between the user

groups and perceptions of human-induced noise.

An additional series of crosstabulations were then performed on each of the

individual types of noise to assess the relationships between motorized and non-

motorized groups in relation to each specific type of noise. Attention was given to

identifying the types of noise that detracted from visitors' overall experiences. Noise

types included: dogs, cars/trucks/planes, loud music, motorboats, power generators, and

other noise types. Chi-square analyses were again used to assess the significance levels

of the user groups' responses to noise type.















CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter describes the results of the on-site survey and is divided into six

sections. The first section details the general user profile. In particular, concentration is

placed on watercraft usage, gender, state of residence, miles traveled, visitor type, length

of visit, and activity choice. The second segment presents the descriptive statistics of

certain survey questions needed for hypothesis testing and is split into four subsections.

Based on these results, the third portion, then, addresses the issues of satisfaction and

noise, as outlined in the first research question (or hypothesis). Subsequently, section

four analyzes the relationships between activity style and satisfaction levels, as described

in this thesis' second research question. The third research question, regarding the

relationships between activity style and noise opinions, is covered in section five.

Finally, differences in users' opinions, in regards to motorized boating impacts and

management, are highlighted; thus, investigating the fourth and final research hypothesis.

General User Profile

A total of 430 Waldo Lake recreationists were surveyed during the summer months

of 2003 from June through September. The sample group consisted of various types of

visitors with different recreational goals. For the purpose of this thesis, only boaters

(n=311, see Table 5) were studied in order to better address "within user group" conflict.

The rest of this chapter will only deal with boaters' responses. The general descriptive










profile of the respondents in this study is represented in tables five through thirteen

below.

Table 5: Usage of Watercraft.
Usage of Boat N %
Yes 311 72.3
No 119 27.7
Note: n=430

Within the boaters' subset, individuals were divided by activity style (defined as

motorized vs. non-motorized use). Activity styles were identified by asking boaters to

indicate their primary boat power. Motorized users were defined as using gas, diesel, and

electric power, and non-motorized users relied on paddles, sails, or oars. As seen in

Table 6, the motorized boater group consisted of 27% of the boaters' subset, while the

non-motorized boater group represented 73%.

Table 6: Boater Activity Style Based on Type of Power.
Primary Power N %
Gas 80 25.9
Diesel 0 0.0
Electric 4 1.3
Total Motorized boater group 84 27.2
Paddle/Oar 180 58.3
Wind/Sail 45 14.6
Non-motorized boater group 225 72.9
Note: n=309

Among the 311 boaters interviewed, two-thirds (67%) were males and one-third

(33%) were females (Table 7). According to previous research by Cordell (1999), a 2: 1

ratio is typical for boating and many other outdoor activities.

Table 7: Gender of Respondents.
Gender n %
Male 202 66.7
Female 101 33.3
Note: n=311










Respondents were also asked to indicate their state of residence. As depicted in

Table 8, most of the boaters were from Oregon (94%). Only six participants were from

California (2%), and five were from the state of Washington (2%). This shows that

respondents were primarily from the western states surrounding Oregon.

Table 8: Respondents' State of Residence.
State n %
Oregon 290 93.9
California 6 1.9
Washington 5 1.6
Florida 2 0.6
Alaska 1 0.3
Arizona 1 0.3
New Jersey 1 0.3
Nevada 1 0.3
Ohio 1 0.3
Wisconsin 1 0.3
Note: n=309.

The next survey question asked individuals to estimate the distance traveled from

their residence to Waldo Lake (Table 9). Results indicate that the average distance

traveled to the lake was 251 miles with a standard deviation of 766. The median distance

traveled was 110 miles, and the mode equaled 70 miles. Thus, it appears that boaters

traveled from a range of distances. Obviously, these results (particularly that of average

distance traveled) were positively skewed by the small number of boaters (n=13) that

traveled more than 500 miles to reach Waldo Lake. Moreover, since Waldo Lake is

located in a relatively unpopulated portion of the state, it is not surprising that 41% of

respondents traveled between 101-200 miles to reach the site. These individuals are

probably from the major metropolitan areas of Ashland, Portland, and Salem. In

addition, approximately 50% of boaters traveled less than 100 miles to reach the lake,

probably coming from the nearby urban centers of Bend, Eugene, Corvallis, and










Oakridge. These two previously described variables (state of residence and miles

traveled) sugge st that Waldo L ake i s m ore of a local or regi onal attract on/de sti nati on.

Table 9: Miles Traveled to Waldo Lake.
Miles Traveled N %
< 50 miles 24 8.1
51-70 miles 47 15.8
71-100 miles 73 24.5
101-200 miles 121 40.6
201-500 miles 20 6.7
501+ miles 13 4.4
Note. n =298; M~ean=251; Std Deviation =766.

A series of additional survey questions (e.g., estimated length of stay, first-time

vs. repeat visit, and number of years visiting Waldo Lake) were used to further profile

Waldo Lake users. In terms of trip duration (Table 10), a majority of interviewees (57%)

indicated that they planned to stay at Waldo Lake for two to three days. An additional

22% of respondents intended on staying four to seven days, while less than one-tenth

(9%) planned on remaining more than one week. Average length of stay was 3.8 days

with a standard deviation of 3.32. As for visitor status (Table 1 1), over three-quarters

(78%) of respondents indicated that they had visited Waldo Lake in the past, while about

one-fifth (22%) were first-time visitors. It should also be noted that Waldo Lake

currently has a 14-day maximum stay. Therefore it is not surprising that very few

respondents reported staying longer (1%).

Table 10: Average Length of Stay.
Length of Stay n %
1 day or less 39 12.8
2-3 days 172 56.6
4-7 days 67 22.0
8-14 days 24 7.9
15+ days 2 0.7
Note. n=304; M~ean=3. 8; Std. Deviation=3. 32.










Table 11: Waldo Lake Visitor Status.
First visit n %
Yes 68 21.9
No 243 78.1
Note: n=311

The average number of years respondents (repeat visitors only) had been visiting

Waldo Lake was 8.2 years with a standard deviation of 9.70 (Table 12). Besides the 23%

of boaters who were visiting Waldo Lake for the first time, 100 (or 33% of all boaters)

had been coming to Waldo Lake to recreate for 4-15 years respectively.

Table 12: Amount of Years Visiting Waldo Lake.
Number of Years n %
First visit 68 23.3
1-3 years 76 24.9
4-15 years 100 32.8
16-25 years 33 10.8
26+ years 25 8.2
Note: n=302; M~ean=8. 2; Std. Deviation=9. 70.

Respondents were, furthermore, asked to indicate the activities they participated in

during their current trip (Table 13). Activity categories were not mutually exclusive,

since visitors could have participated in multiple activities. Over 98% of respondents

stated that they came to the lake to "relax, hang out, and escape the heat and noise of their

everyday lives." Viewing natural features (97%) and wildlife (92%) were also extremely

popular activities. In terms of boating activities, 78% of interviewees were involved in

non-motorized water travel, which included the use of sailboats, rafts, canoes, rowboats,

and kayaks. Other non-motorized activities (including swimming, games and sports) also

attracted 76% of users.

Motorized recreation, on the other hand, appeared to be much less popular at

Waldo Lake. Driving for pleasure (32%) seems to have been the most popular

mechanized activity. Furthermore, motorized water travel was participated in by 30% of










respondents, while four wheelers and dirt bikes were used by only three percent of

respondents.

