<%BANNER%>

Participatory Planning for Recreation Management in Abaco National Park, Bahamas


PAGE 1

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING FOR RECREATION MANAGEMENT IN ABACO NATIONAL PARK, BAHAMAS By LISA CATHERINE MARKS 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 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Lisa Catherine Marks

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to acknowledge the Ab aco community, whose participation and interest were essential to the completion of th is study. I truly apprec iate the time, effort, and willingness each person provided me in sharing his/her experiences and opinions. Special thanks are extended to the Friends of the Environment Abaco, especially to Anita Knowles, and to David Knowles of the De partment of Agriculture for their help in engaging people in this study. I would also like to thank the Bahamas National Trust, who provided extraordinary support and resources. I am extremely grateful to my advisor, Susan Jacobson, for sharing with me her many years of wisdom, guiding me in my research goals, and supporting me throughout this entire project. I would also like to thank my supervisory committee, Taylor Stein and John Confer. They were instrumental in providing insights and suggestions to elevate this work to its full potential. This research would not have been po ssible without funding from the Disney Wildlife Conservation Foundation. To this institution, I extend my deepest gratitude. Special thanks go to my parents, Don and Susan, and to my wonderful husband, Matt, who have been there each day to love and support me. They have grounded me in strong principles and values, and continually challenge me to be my very best and to dream of great things in life. They are behind every one of my accomplishments and I am so grateful to have them walk alongside of me through this life.

PAGE 4

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 USE OF A STAKEHOLDER ANALY SIS IN RECREATION PLANNING.............3 Introduction................................................................................................................... 3 Rationale................................................................................................................3 Objectives..............................................................................................................4 Background...................................................................................................................4 Local Participation in Pr otected Area Planning....................................................4 Stakeholder Analysis.............................................................................................7 Planning for Multiple Use Areas...........................................................................8 Incorporating a Spatial Dimens ion in Recreation Planning................................11 Participatory Mapping in Recreation Planning...................................................12 Methods......................................................................................................................14 Study Site.............................................................................................................14 Stakeholder Analysis...........................................................................................16 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................19 Results........................................................................................................................ .20 Vision Statement.................................................................................................21 Visitation and Recr eation Activities....................................................................21 Spatial Distribution of Activities.........................................................................23 Overlap Between Hunting and Non-Consumptive Uses.....................................25 Temporal Distribution of Activities....................................................................27 Group Mapping: Activity Zone Distribution.......................................................28 Activity Zone Discussion....................................................................................30 Discussion...................................................................................................................31 Commonalities among Stakeholder Groups........................................................32 Tapping into Local Knowledge...........................................................................34

PAGE 5

v Identifying Potential Conflict a nd Opportunities for Prevention........................35 Recommendations...............................................................................................39 Limitations...........................................................................................................42 Conclusion..................................................................................................................43 3 ABACO HUNTER BEHAVIOR, SA TISFACTIONS, AND MANAGEMENT PERCEPTIONS..........................................................................................................68 Introduction.................................................................................................................68 Protected Area Management...............................................................................68 Hunter Satisfaction..............................................................................................71 Study Context......................................................................................................74 Objectives............................................................................................................74 Methods......................................................................................................................75 Study Site.............................................................................................................75 Interview Design and Implementation................................................................75 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................78 Results........................................................................................................................ .79 Characteristics of Participants.............................................................................79 Hunting Frequency and Participatio n in Other Outdoor Activities.....................80 Spatial Patterns of Hunting..................................................................................82 Hunter Satisfaction..............................................................................................82 Perceptions of Management Practices.................................................................85 Discussion...................................................................................................................86 Spatial and Temporal Recreation Patterns..........................................................86 Hunter Motivations and Satisfactions.................................................................87 Harvest and Nonharvest Based Determinants..............................................88 Predictors of Overall Satisfaction................................................................89 Assessment of Hypotheses...........................................................................90 Perceptions of Management Practices.................................................................92 Conclusion..................................................................................................................95 4 CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................116 Comparing Methods: Stakeholde r Analysis and Interviews....................................116 Recommendations.....................................................................................................118 APPENDIX A INDIVIDUAL MAPPING ACTIVI TY MAP AND QUESTIONNAIRE...............123 B VISION STATEMENT IDEAS...............................................................................125 C INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY MA PS BY STAKEHOLDER GROUPS.....................127 D ACTIVITY ZONE DISCUSSION IDEAS .............................................................133 E HUNTER QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................................136

PAGE 6

vi LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................143 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................150

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Vision statement themes...........................................................................................45 2-2 Percent of park area marked for each activity..........................................................45 2-3 Percent of park area mark ed per activity per person................................................46 3-1 Demographic summary of participants....................................................................98 3-2 Participation rates in recreation activities................................................................99 3-3 Hunting of species in each park section...................................................................99 3-4 Mean and percent response to agreement with 19 components of hunter satisfaction...............................................................................................................100 3-5 Correlation coefficients between motivation/satisfaction statements....................101 3-6 Stepwise multiple regression anal ysis for high overall satisfaction.......................103 3-7 Comparison of responses to hunting mo tivation/satisfaction statements between people who hunt wild boar only (N=17) and those who hunt both wild boar and ducks, doves and/or whitecrowned pigeon (N=11)...............................................104 3-8 Effect of age on hunter satisfactions......................................................................105 3-9 Effect of experien ce on hunter satisfactions...........................................................106 3-10 Effect of number of days hunting in the park per year on hunter satisfactions......107 3-11 Effect of age on the support of proposed management options.............................108 3-12 Effect of experience on the suppor t of proposed management options.................109 3-13 Effect of days hunting on the support of proposed management options..............110

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2-1 Location of Abaco National Park.............................................................................47 2-2 Group mapping exercise...........................................................................................47 2-3 Vision statement ideas by stakeholder group...........................................................48 2-4 Overall annual visitatio n to Abaco National Park....................................................48 2-5 Annual visitation to Abaco Nati onal Park by stakeholder group.............................49 2-6 Percentage of people part icipating in each activity..................................................49 2-7 Frequency of activities conduc ted in Abaco National Park.....................................50 2-8 Percentage of park labeled fo r each activity by stakeholder group..........................50 2-9 Distribution of hunting.............................................................................................51 2-10 Distribution of non-consumptive activities..............................................................52 2-11 Distribution of birdwatching....................................................................................53 2-12 Distribution of ecotourism.......................................................................................54 2-13 Distribution of driving..............................................................................................55 2-14 Distribution of education..........................................................................................56 2-15 Overlap in areas defined as “hi gh density” hunting and “high density” nonconsumptive recreation............................................................................................57 2-16 Overlap in areas defined as “h igh density” hunting and “high density” birdwatching.............................................................................................................58 2-17 Overlap in areas defined as “h igh density” hunting and “high density” ecotourism................................................................................................................59 2-18 Temporal distribution of activ ities in Abaco National Park....................................60

PAGE 9

ix 2-19 Percent of park prioritized for each activity zone by stakeholder group.................60 2-20 Hunter group map of desi red future activity zones..................................................61 2-21 Tourism group map of desi red future activity zones................................................62 2-22 Teacher group map of desired future activity zones................................................63 2-23 Sandy Point group map of desi red future activity zones..........................................64 2-24 Business group map of desi red future activity zones...............................................65 2-25 Environmental group map of de sired future activity zones.....................................66 2-26 Stakeholder group compatibility on future activity zone distribution......................67 3-1 Annual visitation to Abaco National Park..............................................................111 3-2 Temporal distribution of hun ting in Abaco National Park.....................................111 3-3 Temporal distribution of non-consump tive activities in Abaco National Park......112 3-4 Section map shown as a reference to participants..................................................113 3-5 Hunter designated favorite places..........................................................................114 3-6 Hunter responses to proposed management activities............................................115 A-1 Base map provided to participan ts in individual mapping activity........................123 C-1 Activities of hunter group members.......................................................................127 C-2 Activities of tourism group members.....................................................................128 C-3 Activities of teacher group members.....................................................................129 C-4 Activities of Sandy Point group members..............................................................130 C-5 Activities of business group members...................................................................131 C-6 Activities of environmental group members..........................................................132

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science PARTICIPATORY PLANNING FOR RECREATION MANAGEMENT IN ABACO NATIONAL PARK, BAHAMAS By Lisa Catherine Marks December 2005 Chair: Susan K. Jacobson Major Department: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation This study involved key stakeholders in recreation management planning for Abaco National Park under the auspices of the Bahamas National Trust. Data were collected using two methods – a stakeholder analysis and pe rsonal interviews. For the stakeholder analysis, meetings were conduc ted with six stakeholder groups: hunters, tourism industry representatives, teachers, business leaders, local community members, and environmentalists. Each meeting invol ved group members in developing a vision statement for the park and in participator y mapping to spatially identify current and desired future uses of the park. Spatial info rmation was entered into ArcGIS software for analysis of trends and overlap among r ecreation activities and between recreation activities and nesting sites of an endangered parrot ( Amazona leucocephala bahamensis ). Subsequently, we conducted 31 interviews with a key stakeholder group, hunters, to incorporate data on their curre nt uses of the park, levels of satisfaction, and opinions about future management.

PAGE 11

xi Results from the stakeholder analysis show that birdwatchers and other nonconsumptive recreationists use areas along the ma in road and coastline of the park most often. In contrast, hunting occurs to a greater extent throughout the interi or of the park. Each stakeholder group varied in its priorities for future la nd use planning of the park; however, all groups allocated park area for eco tourism and infrastructure development. Overlap existed among recreationa l uses and between recreation and parrot nesting sites, indicating that spatia l and/or temporal zoning may be necessary to reduce potential conflict. Consistent with other studies employing the multiple-satisfactions model of hunting, we found that participants are motivat ed primarily by nonharvest-based factors. Among 19 potential components of hunting satis faction, respondents rated hunting with a dog, seeing game animals, getting outdoors, and excitement as their top four motivations. However, a regression model showed that seeing wildlife was the only significant predictor of overall sa tisfaction. Harvest success was not related to overall satisfaction. We also found that hunters were in favor of a variety of management activities. In particular, they recognized the importance of protecting the park ecosystem and are willing to accept management actions that place additional regulations on hunting. When combined together, we found that conducting a stakehol der analysis in conjunction with personal in terviews provides complement ary sociological information valuable for park planning.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Abaco National Park was established in 1994 to protect the endangered Bahama parrot ( Amazona leucocephala bahamensis ) and its diminishing pine forest habitat. To date, little infrastructure or management has been developed for the park. The park incorporates a variety of objectives in addition to parrot protection including opportunities for research, recreation, educati on, and hunting. Long-term achievement of these objectives ultimately will rely on pr oper management. Prior to the 1970s, park regulations often were determined by park managers (Oh et al. 2005). Today, however, the importance of incorporat ing public participation as a way of gaining input and support for management initiatives is well doc umented (Ball 2002; Zurayk et al. 2003). A variety of different methods exist for involving the public in protected area planning and management. These methods rang e from surveys and interviews to public meetings, citizen advisory committees, stakeh older analyses, and collaborative efforts (Grimble & Chan 1995; Jacobson 1999; Smith 2003). Although all of these techniques involve public participation, each requires differing amounts of resources and yields unique information. For this study, we combined a stakeholder analysis with interviews with a key stakeholder group. Stakeholder analyses have been cham pioned for investigating and seeking compromises between different stakeholders wh o affect or are affected by a management policy or action (Grimble & Chan 1995). In natural resource management, the method has proved successful in understanding conflicts, compatibility, and trade-offs in order to

PAGE 13

2 develop appropriate policy. In addition to conducting a stakeholder analysis, we interviewed local hunters, a large, traditional user gr oup of the park. As a key stakeholder group, hunters’ support of park ma nagement activities is uncertain but vital to ensuring the area’s long-term success. In both methods, we integr ated a participatory mapping component. Participatory mapping has been used across disciplines, but has been particularly useful in recreation planning to understa nd the space utilization of an area by various user groups in order to appropriately direct management efforts (Kliskey 1994; Wing & Johnson 2001; Wing & Shelby 1999). This study demonstrates the use of partic ipatory methods to obtain the necessary sociological information to make recommendations for a recreation management plan for Abaco National Park. In chapter two, we de tail our use of a stakeholder analysis for recreation planning while chap ter three focuses on interv iews conducted with local hunters. Although each chapter has its own specific objectives, ultimately our goals included (1) identifying stakeholder needs and desires as well as their compatibility with parrot resource needs, and (2) testing the techniques of a stake holder analysis and interviews for supporting local participati on in the park planning process.