Respondents were also asked to select a primary activity-their main reason for

coming to Waldo Lake. In response, 40% of users selected "relaxing, hanging out, and

escaping heat, noise etc.," as their primary activity. An additional 26% of individuals

pointed to non-motorized water travel, while only eight percent reported motorized water

travel as their primary activity. Thus, non-motorized activities appear to have garnered

more interest and participation than motorized ones.

Table 13: Activities Participated in and Primary Activity While Visiting Waldo Lake.
Activity type Primary Activity2
Description of Activity n % n %
Relaxing, hanging out, escaping heat, noise, etc. 306 98.4 124 40.4
Non-motorized water travel 242 77.8 81 26.4
Camping in developed sites 235 75.6 46 15.0
Motorized water travel 92 29.6 24 7.8
Bicycling/mountain biking 85 27.3 8 2.6
Other non-motorized activities (swimming, games,
238 76.5 6 2.0
sports)
Backpacking/Camping in unroaded areas 24 7.7 6 2.0
Viewing natural features 303 97.4 3 1.0
Picnic and family gatherings 224 72.0 3 1.0
Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc. 286 92.0 2 0.7
Hiking/walking 235 75.6 2 0.7
Gathering natural products (mushrooms, berries,
180 57.9 2 0.7
firewood, or other)
Driving for pleasure 99 31.8
Fishing 98 31.5
Nature study 63 20.3
Visiting prehistoric/historic sites 60 19.3
Visiting a nature center/nature trail 17 5.5
Four wheeling/dirt bikes 8 2.6
Note: Items were not mutually exchtsive since respondents could choose more than one
activity. Th7~e primary activity was mutually exchtsive.










Descriptive Analysis of Noise-Related Variables

This section includes the descriptive statistics that are later used in conjunction

with various statistical tests to answer the research questions posed in this thesis.

Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percent, reliability analyses, means, and

standard deviations, are described in detail as they relate to each of the following

analyses. Results from this portion of the chapter are then elaborated upon as the thesis'

four hypotheses are addressed.

Satisfaction

The survey participants were asked to rate their overall experience at Waldo Lake

on a ten-point Likert scale, with one being "the worst possible experience" and ten being

"the best possible experience." On average, respondents rated their experience as an 8.6

on the ten-point scale (Table 14). This indicates that most respondents were highly

satisfied with their visit, which is further reinforced by the fact that only 2.6% of

individuals rated their experience at or below six. In addition, no respondents rated their

overall experience below four on the satisfaction scale.

Table 14: Ten-Point Overall Satisfaction Scale.
10-point Satisfaction Scale n %

2 0
3 0
4 1 0.3
5 3 1.0
6 4 1.3
7 33 10.7
8 116 37.5
9 76 24.6
10 76 24.6
Note: n=309; M~ean=8.6; Std. Deviation=1.10. 1=Worst experience, 10=Best possible
experience.










An additional indicator of satisfaction, the satisfaction index, was also created

using multi-item scales. The satisfaction index is based on the work of Graefe (1986) and

others. As depicted in Table 15, over 50% of respondents expressed (strong) satisfaction

in each of the four index items. It appears, then, that most respondents enjoyed their time

at Waldo Lake; and negative impacts from noise occurrences were not enough to lessen

the degree of satisfaction. In fact, 95% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the

statement: Thoroughly enjoyed my trip. "

Table 15: Satisfaction Index Item Descriptives.

Satisfaction Index Items n SD D Und A SA Mean Std Dev.

1. Disappointed with some
307 55.4% 25.7% 6.8% 11.4% 0.70% 1.8 1.04
aspects of trip
2.Trp ota ejoabe s 309 65.4 23.3 6.1 3.9 1.34 1.5 0.87
expected it to be
3. Trip well worth the
310 1.0 3.9 11.9 26.8 56.5 4.3 0.90
money spent
4. Thoroughly enjoyed trip 310 0.3 1.6 2.6 29.0 66.5 4.6 0.66
Note: SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, Und=Undecided, A=Agree, SA=Strongly
A gree.

In order to test the internal consistency of the four-item satisfaction index, a

reliability analysis was performed. This analysis was conducted by having respondents

indicate their level of agreement with each satisfaction index item on a five-point Likert

scale (with one being "strongly disagree" and five being "strongly agree"). Index items

that were worded in a negative context (i.e. items one and two) were recorded to match the

direction of the positive statements. Table 16 displays the results of the reliability

analysis along with the means and standard deviations of each individual item. Means

for each item ranged from 4.2 to 4.6, indicating that most boaters were satisfied. Also,

the standard deviations of each item were relatively low (SD<1.04), signifying a

moderate level of agreement within the sample.










Moreover, the standardized alpha for the satisfaction index was moderately reliable

(oc=0.66). Table 16 demonstrates that all index items strengthened the satisfaction index,

except for item three ("Trip well worth the money spent"). Even though this particular

item did not add to the overall value of the index, the difference was regarded as minor

enough so as not to warrant removal of the item from the index.

Table 16: Reliability of Satisfaction Index.
Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
Mean Std Dev.
Total Correlation Deleted
Satisfaction index items
1. Not disappointed with some
4.2 1.04 0.432 0.567
aspects of my trip
2 Trip was as enjoyable as I 4.5 0.85 0.529 0.488
expected it to be'
3. Trip well worth the money
4.4 0.91 0.260 0.679
spent
4. Thoroughly enjoyed trip 4.6 0.66 0.520 0.528
Standardized Alpha= 0.66
Note: Original items were negatively worded. Items as seen above were recorded to
match existing positive statements. 1 =Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree.


Human-Induced Noise

Descriptive statistics in this section begin by focusing on the impacts of human-

induced noise on Waldo Lake users. Respondents were asked if their overall experience

was impacted by human-induced noise (Table 17). In response, over one-third (35%) of

all boaters affirmed that their experience had, indeed, been affected by human-induced

noise. These individuals (n=108) were then asked to identify the types of noise that

impacted their visit to Waldo Lake.

Table 17: Human-Induced Noise Impacts on Overall Experience.
Impacts by Human-Induced Noise n %
Overall experience was impacted 108 34.7
Overall experience was not impacted 203 65.3
Note: n=311.










Table 18 indicates that power generators (15%) were the most common type of

noise to impact visitors' overall experiences at Waldo Lake. Motorboats (12%) and dogs

(12%) also seemed to interfere with respondents' overall experiences. Also,

cars/trucks/planes (5%) and loud music (7%) were identified by respondents, but to a

lessened degree. This finding may be the result of respondents failing to identify these

types of noise as impacts. It may also be related to user expectations by the respondents.

Since most users have long associations with Waldo Lake, these noises may have become

an expected and tolerated part of their experience. Finally, 15% of interviewees selected

"other types of noise" as bothersome. Upon elaboration in a follow-up question, "other

types" were defined as human yelling, rowdiness and late-night parties (see Appendix C

for a list of open-ended responses).

Table 18: Human-Induced Noise Types that Impacted Overall Experience.
Noise Types n %
Power generators 47 15.1
Other types of noise 46 14.8
Motorboats 38 12.2
Dogs 37 11.9
Loud music 23 7.4
Cars/trucks/planes 15 4.8
Note: n=108. Items are not mutually exclusive and so do not equal 100%.

In analyzing the aforementioned human-induced noise variables, it was

determined that it would also be important to examine the number of different types of

noise chosen by individual respondents. Therefore, individuals were grouped based on

the number of noises they listed as bothersome (Table 19). As stated earlier, 65% of

respondents indicated that no human-induced noise affected their overall experience.

However, 16% of participants indicated only one type of noise as negatively interfering

with their experience, while nine percent reported two noise types and seven percent










chose three noise types. Only two percent of users viewed four to six noise types, in

combination, as bothersome.

Table 19: Number of Human-Induced Noises Selected.
Number of Types. n %
0 203 65.3
1 51 16.4
2 28 9.0
3 22 7.1
4 4 1.3
5 1 0.3
6 2 0.6
Note. n=311; M~ean=0.7; Std. Deviation=1.1~2.

Motorized Noise

Motorized noise was examined independently of the human-induced noise variable

to assess any perception differences between the boater groups in terms of the types of

noise that impacted their experiences. Question 20 from the survey was used to

determine if motorized noise had impacted the respondents' trip to Waldo Lake (See

Appendix A). This was done by selecting those respondents who chose mechanized

forms of noise from the list of noise types presented in question 20 of the survey. The

results of these frequencies are reported in Table 20, below.

As described in Table 20, three-fourths (74%) of respondents reported that they

were not bothered by motorized noise while visiting Waldo Lake. This means that in

general, respondents did not choose any forms of mechanized noise from the list of noise

types listed within question 20 of the survey. This finding is similar to what was reported

in Table 14, where a maj ority of the respondents (65%) were not bothered by human-

induced noise. These findings will be described in further detail to explain the

hypotheses of this study.










Table 20: Motorized Noise Impacts on Overall Experience.
Impacts of Motorized Noise n %
Not bothered by motorized noise 229 73.6
Bothered by motorized noise 82 26.4
Note. n=311.

A frequency analysis was performed to assess the number (0-3) of different

motorized noises considered irksome by each respondent (Table 21). As mentioned

previously, approximately 74% of respondents were not bothered by any motorized

noises. However, 21% of respondents reported negative interference by just one type of

motorized noise. A small minority (5%) identified two types of noise, and only two

respondents (0.6%) were bothered by three different types of motorized noise.

Table 21: Number of Motorized Noises Selected.
Number of Types n %
0 229 73.6
1 66 21.2
2 14 4.5
3 2 0.6
Note. n=311; M~ean=0.3, Std. Deviation=0. 59.

Interference and Conflict

A noise interference index was created to assess the degree of interference

experienced by the occurrence of motorized noise on four individual aspects of outdoor

recreation and appreciation. These aspects included: "enjoyment of the area,"

"appreciation of the natural quiet," "appreciation of the sounds of nature," and

"appreciation of the historical/cultural significance of the area." This index was

considered an important part of this study in examining how motorized noise actually

affected visitors to Waldo Lake, and to show the differences in how the different boater

groups (motorized and non-motorized) felt about these noise impacts.










The noise interference descriptive table below examines the individual interference

items used to create the noise interference index. These questions were only asked of

boaters who reported that they were disturbed by motorized noise (n=82). However, all

respondents (n=229) who were not bothered by motorized noise were given a one on each

of the item scales. This signified that these users did not perceive interference from

motorized noise. Each item was measured on a five-point Likert scale with one being

"not at all interfered" and five being "extremely interfered." As Table 22 suggests, over

70% of respondents stated that the occurrence of motorized noise did not at all interfere

with their enj oyment of the area. The maj ority of participants also reported that

motorized noise did not at all interfere with their appreciation of the natural quiet (72%)

or the sounds of nature (72%). Moreover, the average Likert value of these first three

items was on average 1.6 to 1.7, indicating that many individuals were not terribly

bothered by motorized noise. For the fourth variable, appreciation of the

historical/cultural significance of the area, 85% of individuals stated that motorized noise

was not at all interfering.

Table 22: Interference Index Item Descriptives.
Interference Index Items Not S M VM Ext Mean Std Dev.
1. Enjoyment of area 72.7% 8.4% 11.3% 6.4% 1.3% 1.6 1.01
2. Appreciation of natural quiet 71.7 7.7 11.9 5.5 3.2 1.7 1.09
3. Appreciation of sounds of
72.3 6.8 11.3 5.5 4.2 1.7 1.14
nature
4. Appreciation of the
hltocliutualsgnf.ac 84.6 4.5 7.1 1.6 1.9 1.3 0.83
Note: n=311; Not=Not at all, S=.1/ighly,~ M=Moderately, VM= Very M~uch,
Ext=Extremely.


Once again, a reliability analysis was utilized to determine the internal consistency

of each of the four items used in the interference index. Table 23 displays the results of










the reliability analysis along with the means and standard deviations of each individual

item. Means for items in the index ranged from 1.3 to 1.6, implying that most

respondents experienced only slight to no interference due to motorized noise. The

standard deviations of each item were also generally low (SD <1.14), indicating a

moderate level of agreement within the sample.

The standardized alpha for the interference index was also highly reliable (oc=0.95).

With the exception of item four, all items strengthened the reliability of the index. Since

deleting item four did not change the reliability appreciably, it was retained.

Table 23: Reliability of Noise Interference Index.
Corrected Item- Alpha if
Std
Mean Total Item
Dev.
SCorrelation Deleted
Noise Interference Index Items
1. Enj oyment of area 1.6 1.01 0.928 0.913
2. Appreciation of natural quiet 1.7 1.09 0.960 0.902
3. Appreciation of sounds of 1 .4 95 .90
nature
4. Appreciation of the
historical/cultural significance 13 08 .8 .8
Standardized Alpha= 0.95
Note: n=311.

Motorized Boating Impacts

In order to measure the different opinions of motorized boating impacts among the

respondents, the motorized boating impact index (MBI) was created. This index assists

in developing a picture of what the boater groups (motorized / non-motorized) feel about

the impacts of boating on Waldo Lake.

Table 24 presents the descriptive statistics for items related to the motorized

boating impact index (MBI Index). Each of the four items in the index was measured on

a five-point Likert scale, with one being "strongly disagree" and five being "strongly










agree." When asked about primitive recreational experiences (item one), respondents

agreed (22%) or strongly agreed (51%) that motorized boating had a negative impact.

Respondents also felt strongly (indicated by a mean Likert value of 4.6) that pollution by

motorized vessels needed to be addressed (item two). In terms of impacts to wildlife

(item 3) as well as effects on water resources (item four), respondents generally took a

pro-environmental perspective. A majority of respondents (65%) strongly agreed that

motorized activities negatively impacted wildlife; and the vast maj ority (93%) strongly

disagreed that "motorized boating has no affect on water quality." This fourth and final

variable was negatively worded in the original survey design, and was recorded for use in

the MBI index. For the purposes of this table, however, the average response was 1.4 on

the five-point scale. In its original form, this item illustrates that respondents believed

that motorized boating does cause adverse damage to water resources.

Table 24: Motorized Boating Impact Index Item Descriptives.

MBI Index Items SD D Und A SA Mean Std Dev.