PAGE 14

3 CHAPTER 2 USE OF A STAKEHOLDER ANALY SIS IN RECREATION PLANNING Introduction Rationale Natural resource management lies at the confluence of the social, physical and natural environment (Harris et al. 1995). However, in many instances appropriate sociological information has not been collected or incor porated in natural resource planning and management projects. Frequently, this information is regarded as an “addon” instead of a fundamental component. Human communities that border natural areas, such as national parks, often have historic and significant relationshi ps with those areas (Trakolis 2001). They may depend on the re sources of these areas for subsistence, cultural identity, or physical and emoti onal well-being. Too often, however, the relationships between local communities and protected areas have been ignored and management decisions made without their consideration (Mich aelidou et al. 2002). Where this has occurred, inappropriate decisions, displeased communities, and local hostility often prevail. Because protecte d areas cannot co-exist with neighboring communities that are hostil e to them (Trakolis 2001), understanding individual and community needs and desires as they relate to these areas is critical to ensuring an area’s long-term success. With a growing number of local users and the desire to attract more tourists, recreation management in Abaco National Park is essential. Of primary importance is maintaining the quality of the Caribbean pine forest and endangered Bahama parrot

PAGE 15

4 ( Amazona leucocephala bahamensis ) while accommodating the needs of a growing recreational population. Current ly, little is known about the various people who use Abaco National Park. Therefore, if an appropr iate recreation management plan is to be developed, the characteristics and spatial patterns of a variety of user groups need to be explored. Additionally, investigation into th e desires of different stakeholder groups for the future management of Abaco National Park is essential. Objectives This study demonstrates the use of partic ipatory methods to obtain the necessary sociological information to make recommendations for a recreation management plan for Abaco National Park, Bahamas. The specific objectives are to: 1. Develop a vision statement for Abaco National Park; 2. Examine levels of participation in and spatial patterns of recreation in the park; 3. Examine stakeholder groups’ desired future uses of the park; 4. Identify areas of potential conflict between recreational activities and assess recreational compatibility with parrot resource needs; and 5. Generate recommendations for future ma nagement of Abaco National Park. Background Local Participation in Protected Area Planning The first efforts to incorporate humans into protected area planning involved an assessment of what people ‘need’ by managers and the assimilation of these ‘needs’ into management decisions (Michaelidou et al. 2002 ). However, several studies have shown that resource managers possess different per ceptions than their stakeholders and have difficulties predicting stakeholders’ perceptions and preferences (Absher et al. 1988). In

PAGE 16

5 response to this deficiency, new methods aros e, which furthered the integration of human needs into natural resource management. In recognition of the inti mate relationship between man and the environment, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) wa s passed in 1969 along with other similar initiatives, which mandated public agen cies incorporate publ ic opinion into land management decisions. Since then, the theo ry of incorporating greater stakeholder participation throughout the planning process has progressed, and is now proposed as an alternative for natural resource management (Z urayk et al. 2003). Participatory research seeks to directly involve local people in research so they can become partners in the design of management initiatives from the ons et. A variety of methods exist to achieve local involvement; they range from public surveys to citizen advisory committees, stakeholder analyses, and collaborative e fforts (Grimble & Chan 1995; Jacobson 1999; Smith 2003; Steiner 1991). Although participatory research is inhere ntly more complicated, it has several benefits. Unlike earlier tec hniques, participatory research recognizes that people are capable of identifying and expressing their need s and aspirations themselves (Binns et al. 1997). Additionally, it assumes that local people hold important knowledge that can be accessed through participatory methods and which can complement scientific data (Ball 2002; Zurayk et al. 2003). It is also believed that in orde r to manage ecosystems in which humans are an important component, we need a better understanding of human behavior, which can be solicited through participatory methods (Younge & Fowkes 2003). Another assumption is that particip ation leads to more successful outcomes because of increased partnerships and dial ogue among stakeholders (Zurayk et al. 2003)

PAGE 17

6 and the fact that people are genuinely c oncerned about the outcome (Smith 2003) and have a sense of ownership in the final decision or product. Therefore, public participation is thought to ensure cooperat ion and support for management decisions and be a vital component in developing long-term viable land management strategies (Ball 2002). Although participatory methods are genera lly regarded as an improvement over traditional methods, several factors constrain efforts to involve local people in the management of natural resources. In many cas es the largest limitation is the lack of overlap between project and community in terests (Brandon & Wells 1992). In other words, what the project considers as problems and priorities for the area may not be of interest to local communities. Instead, the community may define a set of needs that conflict with conservation obj ectives. When the goal of the project is community empowerment over resources, the differences between project and local ambitions can result in communities making decisions that counter conservation objectives (Brandon & Wells 1992). Therefore, many pa rticipatory approaches, such as integrated conservation and development projects (ICDP), have drawn criticism from conser vation biologists for failing to ensure adequate protecti on of biodiversity (Browder 2002). Another constraint of local involvement is that it is often difficult to ensure the participation of all affecting or affected actors in the system. In many situations, people are reluctant to participate in projects due to raised expectations that are not met, greater costs than benefits associated with the program, and a lack of trust (Songorwa 1999). In other cases, decisions may benefit one group and meet conservation objectives, but harm another group. These divisions are often ba sed on class, ethnicity, and gender and may

PAGE 18

7 lead to hostility toward the project (Bra ndon & Wells 1992). Finally, even in locations where participatory approaches appear to have been successfully implemented, respondents typically do not have a particul arly favorable perception of the program (Mehta & Kellert 1998). Despite these potential pitfal ls, participatory methods nevertheless show promise in achieving socially-acceptable natu ral resource management and protection. The concept remains strong; however, the methods must adva nce in order to meet the full potential of participatory projects. Stakeholder Analysis Although participatory approaches have made advances in developing strategies for community involvement, they do not necessa rily give insight into understanding and dealing with potential conflict (Grimble & Wellard 1997). Simply increasing the participation of supporters of a project alone will not guarantee that the effort will be successful. Rather the interests of a range of stakeholders who aff ect or are affected by the policy or project must be investigated and compromi ses sought between potential conflicting interests (Grimble & Chan 1995). Stakeholder analysis (SA) is “an a pproach and procedure for gaining an understanding of a system by mean s of identifying the key actors or stakeholders in the system, and assessing their re spective interest in that system” (Grimble & Chan 1995, p.114). Here, stakeholders are defined as “any group of people, organized or unorganized, who share a common interest or stake in a particular issue or system” (Grimble & Wellard 1997, p.175). Any manageme nt policy will have consequences that affect various groups and indivi duals differently. Therefore, to better assess the policy, we must identify the possible effects on a nd likely responses of different groups and

PAGE 19

8 individuals. SA attempts to provide a methodology for the accomplishment of this objective by identifying the different cons equences for stakeholder groups due to a particular management action. Ultimately, th e objective is devel opment of management policies that best suit society as a whole (Grimble & Wellard 1997). Although SA emerged in the field of busin ess management, it has been increasingly applied to natural resource management. SA was first proposed in natural resource management on the basis of the weaknesses of conventional methods in the field for dealing with stakeholder inte rests in policy and project design (Grimble & Chan 1995). It was further supported by the fact that na tural resource management situations, in particular, require an understanding of conflicts compatibility, and trade-offs in order to develop appropriate policy. Typically these s ituations have been described as a “web” of interests, trade-offs, and inte ractions between locals, govern ment departments, planners, and consultants (Grimble & Quan 1993). Th ey are further characterized by multiple users, unclear or open access property rights, temporal trade-offs, the presence of externalities, imperfect markets, and geogra phically widespread probl ems or issues that traverse social, economic and political in stitutions (Grimble & Chan 1995; Grimble & Wellard 1997). All of these characteristics make the development of appropriate and equitable policy difficult. However, applicati on of SA can assist in these complex cases by getting to the core of an issue and unders tanding the conflicts of interest that may preempt the success of a project (Grimble & Chan 1995). Planning for Multiple Use Areas The majority of protected areas are ma naged for multiple uses (Wing and Johnson 2001). Thus, they can have many manage ment objectives including biodiversity conservation, outdoor recreation, tourism, sust ainable forestry, hunti ng, fishing, scientific

PAGE 20

9 research, and environmental education. In many developing countries, neighboring communities rely on the natural resources contai ned within protected areas to meet basic human needs such as food, fuel, and medici ne. Management of these areas can be particularly complex as biodiversity conserva tion must be compatible with providing for human subsistence needs. Recently, the appli cation of participatory research methods in these cases has augmented and proven to be a promising approach to understanding and balancing human needs with conservation. Participatory research methods also can assist managers in dealing with conflict in areas where local people do not re ly on protected areas for subsistence, but rather to meet needs and desires such as physical and emoti onal well-being. Typi cally, these needs and desires are achieved through a variety of recreati onal activities (Driver et al. 1991). Recreation can be either consumptive or non-consumptive. Consumptive users are typically defined as hunters or anglers who actively extract a resource, while nonconsumptive recreationists are considered pa ssive users such as wildlife-watchers and hikers (Duffas & Dearden 1990; Kellert & Brown 1985; Vaske et al. 1982). Although consumptive recreation is typically c onsidered more damaging, over-use by nonconsumptive users may be equally or more ha rmful to the environment (Jelinski et al. 2002). It is commonly believed that the observation of wildlife is harmless, however increasing evidence supports the belief that wildlife viewing can have negative impacts on wildlife including behavioral and physiologica l stress (Jelinski et al. 2002), decreased reproductive success (Miller & Hobbs 2000), an d reduced fitness (Taylor & Knight 2003).

PAGE 21

10 Combining both consumptive and non-consum ptive recreation in the same area is generally believed to create mo re conflict than if the area is only managed for a single type of recreation. According to Jaakson (1988, p.96), “freedom is a central tenet in recreation.” Where different users must share the same area, freedom may be compromised, resulting in diminished r ecreational satisfaction. In particular, consumptive recreation, such as hunting, is th ought to reduce the opportunity for safe and satisfying activities by ot her recreationists. When a combination of many different recr eational uses occurs in the same area, balancing the distribu tion of these uses can pose consid erable challenges for managers and planners. Often these challenges arise when the goals and desires of user groups conflict, creating situations that may comp romise resource use for all groups (Wing & Johnson 2001). Management to alleviate or a void such conflicts re quires a large amount of information such as the number and composition of visitors, demands of different user groups, and potential for conflict between di fferent user groups (Dagmar & Becker 2002). However, in many cases this type of sociological information is missing. Surveys of users provide impor tant information for planners to match park space to local needs and accommodate a growing number of user groups (Hall & Page 2002). Where user needs go unrecognized in the decision -making process, “there is a very real danger that planning will be inefficient, ineffective, and perhaps even misguided” (Jenkins & Walmsley 1993, p.235). As r ecommended by Moore and Graefe (1994, p.18), “an understanding of how recreationists perceive, choo se, and relate to various settings is essential for re searchers attempting to unders tand recreation behavior and managers attempting to provide opportunities for satisfying recreation experiences.”

PAGE 22

11 Therefore, sociological assessments are b ecoming more common as managers seek to understand public and visitor atti tudes, preferences, and beha viors (Flood & McCarville 1999). Incorporating a Spatial Dimension in Recreation Planning Although the incorporation of sociological information is becoming standard in recreation planning, few have addressed the sp atial dimensions of recreation. Just as wildlife do not use the landscap e homogeneously, neither do people. Because of the heterogeneous nature of ecosystems, people of ten cluster their activities based on specific environmental features (Holling 1992). Knowi ng the spatial distribut ion of activities and uses is therefore essential wh en planning for recreation. Many studies have noted the benefit of collecting and analyzing spatial user information (Heatwole & West 1982; Wing & Johnson 2001; Wing & Shelby 1999). Especially in situations where conflict ensues, mitigation requires an understanding of the time and space utilization of the area by va rious user groups (Heatwole & West 1982). For example, in protected areas where tim ber production occurs alongside recreation, management activities such as road closures and harvesting can impact recreation conditions and availability (B runson & Shelby 1992; Vining et al. 1984). However, if planners knew which roads and trails were mo st frequented by recreat ionists, they could avoid potential conflicts (W ing & Shelby 1999). Manageme nt that uses zoning to alleviate conflicting uses also requires a knowledge of how and where areas are used to realize this goal (Heatwole & West 1982). Th erefore, considering vi sitor preferences and travel patterns in the planning process can reduce discord between resource users in a variety of different ways (Wing & Johnson 2001). It is also suggest ed that knowing what