1. Motor boating has a negative
4.2% 9.0% 12.9% 22.5% 51.4% 4.1 1.17
impact on primitive recreation
2. Pollution from motorized
1.0 1.6 3.2 29.3 65.0 4.6 0.73
boating needs to be controlled
3. Motorized activities negatively 42 1. 90 1. 50 39 12
impacts wildlife
4. Motorized boating has no
effcton atr qalty67.8 24.8 5.5 1.6 0.3 1.4 0.70
Note: n=311; SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, Und= Undecided, A =Agree,
SA =Strongly Agree.

Internal consistency of the index, as determined by a reliability analysis, is

presented in Table 25. To reiterate, item 4 was reworded and recorded due to its original

negative tone. The means for the four items included in the MBI index ranged from 3.9

to 4.6, indicating that most respondents tended to agree or strongly agree with MBI










statements. Standard deviations for each item were also low (SD<1.22), implying a

moderate level of agreement in the sample. In addition, the standardized alpha for the

MBI index was highly reliable at 0.87.

Table 25: Reliability of Motorized Boating Impact Index (MBI).
Corrected Alpha if
Std
Mean Item-Total Item
Dev.
SCorrelation Deleted
MBI Index Items
1. Motorized boating has negative
4.1 1.17 0.810 0.795
impacts on primitive recreation
2 Pollution from motorized boating
4.6 0.73 0.754 0.835
needs to be controlled
3. Motorized activities negatively
3.9 1.22 0.784 0.814
impacts wildlife
4. Motorized boating has an affect
1 4.6 0.70 0.674 0.860
on water quality
Standardized Alpha= 0.87
Note: Original itents regarded as negative statements. Itents reworded and recorded to
match existing positive statements. 1=Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree. No itents
were deleted fiom index.


Motorized Boating Management

Proposed management actions were also measured in this study to determine if

differences existed between the boater groups (motorized / non-motorized) in terms of

their opinions about motorized management plans. In order to accomplish this, the

motorized boating management index (MBM Index) was created from four individual

items from the survey.

Table 26 presents the descriptive statistics for the items in the motorized boating

management index (MBM). Unlike previous index items, three of the MBM items were

measured on a three-point scale (with one = "oppose," two = "not sure," and three =

"favor"). The fourth item in the MBM index was originally based on a five-point scale

ranging from one ("strongly disagree") to five ("strongly agree"). However, it was










transformed into a three-point scale in order to match the other variables: negative

responses ("strongly disagree" and "disagree") and positive responses ("strongly agree"

and "agree") were re-categorized as "oppose" and "favor," respectively.

Within the MBM index, respondents were asked about management topics

involving motorized boating. Approximately 67% of respondents favored permitting

only non-motorized boats and electric motor access to the lake (2.4 mean Likert value

with SD of 0.87). Moreover, 79% of interviewees supported zoning certain sections of

the lake for non-motorized use. The mean Likert value for this item was 2.6 with a SD of

0.73. The next item in the index revealed that 88% of individual's advocated control

over the level of noise generated by motorized recreationists. A high mean Likert value

of 2.8 (with a SD of 0.55) further emphasized the level of group agreement on this issue.

Finally, the last item in the MBM index demonstrated that a maj ority of respondents

(73%) favored limiting motorized boating to four-cycle engines. Of note, this item

garnered the highest percentage of "not sure" reactions (13%).










Table 26: Motorized Boating Management Index Item Descriptives.
MBM Index Items Oppose Not Sure Favor Mean Std Dev.
1. Only permit non-motorized boats and 51 62 08
electric motors in Waldo Lake
2. Certain sections of the lake should be
15.1 5.5 79.4 2.6 0.73
limited to non-motorized boating'
3. Control the level of noise from
7.1 5.5 87.5 2.8 0.55
motorized recreation
4. Limit motorized boat motors to 4-
14.1 12.5 73.3 2.6 0.73
cycle engines only
Note: n=311; Original survey item was on a 5-point scale 0I irlh I =Strongly Disagree
and 5=Strongly Agree. The item was transfo~r~ rmedr~rt~t~rtrt~ into a 3-point scale to match existing
M~BM items.



Results from the reliability analysis, including means and standard deviations of

each individual item, are presented in Table 27. As already touched upon, the means for

the MBM index ranged from 2.4 to 2.8, indicating that most of the respondents tended to

favor the MBM statements. Since standard deviations of each item were also low

(SD<0.87), there appears to have been a moderate level of agreement among the sample.

Furthermore, the standardized alpha for the MBM index was considered moderately

reliable at 0.71. All of the individual items strengthened the reliability of the scale.

Table 27: Reliability of Motorized Boating Management Index (MBM).
Corrected Alpha if
Std
Mean Item-Total Item
Dev.
SCorrelation Deleted
MBM Index Items
1. Only permit non-motorized boats
2.4 0.87 0.601 0.580
and electric motors in Waldo Lake
2 Certain sections of the lake should
2.6 0.73 0.492 0.651
be limited to non-motorized boating
3. Control the level of noise from
2.8 0.55 0.442 0.686
motorized recreation
4. Limit motorized boat motors to
bcyle ngies nly2.6 0.73 0.487 0.654
Standardized Alpha= 0.71
Note: 1=Oppose, 2=Not sure, 3=Favor. No items were deleted fr~om index.









Research Questions and Hypotheses Testing

R1: Does the occurrence of noise affect boaters' overall experiences at Waldo
Lake?

HIA: Human-induced noise does not affect boaters' overall experience at Waldo Lake.

Previous research has determined that noises which do not regularly occur in a

natural area can be seen by many as an annoyance (Anderson, Mulligan, Goodman &

Regen, 1983; Fiddell et al., 1996; Green & Fiddell, 1991). Thus, this study hypothesized

that an increase in the number of noise types considered bothersome by visitors would be

met by a proportional decrease in overall satisfaction. To test this idea, the relationships

between noise and overall satisfaction were examined. In particular, an independent

sample t-test was performed with the ten-point satisfaction scale and the impacts by

human-induced noise question (see Table 14). The findings of this analysis (Table 28)

show that those respondents who checked "yes" to being bothered by human-induced

noise also reported a lower level of satisfaction, on average, than their counterparts (t=-

2.10, p<0.05).

An additional independent sample t-test was also conducted with the satisfaction

index, and it, too, revealed a significant difference in satisfaction scores between users (t=

-2.46, p<0.05). Specifically, respondents who found human-induced noise interfering

enjoyed significantly less satisfaction than those who were not affected by such noise

(Table 28).










Table 28: Human-Induced Noise Impacts by Satisfaction Independent Sample t-tests.
Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig.
10-pt Satisfaction Scalel
Yes 8.4 1.20 -2.10 0.037
No 8.7 1.04
Satisfaction IndeX2
Yes 4.3 0.59 -2.46 0.014
No 4.5 0.61
Note. 10~-point satisfaction scale was coded fr~om 1 to 10. 1=worst possible experience
and 10=best possible experience; n=309.
2 The satisfaction index ranzged fr~om 1, indicating low satisfaction, to 5, indicating high
satisfaction; n=310.

Table 29 depicts the relationships between the number of bothersome human-

induced noise, on the one hand, and the overall 10-point satisfaction scale and

satisfaction index, on the other hand. A negative relationship was found to exist between

the satisfaction scale variable and the number of negatively-impacting human-induced

noises chosen by respondents (p=0.020). Although a Pearson's r-value of -0.13 indicates

a weak inverse relationship between the variables, the relationship is still significant.

A significant relationship was also found to exist between the number of human-

induced noises chosen by respondents and the satisfaction index. A Pearson's r-value of

-0.20, again indicates a weak inverse relationship. In sum, these results demonstrate that

as the number of bothersome noises increased, respondents' satisfaction (based on both

the satisfaction scale and the satisfaction index) decreased.

Table 29: Number of Human-Induced Noise Types.
Variables n Mean Std Dev. Correlation (r) Sig.
Number of types of HIN 311 0.7 1.12
Overall satisfaction scale 309 8.6 1.10 -0.13 0.020
Satisfaction index 310 4.4 0.61 -0.20 <0.001










HIB: Motorized noise does not affect boaters overall experiences at Waldo Lake.

Motorized noise is considered a subset of the human-induced noise variable. Based

upon previous studies emphasizing conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users,

motorized noise was analyzed as a separate entity. To determine if the occurrence of

motorized noise really impacted satisfaction experience, independent t-tests were

performed. Those respondents who did not consider motorized noise as negative impacts

tended to have a higher mean satisfaction value (8.6 out of 10), while those respondents

that were affected by motorized noises reported a mean score of 8.4 (Table 30).

Although a slight reduction in satisfaction was observed, the difference was not

significant (t=1.23; p>0.05).

An additional t-test was performed to determine if motorized noise had an impact

on the satisfaction index. Again, a slight difference in mean satisfaction values was noted

between those who were affected by motorized noise (4.3 out of 5) and those who were

not (4.4 out of 5); but that difference was not significant (t=1.55, p>0.123).

Table 30: Motorized Noise Impacts by Satisfaction Independent Sample t-tests.
Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig.
10-pt Satisfaction Scalel
Yes 8.4 1.13
1.23 0.222
No 8.6 1.09
Satisfaction IndeX2
Yes 4.3 0.56
1.55 0.123
No 4.4 0.62
Note: 10~-point satisfaction scale coded fiom 1 to 10. 1=worst possible experience and
10=best possible experience; n=309.
SSatisfaction index created using four individual satisfaction items, measured on 5-point
scales. 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree. Cronbach 's Alpha=0.66;n=310.


Table 31 depicts the relationship between satisfaction (measured by the satisfaction

scale and the satisfaction index) and the number of motorized noises found bothersome










by respondents. Results show that a significant relationship does not exist between the

overall satisfaction scale variable and the number of different motorized noises identified

as bothersome by respondents (p=0.257). However, a significant relationship was found

between the number of negative motorized noise types and the satisfaction index. A

Pearson' s r-value of -0. 128 implies a significant, but weak, inverse relationship between

the variables. In summary, as respondents identified greater numbers of bothersome

motorized noises, their satisfaction (as defined by the satisfaction index) decreased.

Table 3 1: Number of Motorized Noise Types Chosen.
Variables n Mean Std Dev. Correlation Sig.
Number of types of MN 311 0.3 0.59
Overall satisfaction scale 309 8.6 1.10 -0.06 0.257
Satisfaction index 310 4.4 0.61 -0.13 0.025



Based upon the results described within the context of the first research question

and sub-hypotheses, it can be concluded that noise can affect the satisfaction levels of

boaters visiting Waldo Lake. In the case of human-induced noise impacts, decreased

levels of satisfaction were reported by those who were impacted by the occurrence of

human-induced noise. However, it was revealed that overall satisfaction levels were still

considerably high among all of the respondents in this study, indicating that human-

induced noise impacts were present at Waldo Lake, but not to an alarming degree.

Also, when looking at the motorized noise impacts on satisfaction levels, no

significant differences between the groups was reported. Again, respondents generally

reported high levels of satisfaction in both the single-item scale and the satisfaction

index, indicating that this type of noise (motorized) was not perceived as a problem for

the recreational boaters at Waldo Lake. It should be noted for this sub-hypothesis that a

relationship was discovered with the number of motorized noises chosen by respondents










and the satisfaction index. As the number of noises increased, satisfaction levels were

negatively affected. This relationship was only evident within the index, and not the

other satisfaction measure.

R2: Does activity style affect overall experience differently?

H2A: There is no difference in overall experience between motorized and non-motorized

boaters .

The second research question of this thesis investigates the possibility that activity

style (motorized boating vs. non-motorized boating) impacts respondents' reported levels

of satisfaction. Results in Table 32 demonstrate that there are, indeed, significant

differences in satisfaction (based on the satisfaction index and the satisfaction scale)

based on respondents' activity choice. For example, the non-motorized group reported a

mean satisfaction value of 4.5 as compared to 4.2 by motorized users. The ten-point

satisfaction scale depicted similar results with the non-motorized boaters, again, reporting

higher levels of satisfaction (mean=8.7) than motorized users (mean=8.2). Both of these

differences were significant (p < 0.002). Thus, it appears that activity style does play a

significant role in the satisfaction of respondents.

Table 32: Activity Style and Satisfaction Independent Sample t-tests.
Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig.
10-pt Satisfaction Scale'
Motorized Boaters 8.2 1.0
-3.74 <0.001
Non-Motorized Boaters 8.7 1.1
Satisfaction Index2
Motorized Boaters 4.2 0.71
-3.09 0.002
Non-Motorized Boaters 4.5 0.57
Note: 10-point satisfaction scale coded fiom 1 to 10. 1=worst possible experience and'
10=best possible experience; n=309.
SSatisfaction index created using four individual satisfaction items, measured on 5-point
scales. 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree. Cronbach's Alpha=0.66; n=310.










R3: Does activity style affect boater opinions about noise?

H3A: There is no difference between impacts and opinions of human induced noise

between boater groups.

The third research question in this thesis addresses the relationships between

activity style and opinions regarding noise. Crosstabulation analyses with chi-square

tests of significance were performed to assess significant relationships between

respondent groups (motorized vs. non-motorized users) based on their reactions to certain

noises (Table 33). Both activity groups were first analyzed based on whether or not

respondents were negatively impacted by human-induced noise. Subsequently, activity

groups were examined based on their evaluation of certain noise types (e.g., generator,

motorboat, dog, car/truck/plane, loud music, other) as irksome. Among the seven

previously mentioned categories, only two showed significant differences based on

activity style. Approximately 40% of the non-motorized group was affected by human-

induced noise as opposed to 21% of their motorized counterpart. Moreover, this

difference was found to be significant (p = 0.003); thus, showing that there is a

significant difference between boater groups regarding their opinions of human-induced

noise.

The second noise category that was statistically significant involved motorboat

noise. Thirty-six non-motorized respondents complained of motorboat noise; a statement

that was echoed by only one motorized user. Thus, the difference between groups was

found to be significant (p < 0.001). The five other noise categories were not statistically

significant by activity style.