PAGE 23

12 areas are used by which user groups can help direct management efforts (Wing & Shelby 1999). One significant technological innovation that currently ex ists to help planners incorporate social aspects of land use into planning is Geographic Information Systems (GIS) (Hall & Page 2002). W ith the use of GIS software, human behavior can now be described spatially and incorporated into recreation management (Wing & Shelby 1999). One study used GIS to compare models of recrea tion use patterns and visibility in a forest to determine the scheduling of harvest ope rations (Wing & Johnson 2001). In a similar study, the results from a recreat ional trail use survey were combined with maps of potential mountain sheep habita t in a GIS system to determine locations where users may be encroaching on the sheep (Har ris et al. 1995). Another stu dy used surveys of visitors to determine geographical variation in wild erness perceptions (Klis key 1994). Before spatial use patterns can be assimilated into planning and into a GIS database, methods must exist to obtain this information. Common methods have been aerial surveys, analyses of digital photogra phy, and movie cameras (Jaakson 1988). However, none of these methods incorporate public participation. Participatory Mapping in Recreation Planning An emerging method of research in recrea tion management that not only seeks to understand the spatial relationships between people and their environment but also directly involves people in the planning process is participatory mapping. In simple terms, participatory mapping is a method that elicits the relationshi ps between people and their environment by involvi ng community members in drawing maps of their surroundings (Knapp & Herlihy 2001). The foundation for participatory mapping was laid in a seminal study by Lynch (1960) in wh ich he asked a small sample of people in

PAGE 24

13 Jersey City, Boston, and Los Angeles to draw freehand sketch maps of their cities. Results from the exercise helped demonstrat e the ability of sketch maps to reveal information about how people perceive their ci ty of residence. Since then, the method has been applied across a wide range of disciplines including urban planning, anthropology, psychology, and agriculture. Recently, tourism and recreation planners have found utility in the method (Klisk ey 1994; Wing & Johnson 2001; Wing & Shelby 1999). From experience, it is known that each pe rson perceives the world very differently than how it exists in reality. According to Walmsley and Jenkins (1992, p.269), “the real world is too big and too complex for people to know it completely.” Therefore, people are thought to reduce this complexity by subjectively acqui ring, storing, and manipulating information about the environm ent (Jenkins & Walmsley 1993; Walmsley & Jenkins 1992). Because information is sought in a subjective and purposeful way, each individual’s simplification of the real world reflects hi s or her needs and values (Walmsley & Jenkins 1992). The simplified images that people constr uct are known as environmental images, cognitive images, cognitive maps, or mental maps. Simply put, these maps are a summary of an individual’s knowledge, prefer ences, and evaluations of the environment (Walmsley & Jenkins 1992). These mental ma ps in turn have a significant effect on people’s behavior, beliefs, and attitudes re garding places (Jacob & Luloff 1995). For example, recreational day trip behavior is assumed to be dependent upon the cognitive map people form of their spatial environmen t (Aldskogius 1977). Therefore, a study of recreationists’ cognitive maps may lead to a better understanding of da y trip behavior and

PAGE 25

14 aid in marketing recreation opportunities of which visitors are unaware (Aldskogius 1977). It is therefore maintained, that in tourism and recreation planning, we need to understand the cognitive maps of those for wh om we are planning (Jenkins & Walmsley 1993). Numerous methods exist to explore an i ndividual’s cognitive map. However, as cognitive maps are internal re presentations, an external fo rm must be obtained to be examined. This external form can be elic ited through a variety of participatory mapping techniques. By far the mo st popular of the techniques involves individuals drawing sketch maps of an area. A criticism of this methodology, however, is that respondents have a broad range of artistic abilities and so the sketch map may not accurately represent the internal cognitive map (Jacob & Luloff 1995). An alternative is to provide participants with a base ma p consisting of minimal spatial references. A base map reduces the effect of the indi vidual’s artistic ability on th e representation of his or her cognitive map and provides a structure for th e participant’s respons e, thereby making the results more comparable for analysis (Jacob & Luloff 1995). Unfortunately, regardless of the technique used, researchers have no way of knowing how well each map represents an individual’s cognitive map. However, an abundance of research supports that these maps do provide important insights into how people acquire environmental knowledge (Downs & Stea 1977). Methods Study Site The area for this study was Abaco National Park on Abaco Island in the Bahamas (Figure 2-1). Abaco National Park encomp asses 8,300 hectares of Caribbean pine ( Pinus caribaea) forest in the southern qua rter of the island. The area was first proposed as a

PAGE 26

15 national park in 1983, and established in 1994. The primary reason for establishment was to protect the habitat and breeding ar ea of the endangered Bahama parrot ( Amazona leucocephala bahamensis ) (Jacobson et al. 2005). The Bahama parrot was originally found throughout the Bahamas in large quantities. However, today the parrots are found only on Abaco and Great Inagua islands, numbering less than 3,000. Abaco National Park is of particular importance as it is believed to support a third of the surviving Bahama parrot population. Abaco Island has a population of approxima tely 14,000 people. Historically, many residents visited Abaco Nationa l Park to hunt wild boar ( Sus scrofa ), duck (e.g. Anas dicors ), dove ( Streptopelia decaoctu, Zenaida macroura, Zenaida aurita ), and whitecrowed pigeon ( Columba leucocephala ). However, in recent years it also has become a popular area for recreation such as birdwatc hing, hiking, exploring for caves and blue holes, and picnicking. Additionally, many peopl e drive through the park on their way to the southern coast of Abaco Island, to an ar ea called Hole in the Wa ll, where there is a historic lighthouse. New teacher training, which aims to help teachers bring their classes to the park, also has led to increased intere st in the park as a site for environmental education. Currently, the majority of visitors to the park arrive from the neighboring towns of Marsh Harbour, Cherokee, Sandy Point, and Crossing Rocks. Although tourism to Abaco Island is a large industry, Abaco Nati onal Park is not a heavily used tourist destination. To date, there has been only minimal marketing of the park. This, in addition to the poor quality of roads to and within the park coupl ed with a lack of facilities, inhibit many tourists from visiting the park. However, th e opportunity to view

PAGE 27

16 the unique parrots in addition to other Caribbe an birds and migrants continues to draw more birders to the park each year. Additiona lly, the establishment of a new ferry service to Sandy Point (the closest town to Abaco National Park) from Nassau may increase visitation and the need for better management. Research is another activity conducted in th e park. Current scie ntific research in Abaco National Park includes mapping the vegetation of the park, understanding the ecology of the Bahama parrot population, identi fying the impacts of raccoons and feral cats on Bahama parrots, and studying the fire ecology of the park. Hunting, recreation, research, and parro t protection each make demands on resources within the forest, and their co-existence creates the potential for conflict. Moreover, although Abaco National Park was established in 1994, it does not currently have a recreation or management plan. Th e Bahamas National Trus t (BNT) is the nongovernmental agency that oversees the 25 prot ected areas in the Bahamas. However, a lack of resources has made adequate mana gement of Abaco National Park challenging. Stakeholder Analysis This study was executed in collaboration wi th the Bahamas National Trust. During January of 2004, stakeholder meetings about Abaco National Park were conducted in Marsh Harbour, Abaco. A stakeholder anal ysis was chosen as the method of study because researchers were intere sted in assessing the interests and potential conflicts of key stakeholder groups that may respond differe ntly to policy changes of Abaco National Park. In this study, stakeholders were characterized as residents with a strong relationship with Abaco National Park, and were concerned about or affected by its management. The stakeholder groups in this st udy were identified fr om a previous study

PAGE 28

17 that used a stakeholder analysis to develop e ducational materials for the park (Jacobson et al. 2005). The six stakehol der groups included: Hunters – a group with a long history of hunting in the park and who may have strong opinions on its future management Tourism agency representatives – includes people who pr ovide services that take tourists to the park or indirectly benefit from tourism to the park and therefore, may be affected by changes to park management Teachers a group that may be interested in using the park as an educational resource for their students Neighboring community members – includes locals from the town of Sandy Point who may enjoy recreational activ ities in the park and could be influenced by future park decisions Business leaders – a group that indirectly benefi ts from tourism to the park and may be affected by changes to its management Environmentalists – primarily members of Friends of the EnvironmentAbaco who have previously expresse d strong opinions on maintaining the ecological integrity of the park Stakeholder meetings were conducted with each of the six stakeholder groups. An initial meeting was held with the collaboration of the Frie nds of Environment – Abaco, with members from all key stakeholder groups in October 2002 to develop park interpretation materials. Representatives of each group were contacted again in 2003 and asked to invite 8-10 members of their stak eholder group to a meeting scheduled for the beginning of January 2004. The meetings were arranged with the help of Friends of the Environment – Abaco and the Abaco Chambe r of Commerce. Each group meeting took from 1.5-2 hours. The group meetings were conducted at several locations. Most meetings were held in the conference room of the Ministry of Tourism office. Due to a night-time meeting schedule, the hunter group met at the courthouse and the neighboring

PAGE 29

18 Sandy Point community met at a local restau rant. Refreshments, but no compensation, were provided to participants. Each stakeholder meeting followed the same format. First, facilitators introduced the purpose of the meeting: A process to s eek input from Abaco St akeholders regarding a vision statement for Abaco National Park, to assess current uses of the park and examine stakeholders’ desires for the future of the park. Following this introduction, meetings were divided into four parts: (1 ) a visioning exercise (15 minutes); (2) an individual mapping exercise (25 minutes); (3) a group mapping exercise (30 minutes); and (4) a follow-up group discussion (20 minutes). In part 1, we asked participan ts to think of key words, id eas, and phrases that they would like included in the vision statement fo r Abaco National Park. Participants were given five minutes to silently write ideas on a pad of paper before sharing. Ideas were shared in a round-robin fashion and recorded on wall charts. Participatory mapping played a primary role in the meetings. In part 2, a 27 by 43 centimeter topographical map of Abaco National Park was distri buted to each participant. Each person was then asked to outline areas in the park they use for different activities. Participants were provided w ith different colored pencil s and asked to use a unique colored pencil for each different activity in which they participated in the park. Additionally, each respondent was asked to complete a short questionnaire for each activity they practiced in the park (Appendi x A). Questions focused on the type of activity, frequency of use, and seasonalit y of use. Information obtained in the questionnaire helped to furt her qualify and quantify recr eational uses of the park.

PAGE 30

19 In the group mapping exercise, a large (61 by 127 centimeter) topographic map was laid on the table between particip ants. Participants were then asked to discuss and decide upon how they would zone activities in Abaco Na tional Park for the future. Participants could select from five general activity zones (hunting, ecotourism, interpretive center/infrastructure, protecti on, research) and could add addi tional zones that they felt were necessary. To visually show how they would zone activities in the park, participants glued 4 centimeter colored square s (which each represented one of the 5 predetermined zones) onto the large map wher e they felt that activity zone would be appropriate (Figure 22). A total of 107 squares coul d fit within the park boundary. The meeting concluded with a follow-up di scussion where participants conversed about the activities and management that s hould take place in each of the zones they included on their group map. Ideas generated for each activity zone were recorded on wall charts. Data Analysis Basic user characteristics were entered into an Excel worksheet for descriptive analysis. To analyze data from the indi vidual and group mapping activities we used ArcGIS software. In both cases, a one-by-one kilometer grid system, based on that of the topographic base map, was used as the unit of analysis. Each grid cell on the base map was digitized and given a unique code number. The collection of all gr id cells within the park was then saved as a shapefile. For the individual mapping exercise, presence or absence of an activity within each grid cell for each respondent was entered into an Excel spreadsheet using zero and one. Similarly, for the group mapping exercise, presence or absence of each activity z one within each grid cell fo r each stakeholder group was entered into an Excel spreadsheet usi ng zero and one. The table-based Excel

PAGE 31

20 spreadsheets were then ‘joined’ to the digi tized grid system. Using the Spatial Analyst function, we were able to obt ain the overall spatial distri bution of each activity conducted in the park, including the intensity in which it is conducted. We then separated the spatial distribution of each activity by stakeholder gr oup in order to compare stakeholder groups’ activity patterns. Finally, we created a di gital map of each stak eholder groups’ desired future distribution of activity z ones in Abaco National Park. Examining the potential for conflict between hunting and the variety of nonconsumptive uses in the park was also of great interest. Increasing numbers of nonconsumptive recreationists may increase the num ber of encounters with hunters. These encounters may create an unsafe situation if hunters are not properl y trained in hunter safety. Therefore, to identify “hot-spots” of potential conflict, we used overlays of high use hunting areas on popular non-consumptive act ivities such as birdwatching and other ecotourism activities. Similarly, to determine compatibility between recreational uses and important ecological areas for parrots, we incorporated spatial data on Bahama parrot nesting sites (Stahala 2005). Parrot nesting was de fined by Stahala (2005) as high versus comparatively low or peripheral nesting activity. Results A total of 35 people particip ated in the stakeholder meetings including six hunters, six environmental group members, eight teach ers, four business community members, seven neighboring community members from th e town of Sandy Point, and four tourism industry representatives. Char acteristics and trends of all participants collectively were analyzed as well as each stakeholde r group individually for comparison.

PAGE 32

21 Of the 35 participants, the majority (69%) were male and of Bahamian nationality (72%). Other nationalities included American (14%), Canadian (11%), and Guyanese (3%). The average age of participants was 47 years old and the aver age number of years a participant had lived on Abaco Island was 22 years. Vision Statement The 35 participants listed 48 different words, ideas, and phrases they wanted to include in the vision statement for Abaco National Park. These 48 ideas could be grouped into nine major themes (Table 21). The top three ideas mentioned were ecosystem protection/restoration (15 times), quality management (12 times), and low impact visitation to enjoy nature (11 times). A full listing of ideas can be found in Appendix B. When separated based on stakeholder group, we found that every group mentioned ecosystem protection/restoration and quality management at least once (Figure 2-3). Additionally, five out of the six stakeholder gr oups agreed that low impact visitation to enjoy nature and protection of parrots/wildlife were important to include in the vision statement for Abaco National Park. Vis itor education also was mentioned by the majority of groups, with the teacher group sta ting ideas related to vi sitor education most frequently. Community i nvolvement was important to both the business and environmental groups while the business and t eacher groups valued student education. The tourism, environmental and Sandy Poin t groups desired including the development of trails in the park vision statement. Visitation and Recreation Activities We found that people were either regular visitors of the park (had visited more than 13 times in the last year) or had visited the pa rk very little or not at all (Figure 2-4).

PAGE 33

22 Analyzing visitation by stake holder group, we found that th e hunter group visited the park most often, followed by the environmen tal and Sandy Point groups (Figure 2-5). Both the teacher and the business groups ha d only a few members who visited the park more than four times a year. The tourism group was split between people who had never been to the park and those who vi sited regularly (>13 times/year). Collectively, participants identified 13 di fferent activities they conducted in Abaco National Park. More than half of the partic ipants (54%) indicated they birdwatched or went to see the Bahama parrot, while 22% hi ked, 20% drove the road through the park to access Hole in the Wall (not within the park boundaries), 17% hunted, and 11% explored (Figure 2-6). Frequency of activities differed slightly with people participating in birdwatching the most number of days pe r year (9), followed by hunting (4.68), hiking (2), exploration (1.76), and dr iving (1.53) (Figure 2-7). To facilitate analysis, the 13 park uses were classified into seven categories. Birdwatching, hunting, fishing, camping, a nd access to the east ern coast of the island/ocean served as their own cate gory. A category labeled “ecotourism” encompassed hiking, exploration, caving a nd enjoying nature. Birdwatching was separated from the “ecotourism” category because birdwatchers who actively seek out birds and their nests may have a greater imp act on bird populations, such as the Bahama parrot. A “driving” category in cluded both driving and driving to Hole in the Wall. An “education” category was composed of bot h student and visitor education. In examining the total area of the park used for each activity category, we found that both hunting and ecotourism are conducted throughout the entire park area. In other words, each grid cell was marked at least onc e for that activity. Participants indicated

PAGE 34

23 ninety-three percent of the park area as birdwatching wh ile education and driving were also denoted in more than half of the park area (Table 2-2). However, this may be misleading if only one person marked the majority of the grid cells. Therefore, our next step was to look at the overall number of gr id cells marked by all participants for each activity and then calculate a pe rcentage area of the park used per participant per activity. In doing so, we found that although hunting and ecotourism are c onducted throughout the entire range of the park, th ey are not conducted as intens ively as birdwatching. Per person, birdwatching covered th e largest percent of the pa rk area, followed by hunting, ecotourism, driving, and education (Table 2-3). When classified by stakeholder group, we found that the total pa rk area labeled for each activity varied by group (Figure 2-8). Sp atially, each group also varied in its distribution of activities (Appendix C). Although all groups reported birdwatching, the tourism group used the largest area for bi rdwatching, followed by the teacher and Sandy Point groups. All groups also participated in ecotourism; however the hunters conducted these activities over larger areas than othe r groups, followed by the tourism and teacher groups. The business group covered the largest park area for driving. Hunters hunted in the largest area of the park compared to othe r groups. Fishing and visits to the ocean were split between the teach er and hunter groups while camping was conducted only by two groups, the Sandy Point group and hunter group. Education was conducted only by the teacher group. Spatial Distributio n of Activities A collective analysis of i ndividual maps by activity revealed several trends. The highest use area for hunting was indicated in a 4 km2 area located in the south-central portion of the park (Figure 2-9). Although the majority of Abaco National Park is

PAGE 35

24 composed of Caribbean pine, within this 4 km2 area lays the only wetland in the park. This wetland serves as good habitat for wh ite-crowned pigeons and ducks as well as a water source for wild boar, making it particul arly popular area for hunting. Analysis also revealed a segmentation of moderate use of hunting at both the northern and southern extremes of the park. Although the entire park area is used for hunting, use is not common in the central portions of th e park or along the coastline. To analyze non-consumptive activity patte rns, we first examined the spatial distribution of all non-consump tive activities together. In doing so, we found that nonconsumptive activity is highest along the main road through the park with use decreasing as distance from this road increases (Figure 2-10). Moderate usage also occurs in the northwestern corner of the park and along the coastline. To further characterize patterns of non-cons umptive use of the park, we mapped the spatial distribution of birdwatching, ecotouris m, education, driving, access to the ocean, camping, and fishing individually. Although all seven non-consumptive use categories were spatially analyzed, only trends for those with greater than five participants showed clear patterns and are therefore describe d below. These use categories included birdwatching, ecotourism, and driving. The spatial distribution of birdwatching is similar to what we found for nonconsumptive recreation overall. Results show birdwatching activity is heaviest in the areas surrounding the access points of the park, especially along the main road from the central portion to the southern end of the pa rk (Figure 2-11). From these access points, use intensity decreases proportionally to the di stance from the main road. Moderate use for birdwatching also occurs along the coastline.

PAGE 36

25 Ecotourism is heaviest along the coastline of the park (Figure 2-12). A moderate amount of use exists along the main road, especi ally in the southern quarter of the park. Use for ecotourism is relatively low throughout the interior of the park. As expected, park use for driving is highe st along the main road through the park with use decreasing proportionally to dist ance from the main road (Figure 2-13). Therefore, most people drive only on the main road, while a few venture onto the smaller, more rugged roads throughout th e interior of the park. Although education is not cu rrently a major use of Abaco National Park, a new environmental education program on Abaco Island aims to help more teachers bring their students to the park. We examined the areas of the park used curre ntly for education, as they may be increasing and becoming more impo rtant in the near future. Use of the park for education is highest in the sout hern quarter of the park, in a 4 km2 area in the central part of the park in close proximity to th e main road, and in a smaller area near the coastline (Figure 2-14). Overlap Between Hunting and Non-Consumptive Uses Because at least some level of huntin g occurs in all areas throughout Abaco National Park, we looked at the percent of the park area used for each of the nonconsumptive activities to examine the overlap between hunting and other uses (Table 22). Ecotourism and birdwatching cover 100% and 93% of the total park area respectively; therefore, they may have th e greatest potential for conflict with hunting. Education and driving also may be of concern since they both cover a large portion of the park area (79% and 60% respectively). However, conflict is more likely to occur in areas with high concentrations of users.

PAGE 37

26 First, we examined at the overlap be tween hunting and non-consumptive recreation overall. In this case, we de fined a “high concentration” of non-consumptive recreation as an area with 11 or more people per 1 km2 grid cell. Eleven was chosen as the cut-off between a high and low concentration of user s because it was the approximate mean and median of the total number of respondent s who conduct non-consum ptive activities in each grid cell. A “high concentration” of hun ting was defined in areas with greater than four people per 1 km2 grid cell. Four people provid ed an appropriate division for hunting, which is conducted by at least three peop le in every grid cell in the park. Using these criteria, we found that 22 % of the grid cells within th e park can be considered as having both high concentrations of hunting and high concentr ations of non-consumptive recreation activities (Figure 215). Spatially, these areas ar e located in the northwestern corner, southern quarter, and surrounding the wetland located in the south-central portion of the park. Next, we examined the overlap between hunting and specific non-consumptive activities including bird watching and ecotourism. In these cases, a “high concentration” of birdwatching was defined as an ar ea with five or more people per 1 km2 grid cell while a “high concentration” of ecotourism was defi ned as an area with three of more people per 1 km2 grid cell. In each case, the criterion was determined based on examining the mean and median of birdwatching and ecotouris m activity in each grid cell. Using this criterion and the criterion above for high use hunting areas, we found that 23% of the grid cells within the park area can be consid ered as having both hi gh concentrations of hunting activity as well as high concentrations of birdwatchi ng activity. Spatially, areas of potential conflict are located predominately at both the northern and southern extremes

PAGE 38

27 of the park, although both birdwatche rs and hunters heavily use the 4 km2 wetland area in the south-central area of the park (Figure 2-16). When looki ng at potential conflict sites between hunters and ecotourists 23% of the park area met our criteria. Spatially, these areas are found in the northe rn corner of the park, surr ounding the wetland in the southcentral portion of the park, a nd along the main road and bordering areas of white coppice in the southern quarter of the park (Figure 2-17). We did not assess the potential for conflic t between driving and hunting, as drivers are not likely to get out of th eir car and therefor e, their conflict w ith hunters would be minimal if at all. Additionally, because student education is not yet a highly used activity in the park, its overlap with hunting was not assessed. Temporal Distributio n of Activities In analyzing the temporal distribution of activities in Abaco National Park, we found that hunting occurs most frequently during December and January (Figure 2-18). Although wild boar hunting occurs throughout the year, duck, dove, and white-crowned pigeon season is officially designated from 29 September to 1 March. In general, we found no overall tempor al trend among non-consumptive activities in Abaco National Park. Birdwatching occu rs most heavily duri ng the months between March and May and in November. This pattern appears to be consistent with the natural occurrence of bird migration from North Am erica to the island during these months. Other ecotourism occurs most frequently early in the season from the months of January through May, while trips to the ocean peak in both May and December. Driving is fairly consistent year round. Fishing, camping, and education, although not depicted in Figure 2-18, are all practiced in lo w frequency year round.

PAGE 39

28 Group Mapping: Activity Zone Distribution Data from the group mapping activity show ed that each group varied in the amount of area they allocated for each activity zone (Figure 2-19). Tourism industry representatives, teachers, and Sandy Poin t community members felt that ecotourism should be allocated the most area in Abaco National Park, while hunters felt that hunting should be the priority in the majority of the park. The bus iness and environmental groups were similar in their distribution of activities with protection covering more than half of the park, followed by ecotourism. All groups agreed that there should be at least a portion of the park prioriti zed for infrastructure as well as for ecotourism. Spatially, many of the group maps showed si milarities (Figures 2-20 to 2-25). All but the hunter group allocated areas in the nor thern quarter of the park for protection. Additionally, the teacher group designated prot ection areas in portions of the central and southern areas in the park while the e nvironmental and business groups were more generous with protection areas, designating them in the northern 50% of the park as well as in large amounts in the southern half of the park. The Sandy Point, teacher, and tourism groups all allocated large amounts of ecotourism in the central park area. The business and hunter groups allocated a smaller area for ecotourism in the central portion of the park while the envir onmental group designated ecotour ism areas in close proximity to current roads. All but the hunter group wanted ecotourism areas designated on the coastal area of the park. Th e Sandy Point, teacher, environmental, and business groups all allocated portions of the southern half of the park for hunting. Hunters covered 93% of their map with hunting areas while tour ism did not allocate any area for hunting. Groups generally designated at least one in frastructure area somewhere along the major

PAGE 40

29 road to the park, while some groups added a dditional infrastructure areas along the coast (business) or at the southern end of the park (tourism). To further quantify the compatibility betw een stakeholder groups on future activity zones, we created a map depicting areas fo r each activity zone where there was either “some” or “strong” agreement between stak eholder groups (Figure 2-26). “Some” agreement was defined as areas where three to four groups had placed the same activity; “strong” agreement were areas where five to six groups corresponded on the placement of an activity. Further supporting our initia l observations, some groups agreed on placing protection areas in the northern quarter of the park, with gr oups strongly agreeing only on two 1-km2 areas for protection within this region Groups either somewhat or strongly agreed on the placement of ecotourism zones throughout the central two-thirds of the park and along the main road through the pa rk. Hunting zones were somewhat agreed upon in a 6 km block in the southern quarter of the park; there were no strongly agreed upon areas for hunting. Only one 1-km2 cell was somewhat agreed upon for infrastructure, which is located at the most northern intersection where the main road converges with the park boundary. Next, we combined the stakeholder group compatibility map with the parrot nesting data. In the high parrot nes ting site area, there was some to strong agreement on the majority of this area as protection. Ecot ourism was also somewhat agreed upon in this area, while a single 1 km2 area was designated as infrastructure. For areas with additional, but not high, parrot nesting activ ity, ecotourism was somewhat to strongly agreed upon in the majority of this area. Areas some gr oups agreed upon for hunting also fell within this area.