Table 33: Cross-tabulation of Boater Groups and Impacts of Human Induced Noise.
Yes No
Boater Groups 12 12 23S
% %
Human-Induced Noise Overall Experience Impacts
18 66
Motorized Boaters
21.4 78.6
8.88 0.003
89 136
Non-Motorized Boaters
39.6 60.4
Individual Human-Induced Noise Types
Generator Noise Impacts
8 76
Motorized Boaters
9.5 90.5
2.62 0.106
38 187
Non-Motorized Boaters
16.9 83.1
Motorboat Noise Impacts
1 83
Motorized Boaters
1.2 98.8
12.73 <0.001
36 189
Non-Motorized Boaters
16.0 84.0
Dog Noise Impacts
6 78
Motorized Boaters
7.1 92.9
2.55 0.110
31 194
Non-Motorized Boaters
13.8 86.2
Car/Truck/Plane Noise Impacts
1 83
Motorized Boaters
1.2 98.8
3.35 0.067
14 211
Non-Motorized Boaters
6.2 93.8
Loud Music Impacts
9 75
Motorized Boaters
10.7 89.3
1.79 0.181
14 211
Non-Motorized Boaters
6.2 93.8
Other Noise Impacts
11 73
Motorized Boaters
13.1 86.9
0.29 0.589
35 190
Non-Motorized Boaters
15.6 84.4



Differences between the number of human-induced noise types identified as

bothersome by respondents and activity style was further examined (Table 34). Non-










motorized boaters found more noises bothersome (mean=0.8) than the motorized group

(mean=0.4). Moreover, this difference between the two boater groups was found to have

a t-value of2.46 and to be significant (p = 0.026). These results indicate that non-

motorized boaters were more sensitive to human-induced noise impacts.

Table 34: Number of HIN Types and Activity Style Independent t-tests.
Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig.
Number of HIN Sources
Motorized Boater 0.4 0.95
-2.46 0.026
Non-Motorized Boater 0.8 1.16
Note: n=309.

H3B: There is no difference between impacts and opinions of motorized noise between

boater groups.

Beyond looking at the different perceptions of human-induced noise held by

different activity groups, this study specifically examined evaluations of motorized noise.

In so doing, emphasis was placed on the multi-item Interference Index (see Table 22),

which used four variables to assess the levels of interference experienced by users.

Incorporation of this index in an independent sample t-test revealed a significant

difference between boater groups regarding the amount of interference experienced from

motorized noise (Table 35). Specifically, non-motorized users reported higher levels of

interference (mean=1.4-1.8) than the motorized group (mean=1.1-1.3). This finding

supports the stipulation that those involved in motorized recreational activities may have

a higher tolerance for motorized noise, even when they, themselves, are not involved in

said activity (Ivy et al., 1992). Differences between activity groups were all significant at

<0.01.










Table 35: Interference Index and Activity Style Independent Sample t-tests.
Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig.
Noise Interference Index
Motorized Boaters 1.2 0.65
-4.10 <0.001
Non-Motorized Boaters 1.6 1.02
1. Enj oyment of area
Motorized Boaters 1.3 0.73
-3.695 <0.001
Non-Motorized Boaters 1.7 1.08

2. Appreciation of natural quiet
Motorized Boaters 1.3 0.76
-4.136 <0.001
Non-Motorized Boaters 1.7 1.17
3. Appreciation of sounds of nature
Motorized Boaters 1.3 0.76
-4.237 <0.001
Non-Motorized Boaters 1.8 1.22
4. Appreciation of the historical/cultural significance
Motorized Boaters 1.1 0.49
-3.018 0.003
Non-Motorized Boaters 1.4 0.92
Note: n=309.

An additional independent sample t-test was performed to determine the mean

differences between boating groups (motorized vs. non-motorized) in regards to the

number of motorized noises labeled as irritating by respondents (Table 36). Results

indicated significant differences between the motorized and non-motorized boater groups

(t=-4.90, p<0.001). Specifically, the non-motorized boater group chose more motorized

noises (mean=0.39) than their motorized boater counterparts (mean=0.12). This finding

indicates that the non-motorized group was more susceptible to motorized noise impacts

than the motorized boater group.










Table 36: Number of Motorized Noise Types and Activity Style t-tests.
Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig.
Number of motorized noises chosen
Motorized Boaters 0.12 0.33 -4.90 <0.001
Non-Motorized Boaters 0.39 0.64
Note: n=309.
From the analyses presented in this research question, it can be concluded that

activity style does affect the opinions of noise between the respondents at Waldo Lake.

The sub-hypotheses describe opinion differences between the boater groups by revealing

that non-motorized boaters tended to be more susceptible to impacts from human-induced

and motorized noise. The results also indicated that non-motorized boaters chose more

individual noise types in both the human-induced and motorized noise categories, thus

showing the increased susceptibility of non-motorized boaters experiencing impacts from

the occurrence of noise.

R4. Are the attitudes and opinions about impacts from motorized boating and select
management actions different between the boating groups?

H4A: There is no difference in the attitudes about proposed management and the

perception of motorized boating impacts based on activity style.

The fourth and final research question of this thesis looks at the possible

discrepancies between the two boater groups (motorized vs. non-motorized) in terms of

motorized boating impacts and proposed management actions. In general, this research

question evaluates the relationships between noise, impacts, and proposed boating

management. In order to accomplish this, results from the Motorized Boating Impact

Index (MBI; see Tables 24 and 25) and the Motorized Boating Management Index

(MBM; see Tables 26 and 27) were examined by activity style. Independent t-tests were

utilized to describe the mean differences between the motorized and non-motorized

boating groups based on their opinions (Table 37).










Within the MBI index, the non-motorized boater group reported a much higher

mean Likert value (mean=4.6) compared to the motorized group (mean=3.5). The

difference between the boater groups in terms of this index was found to have a t-value of

-14.60 and to be significant (p < 0.001). This finding indicates that non-motorized

boaters tended to agree or strongly agree with the opinion that motorized boating can

create negative impacts; whereas, the motorized group was more neutral in their beliefs.

As for the MBM index, the non-motorized boater group, again, reported an

increased mean Likert value (mean=2.8) compared to the motorized group (mean=2.0).

The difference between the boater groups was found to have a t-value of -12.49 and to be

significant (p < 0.001). From this statistical analysis, it can be determined that, on

average, non-motorized boaters tended to favor more motorized boating regulations than

the motorized group.

Table 37: MBI/MBM Index and Activity Style Independent Sample t-tests.
Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig.
MBI Index
Motorized Boaters 3.5 0.72
-14.60 <0.001
Non-Motorized Boaters 4.6 0.57
MBM Index
Motorized Boaters 2.0 0.56
-12.49 <0.001
Non-Motorized Boaters 2.8 0.31
Note: n=309.

In addition to the independent-sample t-tests used on the complete MBI and MBM

indices, each of the four individual items in both indices was evaluated by activity style.

These additional t-tests were used to distinguish the individual significance of each of the

items in the MBI and MBM indexes. For the MBI index (Table 38), each individual item

was significant (p < 0.001), further demonstrating differences between the two boating

groups. In fact, mean scores indicate that non-motorized boaters tended to (strongly)










agree that motorized boating poses negative impacts; while, motorized boaters,

understandably, were more neutral.

Table 38: MBI Index items and Activity Style Independent Sample t-tests.
Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig.
1. Motorized boating has no affect on water quality'
Motorized Boaters 4.0 0.74
-9.00 <0.001
Non-Motorized Boaters 4.8 0.54
2. Motorized boating has a negative impact on primitive recreation
Motorized Boaters 2.8 1.0
-13.74 <0.001
Non-Motorized Boaters 4.6 0.83
3. Pollution from motorized boating needs to be controlled
Motorized Boaters 4.0 0.89
-8.09 <0.001
Non-Motorized Boaters 4.8 0.49
4. Motorized activities negatively impacts wildlife
Motorized Boaters 2.6 1.1
-14.18 <0.001
Non-Motorized Boaters 4.4 0.91

Note: Original items regarded as negative statements. Items reworded and recorded to
match existing positive statements. 1 =Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree.