PAGE 41

30 Activity Zone Discussion Stakeholders shared a variety of ideas a bout the types of management and activities they would include in each of the activity zones they designated on their group map. For sites labeled as infrastructure, the majority of groups wanted a visitor center, souvenir shops, a place to purchase refreshments, a nd a ranger station with a permanent game warden (Appendix D). Most groups also cite d education, in the fo rm of informational literature, an educational vide o, children’s education, a museum and library as a priority in these areas. Many groups also desired th e necessary infrastructure for dealing with larger crowds in these areas, such as parking lots, improved roads, restrooms, rest areas, and first aid. When discussing what was desired for areas labeled as ecotourism, passive recreation opportunities both on land and water were ci ted most. The majority of stakeholder groups agreed that birdwatchi ng would be appropriate in these areas. Similarly, all groups desired some type of trail, whether it be a general trail, a hiking trail, biking trail, or interpretive tr ail for visitors and locals to enjoy. Many groups also wanted opportunities for guided tours as well as es tablished campsites. A few groups desired amenities such as restrooms, picnic areas, rest areas, and trash cans in ecotourism areas. In the protection zones, almost all stake holder groups desired some form of active management to regulate and maintain t hose areas. Most groups wanted posted regulations and enforcement of protection zone s. Some groups wanted regulated use of the areas, while other groups felt that hunting certain species during certain times of the year could be permitted in these areas. All but one group (hunters) mentioned research as an important activity to include in protection zones.

PAGE 42

31 Many groups felt that hunting of wild boa r, white-crowned pigeon, ducks and teal were appropriate for hunting z ones. A few groups desired ma nagement in the form of posted regulations and a game warden for hunting areas. Additionally, a few groups felt that non-consumptive activitie s such as walking, birdwatc hing, crabbing, and research could occur in these areas. Although research was introduced as an activity zone unto itself, only one group (teachers) allocated park ar ea specifically for research. Rather, most groups included research as an activity that coul d occur in all of the zones. Discussion Abaco National Park presented an oppor tunity to involve local people in management and recreation planning from the ons et. Including the public in research and decision-making not only helps ensure their s upport for the final management plan, but also produces important sociol ogical information that is essential to management planning. Particularly in multiple use area s where demands on resources from different user groups present a challenge to managers knowledge about user groups and support of these groups can help assure the l ong-term viability of an area. This study coupled an examination of basi c and spatial user characteristics with participatory methods of research. To obtai n the necessary sociological information to make recommendations for a park recreati on plan, we used a variety of methods including brainstorming of ideas for a vi sion statement, participatory mapping, and a group discussion. As little information a bout stakeholders of Abaco National Park currently exists, the immediate issue was to describe park usage and identify potential conflict among recreational activities and betw een recreation and parro t resource needs. The next step of recreation planning shoul d include further describing a range of

PAGE 43

32 recreation opportunities that can be provided in the park. One method that exists for doing so is the Recreation O pportunity Spectrum (ROS). The ROS planning framework enables the use of information about user de sires and behaviors in determining specific types of recreation opportunities to provide (Driver et al. 1987). Participatory approaches to recreation pla nning, including stake holder analysis and participatory mapping, were st rongly supported by this st udy. In particular, these methods assisted in illuminating planning oppor tunities in three major ways – through identifying commonalities among stakeholder groups, tapping into local knowledge, and recognizing areas of potential conflict. Commonalities among Stakeholder Groups Our goal for conducting a visioning exercise with participants was to understand their priorities for Abaco Na tional Park and formulate a si ngle vision statement for the park that stakeholder groups could rally behind and park management could support. Results from the visioning exercise showed that all six stakehol der groups expressed relatively similar ideas that they wanted incl uded in the vision statement. Regardless of group, people wanted ecosystem protection/re storation, quality management, and low impact visitation, revealing that most pe ople place a high emphasis on maintaining the ecological integrity of the park. From the ideas generated by stakeholders, we have drafted a preliminary vision statem ent that reads as follows: “Recreation management in Abaco National Park should protect the park’s unique ecosystem, particularly habitat for the Bahama Parrot, while maintaining and improving quality nature-bas ed recreation opportunities that promote appreciation and education of Abaco’s natural resour ces for local residents and visitors.” Future plans include presenting the above visi on statement to stakehol ders to obtain their feedback and suggestions for a final vision st atement for the park. If groups can find

PAGE 44

33 common ground in these ideas and long-terms goals for Abaco National Park, negotiations concerning specific activities and management of the park may be less contentious. We also found commonalities in the activ ities conducted by members of different stakeholder groups. Across stakeholder gr oups, we found that birdwatching is most popular and covers the larges t percent of the park area per person. Birdwatching, in addition to other forms of ecotourism incl uding hiking, exploring, and enjoying nature were conducted by members of each stakehol der group. Revealing these commonalities between stakeholder groups further supports the benefits of using a stakeholder analysis. One way results from stakeholder analyses have been used in the past is to prioritize objectives (Grimble & Wellard 1997). In this case, a primary objective may be management that continues to provide opportuni ties for birdwatching and ecotourism. Finally, results from the group mapping activ ity show that there are a number of similarities in stakeholders’ desires for futu re land use planning of the park. All groups agreed that ecotourism zones and infrastructure are necessary. Spatia lly, we found that at least three groups agreed on the majority of the middle two-thirds of the park as ecotourism. Strong agreement for an ecotour ism zone was reached along the middle half of the main road through the park and al ong the coastline. The agreement of an ecotourism zone along the park’s coastline, in particular, co rroborates the information we obtained from the individual mapping exercise which shows that ecotourism is highest along the coastline. Between th ree and four groups agreed that infrastructure for the park should be located along of the main road just as it converges w ith the park boundary. When parrot nesting data was overlaid, however we found that locating the infrastructure

PAGE 45

34 of the park at that particular site may a ffect parrot nesting. Therefore, it may be necessary to move the site for infrastructure further south where parr ot nesting density is lower, but keep it located on the main road fo r easy access. Anywhere from three-to-six groups agreed that the northern quarter of the park should be zoned as protection. In addition, hunting was most agreed upon in porti ons of the southern quarter of the park. Although hunting is conducted thro ughout the entire park, one of its highest use areas is located in the southern quarter of the park. Therefore, this may be an agreeable area for hunting. The theory that stakeholder analysis can illuminate commonalities was supported by the results of this study. Revealing commonalities may have several benefits to park planning. First, it can help managers in prioritizing object ives for the park. Another important benefit is fostering positive rela tions between stakehol der groups. When people from different groups can find similarities with one an other, they begin to relate and respect each other, even if their interest s in a particular area differ. The ultimate result is a greater willingness of different groups to work together and more successful park planning projects. Tapping into Local Knowledge Participatory research is based on the assumption that people are capable of identifying and expressing their needs and as pirations themselves (Binns et al. 1997). Additionally, it presumes that local people hold important knowledge that can be accessed through participatory methods and can complement scientific data (Ball 2002; Zurayk et al. 2003). This study provided eviden ce that local people can provide quick, reliable, and novel information.

PAGE 46

35 Prior to this study, little was known about when, where and how different stakeholders currently use Abaco National Pa rk. Therefore, results from this study provide the first data on recrea tional use of the park. We also found that stakeholders were highly knowledgeable about the park ecosystem itself. In the group mapping activity, we noticed that most groups knew approximately where parrots are located and designated those areas as protec tion. When we overlaid ecol ogical data on parrot nesting sites, we found that high density parrot ne sting areas corresponded strongly with the protection zones delineated by the stakeholder groups. This provides further support that local people can provide a valuable resour ce not only in attaining desired social information, but also in their ec ological knowledge of natural areas. Identifying Potential Conflict and Opportunities for Prevention In multiple use areas where a number of different activities occur simultaneously, there is the potential for conflict. When th e goals and desires of user groups conflict, often the result is adversarial situations that may endanger the resource use for all groups (Wing & Johnson 2001). However, if conflict ca n be predicted, there is a greater chance that it can be mitigated before reaching this point (Wing & Johnson 2001). Integrating participatory mapping with stake holder analysis allowed us to reveal both areas and times of potential conflict between different user groups. Additionally, we were able to illuminate areas where parrot resource need s may conflict with recreation by overlaying parrot nesting data with our collected soci al data. Once areas and times of potential conflict were revealed, formulation of pr ospective trade-offs for management was possible. In analyzing participants’ spatial maps, we found that the highest use areas for birdwatching were centered upon the main road through the park with use decreasing as

PAGE 47

36 distance increased from this road. Thus, it appears that most birdwatchers spend their time driving along the main road, stopping pe riodically to get out and birdwatch in relatively nearby locations, while only a few peopl e venture further into the interior of the park. We believe this is a f actor of access and the quality of roads within the interior of the park, which are rugged and require a f our-wheel-drive vehicle. As birdwatching increases in popularity, management to meet these needs will require consideration of creating one or more birdwatching trails. Ho wever, as birdwatching has been linked with negative impacts on bird populations (Sekerci oglu 2002), trail placement must coincide with sustaining viable populations of Bahama parrots. When we overlaid parrot nesting sites on the birdwatching distribution map, all areas where people birdwatch overlapped parrot nesting sites to some extent. The majo rity of areas where birdwatching is heaviest overlap with areas where some parrot nes ting occurs, although a few sites of heavy birdwatching exist in the high density parrot ne sting area. Therefore, to reduce potential conflict between birdwatchers a nd parrot resource needs, the best places for these trails would be in the southern half of the park where visitors are likely to see parrots, but where parrot nesting sites are less abundant a nd less likely to be di sturbed or abandoned. Unlike birdwatching, the most popular place for other ecotourism activities is along the coastline of the park. Thus, management to improve ecotourism opportunities could focus on expanding access to these areas and providing hiking trails and sites for exploration and enjoying nature. Because parrot nesting does not occur along the coastline, potential conflict between recreatio nists and parrot protecti on in these areas is low. One foreseeable problem, however, is that to provide a ccess to the coastline a road must be constructed through parrot nesting si tes. Additional ecological information may

PAGE 48

37 be necessary before decisions can be reached on management for ecotourism along the coastline. A stakeholder analysis in 2002 regarding environmental education revealed the desire of teachers to take school groups to Abaco National Park (J acobson et al. 2005). Therefore, while visitation by these groups is currently low, recreation and management planning require consideration of this future user group. From the few groups that have visited Abaco National Park, it appears that the entire park area could be suitable for education. New environmental education materials developed for teachers focus on exploration of the pine fore st and the Bahama parrot. Developing sites suitable for school visits could assist teachers and help manage this user group. Subsequently, access would need to be provided to appropriate areas if not currently available. As educational opportunities expand in the par k, attention to thei r potential conflict with other user groups and ecological factors will be necessary. Hunting is often perceived as an activ ity that reduces ot her recreationists’ opportunity for safe and satisfy ing activities (Jaakson 1988). Thus, examining the spatial distribution of hunting within the park and its overlap with non-consumptive uses was critical. As expected, hunti ng occurs throughout the entire pa rk area. However, areas of high hunting use only overlapped by 22% with non-consumptive activit ies overall. More specifically, high use hunting ar eas overlapped by 23% with both high use birdwatching areas and high use ecotourism areas. Knowing where activi ties overlap can significantly aid planners in mitigating potential conflict. For example, one 4 km2 block in the central portion of the park appears particularly im portant for hunting as all of the hunters who participated in this study mark ed this area for hunting. Therefor e, it appears that this area

PAGE 49

38 would be an important area to manage for hunting. Although birdwatching and ecotourism both share an interest in this location, most of the popular sites for these nonconsumptive activities fall outsi de of this area. Therefor e, quality opportunities to birdwatch and conduct other ecotourism activit ies could be provided in other park areas and still have a high likelihood of meeting the needs of these user groups. Another prime hunting area could be designated in the southe rn quarter of the park where parrot nesting is less abundant than in the north. Conversely, temporal management may assist in alleviating potent ial conflict. We found that although hunting, birdwatching, and ecotourism are conducted year-round, they vary in their temporal patterns. Hunting is conduc ted most intensely during the winter months, while the most popular times for birdwatching and ecotourism are in the spring and early fall. Therefore, potential conflict sites could be managed for hunting during the winter months and for non-consum ptive recreation during the spring and early fall. Presently, these temporal patterns of r ecreation are largely compatible with sustaining the Bahama parrot population. Parr ots breed from May through September, a time when most recreational activities are at their lowest due to high heat, humidity, and an abundance of insects. Birdwatching is of particular concern sin ce it is noted that the high expectations and excessive enthusiasm of many birdwatc hers to see or photograph a bird can have harmful consequences (Sekerci oglu 2002). Birdwatchers have been linked to greater nest abandonment, increased pred ation rates, visitorrelated pollution, and habitat destruction (Miller & H obbs 2000; Sekercioglu 2002). In the majority of studies, birds were most sensitive to disturbance during the br eeding period (Gotmark 1992;

PAGE 50

39 Knight & Cole 1995). Therefore, it has been suggested that birdwatching be minimized around nests and young, which can be deserted as the result of disturbance generated by just one person (Larson 1995). In Abaco Na tional Park, high density parrot nesting areas may be managed best by limiting acce ss during the parrot breeding season and monitoring the impacts on parrots by birdwatc hers during other times of the year. Encouragement and/or regulation of visitors to birdwatch with a guide may also be preferable as guides can help minimize di sturbance of birds by birdwatchers if appropriately trained (Sekercioglu 2002). Recommendations One of our objectives for this study wa s to generate recommendations for a recreation management plan for Abaco Nati onal Park. The methods of stakeholder analysis and participatory mapping proved inva luable in achieving this objective. We found them successful in highlighting areas and times of potential conflict among different user groups and between user groups and parrot resource n eeds. Recognizing these conflicts subsequently allowed us to c onsider trade-offs that may aid in reducing conflict. Additionally, the methods helped us find commonalities among stakeholder groups that not only signify pr iorities for management but also provide the basis for a working relationship among the stakeholders. From these results, we suggest the following recommendations: 1. Ensure recreation opportunities do not co mpromise the sustainability of the Bahama parrot population. Actions: 1. Establish parrot protection zones where humans are excluded at least during the parrot breeding season. Currently, we r ecommend this zone be placed in the northern third of the park. Further consultation with pa rrot biologists is

PAGE 51

40 essential to ensure that areas where parrots nest and breed are sufficiently protected. 2. Promote research to continue to monitor the health of the Bahama parrot, other wildlife, and ecological systems in the park. 3. Develop ecological and soci al standards and indicato rs to monitor the human impacts on the natural environment. 4. Use local guides with extensive knowledge of the park to le ad visitors through sensitive areas of the park. 5. Use onand off-site education to inform locals and tourists about the park’s fragile ecosystem and proper c onduct while visiting the park. 2. Enhance birdwatching and ecotourism opportunities. Actions: 1. Establish birdwatching trails that allow more access to the park by birdwatchers. These may be best pla ced in the southern and south-central portions of the park where visitors ar e likely to see parrots, but where less parrot nesting sites are located. 2. Expand opportunities for ecotourism throughout their current range, particularly along the coastal area of th e park where results show that a majority of people conduct ecotourism activities. 3. Control visitor numbers and minimize imp acts of visitors on parrots by keeping all but a few roads through ecotouris m and birdwatching areas unimproved. Those roads which are consistently driv en and already highly established (such as the central and south-central interior roads depicted in Fi gures 2-9 thru 2-14) could be improved for access to birdwa tching and hiking trails. Consider closing roads in the northern area of the park, which ar e located in areas of high density parrot nesting. 4. Monitor the impacts of birdwatchers and other ecotourists on parrots. 5. Expand opportunities for people to view the Bahama parrot by training local guides. 6. Ensure non-consumptive recreationists a nd hunters do not inte rfere with each other or cause a safety concern. Use te mporal zoning if conflict arises. This could include zoning areas of conflic t for hunting between the months of October through February (when bird hunting is legal in addition to boar hunting) and for non-consumptive recreation the remaining months of the year. 3. Expand opportunities for student education.

PAGE 52

41 Actions: 1. Encourage local teachers to use the park as an educational resource to educate their students about the habita t and wildlife of the park. 2. Select areas for student education that meet teacher objectives but avoid parrot nesting sites. 3. Ensure student activities and hunters do not interfere with each other or cause a safety concern. If conflict arises, use temporal zoning in which hunting is permitted during the months of October through February and student activities can occur during the early fall or spring. 4. Maintain opportunities for qua lity hunting experiences. Actions: 1. Maintain hunting throughout its current range where it does not conflict with sustaining viable parrot populations. This particularly app lies to the wetland area and northern and southern extremes of the park where hunting is most popular. 2. Ensure hunting and non-consumptive recr eation do not interfere with each other or cause a safety concern. Use te mporal zoning if conflict arises. This could include zoning areas of conflic t for hunting between the months of October through February (when bird hunting is legal in addition to boar hunting) and for non-consumptive recrea tion the remaining months of the year. 5. Develop appropriate infrastructure. Actions: 1. According to our meetings with stake holders, people most wanted a visitor center, followed by souvenir shops, refres hment stands, a ranger station, park guides, educational materials, improved roads, and restrooms. 2. Results show that infrastructure would be best placed as far north along the main road as possible without infringing upon high density parrot nesting areas. 3. Ensure facilities do not negatively imp act the natural ecosystem by monitoring human impacts.

PAGE 53

42 Limitations Despite its overall success, we recognize a few limitations in this study. First, we had a relatively small sample size of 35 pe ople among six stakeholder groups. A larger sample size may have provided us greater de tail and more accurate information regarding stakeholder use of the park. Particular ly in the business and tourism industry representative groups, which onl y had four people each, a great er level of participation may have revealed different results. Second, because Abaco National Park is larg e in size, we used a relatively large grid cell size for our unit of an alysis in the participatory ma pping activities in this study. Each grid cell measured one kilometer squa red, which does not provi de a fine scale of detail for planning. However, we were unsur e if people would be capable of providing accurate information at a finer scale of detail for areas they go in the park. When using grid cells as a unit of analysis, it may be bene ficial to attempt analysis at multiple scales to compare their accuracy and the detail of information they are able to provide. Finally, it is recognized that there is no way of knowing how well a person’s map accurately represents his or her mental ma p (Walmsley & Jenkins 1992). Therefore, the maps that participants construc ted on their current use of th e park may not be completely correct in illustrating where they travel in reality. In analyzing participants’ maps of driving in the park, we found evidence that these mental maps may not be exact. In particular, it appears that partic ipants perceived the most southern of the interior roads in the park as further south than it is locate d in actuality (Figure 2-13). Therefore, when applying maps that people construct from memory to planning, consideration of errors is essential.

PAGE 54

43 Conclusion The results from this study reveal that investigation into lo cal stakeholder groups’ current activity patterns in a national park a nd future desires for management can produce useful information that can be incorporated into the park planni ng process. Although general information on user characteristic s of Abaco National Park proved important, both the individual and group maps that resu lted from this stu dy provided a greater contribution to recreation planning in the par k. For example, individual activity maps showed that birdwatchers and other non-c onsumptive recreationist s use areas along the main road and the coastline more than any ot her areas in the park. Hunting, on the other hand, occurs to a greater exte nt throughout the interior of the park. Knowing where activities are conducted can help in the allocation of resources and appropriate management of those areas. Spatial analysis of use patterns also proved beneficial in identifying areas of potential conflict. As conf licts can create contentious situations that threaten resource use for all users (Wing & Johnson 2001), recognizing potential areas of conflict before they occur can greatly benefit the pla nning of recreation in Abaco National Park. When combined together, the stakeholde r group maps illuminated areas where the majority of groups agreed on a particular activity. This map st rongly corroborated the information we obtained in the individual mapping activity. Finally, when we overlaid parrot nesting data on these maps, we found the resulting map valuable in terms of formulating recommendations for a recrea tion management plan for Abaco National Park. Although the development of this plan will be an accomplishment in itself, we hope that the methods used in this study can be applied to other national parks in the

PAGE 55

44 Bahamas in need of management planning to protect biodiversity while concurrently providing for a variety of recreationa l uses and stakeholder interests.

PAGE 56

45 Table 2-1. Vision statement themes. Vision Statement Theme Numb er of Times Mentioned Ecosystem protection/restoration 15 Quality management 12 Low impact visitation to enjoy nature 11 Visitor education 10 Protection of parrots/wildlife 6 Community involvement 4 Development of trails/tours 3 Student education 2 Research 2 Table 2-2. Percent of park area marked for each activity. Activity Percent of Park Area Hunting 100 Ecotourism 100 Birdwatching/Viewing Parrots 93 Education 79 Driving 60 Access to Ocean 24 Camping 16 Fishing 0.5

PAGE 57

46 Table 2-3. Percent of park area marked per activity per person. Pe rcent grids per person are calculated as grids per person (N= 35) over the total number (107) of grid cells in the park. Activity Total Number of Grids Marked Percent of Grids Marked per Person Birdwatching/Viewing Parrots 502 13.40 Hunting 383 10.23 Ecotourism 299 7.98 Education 159 4.25 Driving 147 3.92 Ocean 23 0.61 Camping 17 0.45 Fishing 10 0.27

PAGE 58

47 Figure 2-1. Location of Abaco National Park. Figure 2-2. Group mapping exercise. One stak eholder group decides how to distribute different activity zones in Abaco Nationa l Park. Their final map is shown on the right. 0 10 20km 0 5 10m Abaco Island

PAGE 59

48 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Research (2) Student Education (2) Development of Trails/Tours (3) Community Involvement (4) Protection of Parrots/Wildlife (6) Visitor Eduction (10) Low Impact Visitation to Enjoy Nature (11) Quality Management (12) Ecosystem Protection/Restoration (15)IdeaPercentage of Total Times Mentioned Hunters Tourism Teachers Business Sandy Point Environmental Figure 2-3. Vision statement id eas by stakeholder group (N=35). Numbers in parenthesis indicate the total number of times the idea was mentioned overall. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 01-34-67-12>13 Visits to ANPPercentage of Participants Figure 2-4. Overall annual visitation to Abaco National Park (N=35).

PAGE 60

49 0%20%40%60%80%100% Hunters Tourism Teachers Sandy Point Business EnvironmentalStakeholder GroupPercentage of Group 0 visits 1-3 visits 4-6 visits 7-12 visits >13 visits Figure 2-5. Annual visitation to Abaco Nati onal Park by stakehol der group (N=35). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60Birding/Viewing Parrots Hiking Driving to Hole in the Wall Hunting Exploration Camping Fishing Enjoying Nature Education Student Driving Access to Ocean Caving Education PersonalActivityPercentage of Participants Figure 2-6. Percentage of people pa rticipating in each activity (N=35).

PAGE 61

50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Birding/Viewing Parrots Hunting Hiking Exploration Driving Driving to Hole in the Wall Camping Access to Ocean Education Student Enjoying Nature Education Personal Caving FishingActivityFrequency (#days/total participants) Figure 2-7. Frequency of activities conducte d in Abaco National Park (N=35). 0%20%40%60%80%100% Fishing Camping Ocean Driving Education Ecotourism Hunting BirdwatchingActivityPercentage of Cells Teachers Sandy Point Hunters Environmental Business Tourism Figure 2-8. Percentage of pa rk labeled for each activity by stakeholder group (N=35) listed in order of total number of cells labeled for that activity.

PAGE 62

51 Figure 2-9. Distribution of hunting and parrot nesting in Abaco National Park.

PAGE 63

52 Figure 2-10. Distribution of non-consumptiv e activities and parrot nesting in Abaco National Park.

PAGE 64

53 Figure 2-11. Distribution of birdwatching a nd parrot nesting in Abaco National Park.

PAGE 65

54 Figure 2-12. Distribution of ecotourism and parrot nesting in Abaco National Park.

PAGE 66

55 Figure 2-13. Distribution of driving and parrot nesting in Abaco National Park.

PAGE 67

56 Figure 2-14. Distribution of education and parrot nesting in Abaco National Park.

PAGE 68

57 Figure 2-15. Overlap in areas defined as “high density” hunting a nd “high density” nonconsumptive recreation.

PAGE 69

58 Figure 2-16. Overlap in areas defined as “high density” hunting and “high density” birdwatching.

PAGE 70

59 Figure 2-17. Overlap in areas defined as “high density” hunting and “high density” ecotourism.

PAGE 71

60 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14January Febuary March April May June July August September October November DecemberMonthNumber of Respondents Birdwatching Hunting Ecotourism Driving Ocean Figure 2-18. Temporal di stribution of activities in Abaco National Park. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Hunters Tourism Teachers Local Residents Business Leaders EnvironmentalistsStakeholder GroupPercentage of Abaco National Park Other Research Protection Hunting Infrastructure Ecotourism Figure 2-19. Percent of park prioritized for each activity zone by stakeholder group. Parrot Breedin g Season

PAGE 72

61 Figure 2-20. Hunter group map of desired future activity zones.

PAGE 73

62 Figure 2-21. Tourism group map of desired future activity zones.

PAGE 74

63 Figure 2-22. Teacher group map of desired future activity zones.

PAGE 75

64 Figure 2-23. Sandy Point group map of desired future activity zones.

PAGE 76

65 Figure 2-24. Business group map of desired future activity zones.

PAGE 77

66 Figure 2-25. Environmental group map of desired future activity zones.

PAGE 78

67 Figure 2-26. Stakeholder group compatibility on future activity zone distribution. “Strong” signifies areas where 5-6 gr oups agreed; “Some” signifies areas where 3-4 groups agreed.