The individual items of the MBM index were also evaluated by activity style.

Differences between the motorized and non-motorized boating groups were identified in

terms of users' opinions towards motorized boating management actions. However,

unlike the MBI variables, the MBM items were measured on a three-point Likert scale.

Nonetheless, each of the four statements was individually tested using a crosstabulation

and a chi-square analysis to show the significance of existing differences between the

two boater groups (Table 39). Based upon the table, each item was found to be

significant (p < 0.001). Moreover, non-motorized users tended to favor additional

management than their motorized counterparts. For instance, 87% of non-motorized

boaters (vs. 14% of motorized users) favored limiting access to non-motorized boats and

electric motors (see item one). Similar results are evident for the remaining three items.










Table 39: Cross-tabulation of Boater Groups and Motor Boating Management Opinions.
Oppose Not Sure Favor
Boater Groups n 2 S

1. Only permit non-motorized boats and electric motors
61 11 12
Motorized Boaters
72.6 13.1 14.3
154.63 <0.001
17 13 195
Non-Motorized Boaters
7.6 5.8 86.7
2. Certain sections of the lake should be limited to non-motorized boating
29 9 46
Motorized Boaters
34.5 10.7 54.8
42.74 <0.001
18 8 199
Non-Motorized Boaters
8.0 3.6 88.4
3. Pollution from motorized boats needs to be controlled
17 12 55
Motorized Boaters
20.2 14.3 65.5
50.40 <0.001
5 5 215
Non-Motorized Boaters
2.2 2.2 95.6
4. Limit motors to 4-cycle engines only
32 18 34
Motorized Boaters
38.1 21.4 40.5
70.02 <0.001
12 21 192
Non-Motorized Boaters
5.3 9.3 85.3
Note: Original survey item was on a five-point scale II ilh, I =Strongly Disagree and
5=Strongly Agree. The item was transformed into a 3-point scale to match existing M~BM\~
items.

H4B: Human-induced noise does not affect boaters' attitudes about proposed

management and opinions of motorized boating impacts.

MBI and MBM results were also broken down by reaction to human-induced noise

(Table 40). Independent sample t-tests revealed that significant differences in opinion

(concerning motorized boating impacts and management) existed between those

respondents that were impacted by human-induced noise and those that were not. Within

the MBM index, respondents that were bothered by human-induced noise reported a

higher mean score (mean=2.8) than those that were not (mean=2.5). The differences

between the groups had a reported t-value of4.02 and were significant (p < 0.001). This










analysis, therefore, demonstrates that individuals who reported experiencing impacts

from human-induced noise tended to favor greater management of motorized boaters.

Within the MBI index, respondents that were disturbed by human-induced noise

reported a higher mean (mean=4.5) than their counterparts (mean=4.2). The differences

in the mean scores were also significant (p < 0.001), suggesting that those respondents

impacted by noise, agreed more strongly that motorized boating produces impacts.

Table 40: MBM/MBI Index and Human-Induced Noise Independent Sample t-tests.
Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig.
MBM Index (n=309)
Bothered by HIN 2.8 0.40
4.02 <0.001
Not bothered by HIN 2.5 0.57
MBI Index (n=309)
Bothered by HIN 4.5 0.71
3.71 <0.001
Not bothered by HIN 4.2 0.87


Once again, each of the individual items in the MBI and MBM indexes were tested;

this time in relation to human-induced noise perceptions. These additional tests were

used to show the individual significance of each of the items used in the two indexes.

Independent sample t-test results show that each individual MBI item was significant at

the 0.001 level, except for the water quality variable, which was significant at the 0.05

level. Respondents that were bothered by human-induced noise displayed higher mean

Likert scores than their counterparts, signifying that the former group (strongly) agreed

that motorized boating poses negative impacts.












Table 41: MBI Index items and Human-Induced Noise Independent Sample t-tests.
Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig.
1. Motorized boating has no affect on water quality
Bothered by HIN 4.7 0.59
2.23 0.026
Not bothered by HIN 4.5 0.75
2. Motorized boating has a negative impact on primitive recreation
Bothered by HIN 4.4 1.05
3.70 <0.001
Not bothered by HIN 3.9 1.20
3. Pollution from motorized boating needs to be controlled
Bothered by HIN 4.7 0.53
3.37 0.001
Not bothered by HIN 4.5 0.80
4. Motorized activities negatively impacts wildlife
Bothered by HIN 4.2 1.09
3.29 0.001
Not bothered by HIN 3.7 1.27
Note: Original items regarded as negative statements. Items recorded to match existing
positive statements. 1=Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree.


The four MBM items were also evaluated. Yet since this index consisted of three-

point Likert scale statements, each statement underwent cross-tabulation to show the

descriptive statistics. Chi-square analyses were also implemented to test the significance

of those differences (Table 42). Index item one ("only permit non-motorized boats and

electric motors in Waldo Lake") generated significant opinion differences between

groups (p = 0.001). Moreover, item two (limiting sections of the lake to non-motorized

boating) and item four (limiting boating to four-cycle engines) were both found to have

significant differences (p = 0.04). Item three (addressing pollution from motorized

vehicles), however, did not generate significant responses. All in all, results depict

greater support for motorized boating management by respondents that were affected by

human-induced noise.










Table 42: Cross-tabulation of HIN and Opinions of Motor Boating Management.
Oppose Not Sure Favor
Variables n n n 2ZSg

1. Only permit non-motorized boats and electric motors
11 8 89
Affected by HIN
10.2 7.4 82.4
20.35 0.001
67 16 120
Not Affected by HIN 3 7 5.
2. Certain sections of the lake should be limited to non-motorized boating
9 5 94
Affected by HIN
8.3 4.6 87.0
6.45 0.040
38 12 153
Not Affected by HIN 8 5 7.
3. Pollution from motorized boats needs to be controlled
3 8 97
Affected by HIN
2.8 7.4 89.8
5.56 0.062
19 9 175
Not Affected by HIN 94448.
4. Limit motors to 4-cycle engines only
9 18 81
Affected by HIN
8.3 16.7 75.0
6.26 0.044
35 21 147
Not Affected by HIN
17.2 10.3 72.4
Note: Original survey item was on a five-point scale 0I irlh I =Strongly Disagree and'
5=Strongly Agree. The item was transformed into a 3-point scale to match existing M~BM\~
items.


H4c: Motorized noise does not affect boaters' attitudes about proposed management

actions and opinions of motorized boating impacts.

MBI and MBM indexes (as well as their individual items) were also examined in

relation to perceptions of motorized noise (Tables 43 and 44). Similar t-tests,

crosstabulations, and chi-square analyses were performed as before. Within the MBM

index, respondents that were affected by motorized noise reported a higher mean Likert

score (mean=2.8) than those who were not (mean=2.5). The differences between the

groups had a t-value of -5.01 and were significant below 0.001. Interpretation of these










results reveal that individuals impacted by motorized noise tended to favor greater

motorized boating management.