PAGE 79

68 CHAPTER 3 ABACO HUNTER BEHAVIOR, SATI SFACTIONS, AND MANAGEMENT PERCEPTIONS Introduction In the struggle to retain the earth’s remaining biodiversity, the establishment of protected areas has played a central role. Today, over 12% of the world’s land area is protected as national parks and preserves (Cha pe et al. 2003). However, the designation of a protected area is only the first step toward preservation (Dawson 1985). Ultimately, an area’s success will depend on the design and implementation of quality management; if a protected area cannot be ma naged effectively, then the loss of essential elements of biodiversity is inevitable (Wells & McShane 2004). Protected Area Management Early efforts to manage protected areas were based on centralized regulatory control (Weladji et al. 2003) and the ex clusion of local people. Although human communities living in close proximity to protected areas often have long-standing relationships with those areas, those attach ments were frequently ignored (Trakolis 2001); park management concentrated on keeping people out (Wells & McShane 2004). This method was successful in protecting some endangered species from extinction (Harmon 1987), but local people were often left deprived and hostile. The most extreme cases, typically in developing countries, resulted in disruption of local culture (Callimanopulos 1982), increased poverty due to wildlife depredation, and resource access deprivation (Weladji et al. 2003). Other cases involving reserves with a history of

PAGE 80

69 unrestricted recreational use that suddenly was prohibited resulted in vandalism and disorderly behavior by community member s (Dawson 1985). Without receiving the benefits they previously enjoyed, disdai n from local communities jeopardized the accomplishment of many conservation objectives. In the 1980s, conservation and manageme nt agencies began pioneering new approaches to protected area management that sought active involvement of local communities and consideration of their needs and aspirations (Weladji et al. 2003; Wells & McShane 2004). Today, public participation is promoted at all stages of protected area administration from planning to decision-maki ng and management. Public participation is regarded as having several benefits. Park and recreation agencies that are charged with addressing the needs and desires of the constituents they serve (Jacobson 2001) can involve the public in social assessments to better understand their at titudes, preferences, and behaviors (Flood & McCarvi lle 1999). Results from these surveys provide valuable data for planners to match park space to local needs and desires (Hall & Page 2002). Likewise, collecting and analyz ing spatial user information can assist planners in understanding the time and space utilization of an area by various user groups (Heatwole & West 1982). Public participation also can be used as an approach for planners to gain access to local knowledge, thereby complimen ting scientific information (Ball 2002). Finally, participation is believed to incr ease cooperation and support for management decisions vital to ensuring long-term cons ervation strategies (Ball 2002). The majority of protected areas are managed for multiple uses in addition to conservation, such as outdoor recreation, tour ism, sustainable forestry, hunting, fishing, scientific research, and e nvironmental education. In many developing countries,

PAGE 81

70 neighboring communities rely on the natural resources contained within protected areas to meet basic human needs such as food, fuel and medicine. Management of these areas can be particularly complex as biodiversity conservation must be compatible with providing for human subsistence needs. In the recent past, the application of participatory research methods in these cases has augmented and proven to be a promising approach to understanding and ba lancing human needs with conservation. Participatory research methods also can assist in the management of areas where local people do not rely on protected areas for subsistence, but rather to meet needs such as physical and emotional well-being. Typical ly, these needs are met through a variety of recreational activities (Driver et al. 1991). Several agen cies have recognized the importance of public participat ion and sociological data in decision-making concerning recreation management. To appropriately manage a public river area for a variety of user groups, researchers used surveys of recreationa l rates and preferences for future land use (Burger 2000). Oh et al. (2005) used questionn aires of Texas anglers to collect data on fishing participation, motivations, attitudes, and management preferences. A similar study surveyed people in North Florida to determine public k nowledge of a local watershed, attitudes and opinions toward mana gement activities, and recreational use of the area (Appelson 1999). Many studies dem onstrate the importance of public surveys and input in protected area recreation planning. Many protected areas are managed for both consumptive and non-consumptive recreationists. Consumptive users are typically defined as hunters or anglers who actively extract a resource, wh ile non-consumptive recreationi sts are considered passive users such as wildlife-watchers and hike rs (Duffas & Dearden 1990; Kellert & Brown

PAGE 82

71 1985; Vaske et al. 1982). Consumptive users typically are a large focus of management because they play a necessary role in ma naging the population of some species, are an important funding source for wildlife agencies, and must be regulated in order to avoid overexploitation (Decker et al. 2001). Additionally, in many places, hunting has a traditional cultural value. For these hunters, their families and communities, hunting is not simply a recreational activity but rather an essential part of thei r social being (Decker et al. 2001). Hunting can be a family or co mmunity tradition in which hunting behavior is initiated early in childhood by a family me mber or friend (Hayslet te et al. 2001). In many developed countries, hunting plays an impo rtant role in how local residents identify and feel attached to protected areas. Therefore, planners mu st single out this group when potentially impacting the management of these areas. Hunter Satisfaction Like any user group, understan ding hunters’ beliefs, atti tudes, and behaviors is fundamental to protected area management. However, because of hunters’ intimate relationship with wildlife management – by providing a funding s ource and regulating populations of some species – keeping hunters satisfied and involved in hunting also has been of great interest. In order to achieve this additional goal, managers require information on issues such as hunting satisfactio ns and motivations (Decker et al. 2001). Over the years hunter satisfaction has been measured in several different ways. Initially, hunting quality was measured largely in terms of harvest. A subsequent approach assumed that as the number of hunter s in the field increas ed, so did the total amount of hunter benefits a nd satisfaction (Crissey 1971). Within the past 20 years, however, it has become evident that game bagged and days-afield approaches fail to

PAGE 83

72 recognize the social, psychological, emotional, and physical benefits associated with hunting (Daigle et al. 2002; Hammitt et al. 1990). The idea that hunter satisfaction is derived from multiple determinants was first proposed in the early 1970s ( Hendee 1974; Po tter et al. 1973). Since then, numerous studies have sought to identify the various factors that cont ribute to hunter satisfaction and their relative importance. Of particular debate has been the relative importance of harvest-based versus nonharvest-based sa tisfactions in determining overall hunting satisfaction (Decker et al. 1980). Some studi es support that successful harvest and/or related aspects, such as perceived game numbers, continue to dominate hunting satisfaction, while other satisfa ctions remain secondary (Deck er et al. 1980; Gigliotti 2000; McCullough & Carmen 1982; Stankey et al 1973). Decker et al. (1980) reported that deer hunters who saw fewer deer and s hot less than their id eal number rated their experience less favorably. A study involving ratings of hunting quality in Michigan showed that hunter satisfaction was largely influenced by the pr esence of a deer, seeing a deer, and the success of a member of the hunt ing party (Langenau et al. 1981). In a similar study, Frey et al. ( 2003) found that the number of male pheasants seen by hunters was the most influential factor on hunter satisfaction, followe d by the number of pheasants harvested. Other studies have found that nonharvestbased motivations and satisfactions, including companionship, nature, or escape ar e more important than those related to harvest (Hammitt et al. 1990; Hendee 1974; Vaske et al. 1986). Hunters in Massachusetts reported being more interested in the hunting experience rather than the physical take of an animal (More 1973). Si milarly, in a study of Washington hunters, 11

PAGE 84

73 dimensions of hunting satisfaction were identif ied that differed in importance both within and between game specific hunter groups Of these, nature, escapism, and companionship were more important to hunters than harvesting, shooting, or obtaining an animal for trophy (Potter et al. 1973). Thes e findings were corroborated by a study of mourning dove hunters in Alabama that found th at most dove hunters were more strongly motivated by nonharvest-based satisfactions than by obtaining a bag limit (Hayslette et al. 2001). Hazel et al. (1990) identified se ven components of satisfaction among turkey hunters in Michigan, with harvesting a turk ey ranking third. Ha mmitt et al. (1989) found that although seeing and taking shots at a deer were most important to hunter satisfaction for a particular hunt, that satisfaction w ith the overall hunting experience was equated with environmental and social factors. Th e relative importance of harvest-based versus nonharvest-based satisfactions also was found to vary with numb er of years of experience with more experienced hunter s being less harvest-orient ed than those with less experience (Jackson et al. 1981). Conflicting results from hunt er satisfaction studies validate the idea that satisfaction may be dependent upon a particular area and species (Hayslette et al. 2001). Each type of hunting likely derives satis faction from different determinants, making investigations into the motivations/satisfactions associated with spec ific locations and/or species essential for a comprehensive unders tanding of hunting satis factions (Gigliotti 2000; Hammitt et al. 1990; Hazel et al. 1990; Vaske et al. 1986). Although species and location specific studies are essential to advancing our knowledge of hunter motivations and satisfactions, past research has focused primarily on deer and waterfowl (Hazel et al. 1990). Additionally, studies are overwhelmingl y conducted in the United States.

PAGE 85

74 Study Context Abaco National Park is one of 25 national parks in the Bahamas. Established in 1994, the primary objective behind designation of the 8,300 hectare area was to protect the endangered Bahama parrot ( Amazona leucocephala bahamensis ) and its rapidly diminishing Caribbean pine forest habitat. The area also has a long history of wild boar ( Sus scrofa ), duck (e.g. Anas dicors ), dove ( Streptopelia decaoctu, Zenaida macroura, Zenaida aurita ), and white-crowed pigeon ( Columba leucocephala ) hunting. Anxious that their rights to hunt in the park would be abolished, hunters initially opposed the park when it was first proposed in 1983. With the promise that hunting would remain a legal activity in the park, hunters agr eed to support the park. More than ten years have passed since the establishment of Abaco National Pa rk, but no formal management or recreation plan has been developed. With a growi ng number of user groups, formulating a recreation management plan is crucial. Ho wever, little is known about the largest and most historical user group of the park – the hunters. Informati on on their spatial and temporal use of the park, perceptions of potential management activities, current satisfaction with their experiences in the par k, and factors that infl uence this satisfaction are needed before appropriate management can be enacted. Objectives The purpose of this study was to gather so ciological information in order to make recommendations for a recreation manageme nt plan for Abaco National Park. The specific objectives were threefold: Objective 1: Examine the spatial and te mporal use of the park by hunters. Objective 2: Assess hunter suppor t and preferences for a variety of potential management actions.

PAGE 86

75 Objective 3: Test the multiple-satisfactio ns model of hunting among Abaco hunters. Hypothesis 1: There will be significant differences in responses to hunter satisfactions and motivations between hunters who hunt only wild boar and those who hunt both wild boar and ducks, doves, and/or white-crowned pigeon. As past st udies have confirmed differences in hunter satisfaction based on speci es (Hayslette et al. 2001), we hypothesized different satisfacti ons reported by each group. Hypothesis 2: Age and experience will be positively associated with non-harvest based satisfactions, such as comp anionship, tradition, and nature (Hayslette et al. 2001; Hazel et al 1990; Jackson et al. 1981). Hypothesis 3: Total number of days spent in the park per year will be positively associated with non-harvest base d satisfactions, as people who spend more time in the park may feel less pressure to return with a kill each time. Methods Study Site See Chapter 2. Interview Design and Implementation Typically, surveys of hunters are sent to a random or stratified sample of licensed hunters (e.g. Hayslette et al. 2001; Hazel et al. 1990). However, hunters on Abaco Island are not required to have a hunting license. Therefore, a list of 40 hunter names was generated by staff of the Department of Agriculture and other veteran hunters on the island based on their knowledge of hunters in the park. Each of the 40 hunters was mailed a short letter explaining the purpose of the study and the dates when we would be

PAGE 87

76 conducting interviews. These letters were mailed two weeks before we arrived on Abaco. Upon arriving on the island, we cont acted all 40 hunters for an interview. However, four people were on vacation or on business trips away from the island and therefore unavailable for an interview. El even others, who reported that they had not hunted in the past five years, were eliminated from the st udy since they were less likely to be concerned about management for hunti ng in Abaco National Park. Because of an initial sample size of 25 (after excluding those hunters who were unavailable or currently do not hunt in the park), we additionally employed a snowball sampling approach in which each person interviewed was asked if they knew additional hunters who were not on the original list. Using this method, six more hunters were identified and contacted, giving us a total of 31 hunter s interviewed. Although a small sample size, we believe there are only approximately 40 -45 residents who currently hu nt in Abaco National Park. Therefore, we are confident that we samp led a minimum of 70% of the hunter population on Abaco Island. Interviews were conducted with hunters during July, 2005. The location for the interviews varied based on where the individua l resided. Hunters in Marsh Harbour were encouraged to meet us at the Abaco Chambe r of Commerce/Friends of the Environment – Abaco office. Those who were reluctant to m eet us at this locati on and those who lived in other towns (Cherokee, Casurina Point, Crossing Rocks) were interviewed at their private residence or business establishment. Interviews lasted approximately one hour. The interview design was based on a review of previous studies that included: (1) attitudes of local residents towards proposed management, (2) recr eation experiences, and