Similarly, within the MBI index, respondents that were affected by motorized noise

agreed more intensely that motorized boating produced negative impacts. To illustrate, t-

tests revealed that those respondents that reported being disturbed by motorized noise,

reported a higher Likert score (mean=4.6) than their counterparts. This difference in

mean scores was found to be significant (p < 0.001) as shown in Table 43.

Table 43: MBM/MBI Index and Motorized Noise Independent Sample t-tests.
Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig.
MBM Index
Bothered by Motorized Noise 2.8 0.34
-5.01 <0.001
Not bothered by Motorized Noise 2.5 0.57
MBI Index
Bothered by Motorized Noise 4.6 0.60
-5.24 <0.001
Not bothered by Motorized Noise 4.2 0.87
Note: n=309

Again, each item in the MBI and MBM indexes was tested against the perception

of motorized noise. These additional t-tests were used to show the individual

significance of each of the items used in creating the MBI index (Table 44). Each

individual MBI item was significant (p < 0.001) and, unsurprisingly, individuals who

were irritated by motorized noise, were also more strongly in agreement that motorized

boating produces negative impacts on water quality, primitive recreation, pollution, and

wildlife.










Table 44: MBI Index Items and Motorized Noise Independent Sample t-tests.
Variables Mean Std Dev. t Sig.
1. Motorized boating has no affect on water quality
Bothered by Motorized Noise 4.8 0.38
-5.12 <0.001
Not bothered by Motorized Noise 4.5 0.76
2. Motorized boating has a negative impact on primitive recreation
Bothered by Motorized Noise 4.6 0.87
-5.46 <0.001
Not bothered by Motorized Noise 3.9 1.2
3. Pollution from motorized boating needs to be controlled
Bothered by Motorized Noise 4.8 0.47
-4.15 <0.001
Not bothered by Motorized Noise 4.5 0.78
4. Motorized activities negatively impacts wildlife
Bothered by Motorized Noise 4.3 1.1
-3.59 <0.001
Not bothered by Motorized Noise 3.8 1.3
Note: 1 Original items regarded as negative statements. Items recorded to match existing
positive statements. 1=Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree.


Crosstabulation and chi-squared analyses of each of the MBM three-point items,

produced somewhat analogous results. Two of the four management items garnered

greater "favor" from users that had been impacted by motorized noise. For instance,

index item one ("only permit non-motorized boats and electric motors in Waldo Lake")

produced significantly different responses (p < 0.001): 87% of bothered recreationists

favored this action as opposed to 60% of unbothered individuals. Likewise, 92% of

impacted respondents agreed that "certain sections of the lake should be limited to non-

motorized boating" (item two); versus 75% of their counterparts (p = 0.007). The

remaining two variables (i.e. items three and four) did not generate statistically

significant replies.










Table 45: Motorized Noise and Opinions of Motor Boating Management Actions.
Oppose Not Sure Favor
Variables n n n X2 S

1. Only permit non-motorized boats and electric motors
6 5 71
Bothered by Motorized Noise
7.3 6.1 86.6
20.61 <0.001
Not bothered by Motorized 72 19 138
Noise 31.4 8.3 60.3
2. Certain sections of the lake should be limited to non-motorized boating
5 2 75
Bothered by Motorized Noise
6.1 2.4 91.5
9.89 0.007
Not bothered by Motorized 42 15 172
Noise 18.3 6.6 75.1
3. Pollution from motorized boats needs to be controlled
2 3 77
Bothered by Motorized Noise
2.4 3.7 93.9
4.58 0.101
Not bothered by Motorized 20 14 195
Noise 8.7 6. 1 85.2
4. Limit motors to 4-cycle engines only
8 10 64
Bothered by Motorized Noise
9.8 12.2 78.0
1.87 0.393
Not bothered by Motorized 36 29 164
Noise 15.7 12.7 71.6



Research question four asks if the attitudes and opinions about impacts from

motorized boating and select management actions are different between the boating

groups. Based upon the results from the aforementioned analyses, it can be concluded

that differences between the groups do actually exist based on activity style, human-

induced, and motorized noise.

The findings from the sub-hypotheses indicate that non-motorized boaters tended to

favor more motorized boating regulations, and also felt more strongly about the impacts

at Waldo Lake created from motorized boating. Analyses describing noise impacts on

these opinions also revealed that those respondents who were impacted by noise (human-

induced / motorized) reported elevated levels of agreement in both the proposed






87


management actions, and motorized boating impacts. It should also be noted that to a

lessened degree, some of the motorized boaters did agree with management actions, and

also were aware of some of the impacts that their recreational pursuits created. This

indicates that motorized boaters to a degree are aware of their impacts, and do agree that

something needs to be done to rectify the issues pertaining to motorized boating at Waldo

Lake.















CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION/DIS CUS SION

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to expand the body of knowledge pertaining to both

satisfaction and conflict literature. Specifically, this study looked at the impacts of noise

and how it affects visitor satisfaction and inter-group conflict among boaters at Waldo

Lake. Understanding the impacts of noise on various user groups in outdoor recreation

settings is important in determining alternative methods of management that may lessen

the adverse effects of noise in these areas. Noise, itself, has been defined in many

different ways. For the purposes of this study, the concept of human-induced noise was

used to include any such noise created by humans that was unnatural in the outdoor

environment. Motorized noise was also singled out in this study due to previous research

that suggested that certain types of conflict between users can arise from the presence of

mechanized noise.

This study examined the relationships and differences between the boating groups

based upon their activity choice, experiences with noise, overall feelings towards

impacts, and proposed management actions towards motorized boating. It was

hypothesized that noise would not affect boaters' overall experiences at Waldo Lake. In

addition, the study also hypothesized that activity style does not affect boaters' opinions

about noise, nor does it affect the overall experiences of boaters while recreating in the

area. This final chapter discusses and interprets the results of the analyses and presents

conclusions based on those findings as well as recommendations for future research.










Summary of Findings

Each of the research questions and the accompanying hypotheses, as listed in Chapter 1,

are discussed here.

Research Question 1: Does the Occurrence of Noise Affect Boaters' Overall
Experiences at Waldo Lake?

H1A: Human-induced noise does not affect boaters' overall experiences at Waldo
Lake.

Hypothesis 1(a) was rej ected, indicating that human-induced noise does affect the

overall experiences of the boaters at Waldo Lake. Under this hypothesis, decreased

levels of satisfaction were related to the occurrence of noise and by increases in the

number of noises chosen by the sample group. For this hypothesis, overall experience

was operationalized by using a single-item, ten-point scale rated from the worst possible

experience to the best possible experience, as utilized in many similar studies. Overall

experience was also measured by creating a satisfaction index based on previous research

conducted by Graefe (1986). The index was comprised of four individual attributes that

describe satisfaction among the boaters. These items were tested for reliability and

combined to create the satisfaction index as described in previous chapters.

Through the use of an independent sample t-test, it was discovered that differences

existed between boaters reporting being negatively impacted by the occurrence of

human-induced noise and the extent to which the noise affected them. On average,

boaters visiting the Waldo Lake area that were affected by the occurrence of human-

induced noise, reported decreased levels of satisfaction. However, only one-third of the

sample (35%) reported suffering any negative effects due to the occurrence of noise.

Also, the levels of satisfaction reported among those respondents were still considerably