PAGE 88

77 (3) hunter motivations and satisfactions. The final interview comprised 75 questions, which were organized into si x sections (Appendix E). 1. General Background : This section included five questions (Q1-Q5), which solicited information on the participant’s town of residence, years residing on Abaco, age of initial hunti ng experience, number of years hunting, and prior attendance at a meeting about Abaco National Park. 2. Current Use : Fifteen questions (Q6-Q7, Q10Q14, Q35-Q42) were designed to address participants’ current use of Abaco National Park including how many days they spent in the park over the past y ear, and the number of days they spent conducting each activity per month. Although th is measure refers to past behavior, it is generally accepted that participati on in outdoor recreation activities is relatively stable over time and therefore can serve as an indicator of probable future behavior (Bissell et al. 1998; Daigle et al. 2002). Res pondents also were asked if they were successful in obtaining an animal on their last visit to the park and how many people were in their t ypical hunting party. Sin ce the population and hunting status of game species in Abaco Nati onal Park is curren tly unknown, we also included six questions that asked hunte rs their opinions on the population and hunting status of wild boar, white-crowned pigeon, ducks, and doves. 3. Hunter Motivations and Satisfactions : This section included 22 questions (Q8Q9, Q15-Q34). The first two questions (Q8-Q9) asked respo ndents to rank their satisfaction in regards to their last visit to the park and to thei r overall experiences in the park on a 5-point scale (1 = very di ssatisfied to 5 = very satisfied). Similarly, a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) was designed to measure the degree to which 19 various aspects affected the respondent’s motivations for and satisfactions from hunting. The hunting aspects included those from Hayslette et al. (2001) with some modifications. Three of these statements reflected harvest-based satisfactions (obtaining food, harvesting trophy animals, shooting an animal) while the remaining 16 reflected nonharvest-based motivations and satisfactions (seeing a game animal, exercise, spending time with family and friends, testing hunting skills, getting outdoors, following tradition, becoming closer to one’s primitive self, teaching a son or daughter, seeing wildlife, escape, hunting with a dog, education, excitement, solitu de). In addition, participants were asked to rank their top three r easons for hunting from the list of motivations/satisfactions provided. 4. Participatory Mapping Activity : Questions 43-49 asked participants several questions pertaining to a map of Abaco Nati onal Park divided into five north-south segments. Using this map, we asked partic ipants to rank the sections in order, beginning with the one in which they spend the most time hunting. Next, participants were asked which section(s) they had visited on their last trip to Abaco National Park, and in which one(s) they hunt for wild boar, ducks, doves, and white-crowned pigeon. In the final exercise we gave participants a marker and

PAGE 89

78 asked them to locate three specific areas in the park that they most enjoy and record those locations by writing an “E” on the map. 5. Attitudes toward Proposed Management : Sixteen questions (Q50-Q64, Q70) were designed to measure attitudes towa rd park management. The first question solicited participants’ opinions on the rela tive importance of management for parrot protection, protection of th e entire ecosystem, and education, hunting, wildlife viewing, and tourism. The next 13 questions asked respondents to rate their level of support for 13 management actions on a 5-po int scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The final questio n asked respondents th eir opinion on who should oversee management of the park. 6. Demographics : The final section of the interv iew encompassed five demographic questions (Q71-Q75) relating to the re spondent’s birth place, age, occupation, nationality and education. Before leaving for Abaco, we obtained expe rt review on the que stionnaire by three social scientists. Comments and suggestions we re incorporated into a second draft of the interview. Because the samp le size of hunters on Abaco National Park was already very small, we pilot tested the questionnaire only on two Abaco hunters to determine question clarity, neutrality, time to complete the interview, and additional input on interview questions. The feedback received was incorpor ated into a final draft of the interview. One set of questions (Q66-Q70), which as ked respondents their desired future land uses for the park, was omitted in the analysis due to confusion among interviewees. The deficiency in this question was not detect ed during our pilot te st of the survey. Data Analysis Data were entered into an Excel Sp readsheet and imported into a SPSS 12.0.1 software package for statistical analysis. Pr eliminary analysis included calculations of means, standard deviations, a nd frequency distributions. To investigate the relationship betw een each motivation/satisfaction and a participant’s overall satisfacti on, we used correlation and st ep-wise regression analyses. Correlation coefficients between overall sati sfaction and hunting motivations were used

PAGE 90

79 to determine which motivations should be included in the regression model. The F statistic was used to identify if th e regression model was significant and R2 value used to determine the percent of varian ce in overall satisfaction expl ained by the model. We used t-values to identify which variables in the model were significant and Beta values to determine the relative importance of each va riable in their relationship with overall satisfaction. To test for differences in hunter motivations/satisfactions between wild boar hunters and wild boar/bird hunters we used a t-test. To compare hunter motivati ons/satisfactions and suppor t of management actions based on age, number of years of experience, and number of days spent in the park per year, we used the Fisher’s exact test due to our small sample size. For the analysis we pooled “strongly disagree” and “disagree” responses to motivations/satisfactions statements, as “disagree” and “agree” a nd “strongly agree” responses as “agree.” Likewise, “strongly oppose” and “oppose” respons es to management option statements were pooled as “oppose” and “support” and “s trongly support” responses were pooled as “support.” Data from the participatory mapping activity in which participants were asked to mark their favorite hunting spots on the map we re digitized into ArcGIS software and analyzed using a kernel density measure. Mo re sophisticated methods of spatial analysis were not possible because we lacked spatial reference in our map. Results Characteristics of Participants All 31 hunters interviewed were male and of Bahamian nationality (Table 3-1). Participants were generally middle-aged and experienced in hunting; the majority (58%) were between the ages of 31 and 50 and ha d hunted an average of 32 years (S.D. =

PAGE 91

80 10.86). The mean age of hunting initiation was approximately 11 years old (S.D. = 4.61). Eighty-one percent of participants were born on Abaco and most have lived on the island for a long time, averaging 43 years. Th irty-two percent of respondents have lived locally for more than 50 years. Almost th ree-quarters (74%) of the hunters interviewed had not finished high school. The predominan t occupations of partic ipants were fishing (39%) and business (32%), while 22% work in construction, and 7% perform manual labor. Thirty percent of pa rticipants had attended a pr evious meeting about Abaco National Park. Hunting Frequency and Participatio n in Other Outdoor Activities The mean number of days participants sp ent in Abaco National Park over the past year was 27 days (S.D. = 37.01), however res ponses to this ques tion ranged from 0-150 days. A frequency distributi on of number of days spent in the park shows that the majority of participants (71 %) spend 25 days or less in the park per year (Figure 3-1). Respondents identified recreati onal activities they participated in from a list of 13 choices. With regards to hunti ng, the majority of participan ts (87%) hunt wild boar, 35% hunt white-crowned pigeon, 19% hunt doves, and 6% hunt ducks in the park (Table 3-2). The number of people in a respondent’s hunti ng party ranged from 2-6 people; however, the majority (55%) hunt in parties of three pe ople. Twenty-nine participants also checked at least one non-consumptive activ ity in which they participat e in the park; three percent of respondents participate in two non-consumptiv e activities, 6% part icipate in four nonconsumptive activities and 3% participate in five non-consumptive activities. The most popular non-consumptive activity conducted in the park is driving (23%) followed by birdwatching (10%), visiting the ocean (10%), and exploration (10%). When asked to identify their primary activity conducted in Abaco National Park, 87% cited wild boar

PAGE 92

81 hunting; no participant identifie d a non-consumptive activity as their primary reason for visiting the park. Temporally, wild boar hunting is most popul ar between the months of October and March as each month totaled over 140 person days of hunting (Figure 3-2). Duck, dove, and white-crowned pigeon hunting are most popular during the month of October, the first entire month of legal bi rd hunting. The total number of person days per month each non-consumptive activity is prac ticed is much lower than for hunting (Figure 3-3). Most activities are conducted with greatest intens ity during the beginning of the year, from January through March. However, birdwatc hing is most popular during September and camping most popular in April. When asked their opinion on the population and hunting status of games species in the park, the majority (74%) fe lt that the population of wild boar was relatively stable. As for the hunting of wild boar, most (61% ) thought that more people hunted wild boar today than 10 years ago. Regarding wh ite-crowned pigeon, hunters were divided between those who believed the pigeon popul ation was increasing (26%), those who thought the population was decreasi ng (32%), and those who were not sure (32%). Most (58%) agreed that the total number of days people hunt white-crowned pigeon has been increasing. Hunters were more uncertain about the population and hunting status of ducks and doves. For ducks, 65% were not sure if the population or hunting of ducks was increasing, decreasing, or unchanging over th e past 10 years. Similarly, 48% did not feel confident enough to respond about th eir opinions on the population and hunting status of doves.

PAGE 93

82 Spatial Patterns of Hunting To understand where participants hunt, we asked several questions pertaining to a map of the park divided into five north-sout h segments (Figure 3-4). Ninety-percent of hunters reported hunting in section four. However, the majority of participants hunt wild boar in all sections (Table 3-3). White-c rowned pigeon hunting, a lthough practiced in smaller numbers, also is conducted by the greate st percentage of par ticipants in section four. This pattern is similar for duck and dove hunting (Table 3-3). Ranking the five sections in order of how much time they spend hunting in each, participants again cited sec tion four as the one in which they spend the most time followed by section three, one, five and tw o. On a subsequent question that asked participants which section(s) they had visited on their last trip to the park we found corroborating results – the greatest number of people had visited section four followed again by section three, one, five and two. The intense use and importance of section four was confirmed in the final mapping exercise in which we asked participants to id entify and mark their three favorite places in the park. Each favorite place was digitized as a point into ArcGIS software. We then calculated a kernel density from the spatial arrangement of hunters’ favorite places to show bounded areas where 50%, 75%, and 90% of hunter favorite places fall. Results show a large cluster of favorite places in the center of the park (cor responding to sections three and four) along with a smaller clum p in the northern qu arter of the park (corresponding to section one) (Figure 3-5). Hunter Satisfaction The mean value for hunter satisfaction w ith overall experiences in the park was 3.93 0.85. When asked about satisfaction with their last visit to the park, mean

PAGE 94

83 satisfaction was 3.50 0.97. Overall satisfacti on and satisfaction with a hunter’s last visit to the park were positively correlate d (r = 0.526, p = 0.002). A hunter’s satisfaction with his last visit to the park did not appear to be affect ed by his success in obtaining an animal (t = 1.23, p = 0.225). In general, respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed wi th harvest-based satisfactions except for hunting to obtain food, for which respondents were relatively divided (52% strongly disagr eed or disagreed, 6% were ne utral, and 42% agreed or strongly agreed) (Table 3-4). Most (>60%) agreed or strongly ag reed with nonharvestbased satisfaction statements except for beco ming closer to one’s primitive self, teaching a daughter to hunt, and spending time alone. Correlations between overall satisfaction a nd hunting motivations showed that only two motivations – the importance of teaching one’s daughter to hunt and the feeling that seeing wildlife is more important than harves ting wildlife – were significantly correlated with overall satisfaction (Table 3-5). Th ese two motivations were entered into a regression analysis to determine the pred ictability of overall satisfaction based on responses to these two motivations. The regression model account ed for 34% of the variance in hunter satisfaction wi th overall experiences in the park (Table 3-6). The only significant predictor of overall satisfaction was the opinion that se eing wildlife was more important than harvesting wildlife. We found positive correlations between se veral variables (Table 3-5). Most notably, there were strong positive correlations between spending time with family and friends, and teaching a son or daughter to hunt. Likewise, the correlation between escaping the worries of everyda y life, learning about game animals, and testing hunting

PAGE 95

84 skills was positive. Harvest-based statements showed an inverse relationship with a number of nonharvest-based statements (seei ng game animals, getting exercise, spending time with family and friends, getting outdoors and enjoying nature, teaching a son or daughter to hunt, seeing wildlife, hunting with a dog, and hunting for the excitement). Of these, a significant negative correlation ex isted only between hunting to harvest a trophy animal and seeing wildlife. Conversely, we found some indication that harvest-based statements were positively related to testi ng hunting skills, getting closer to one’s primitive self, hunting because it is a tradition in one’s fam ily, escaping the worries of everyday life, learning about game animals, a nd being alone. Howe ver, the correlation was only significant between hunting to obtain food a nd learning about game animals. We found no significant differences in responses to hunter satisfactions and motivations between hunters who hunt only w ild boar and those who hunt both wild boar and doves, ducks, and/or white-crowned pigeon (Table 3-7). Our comparisons of hunter motivations/s atisfactions and ag e show that the importance of harvesting trophy animals differs significantly betw een older and younger hunters (Table 3-8); 80% of older hunters disagreed with hunting to harvest a trophy animal compared to 42% of younger hunters. There we no significant differences in hunter motivations based on the number of years of hunting experience (Table 2-9). When analyzed based on number of days hunting in the park, we found that the importance of shooting an animal differs significantly between hunters who spend more versus less days in the park per year (Table 3-10); 100% of participants who spend more than 40 days in the park per year disagreed with the importance of shooting an animal while 52% of participants who spend less than 10 days in the park per ye ar disagreed.

PAGE 96

85 Perceptions of Management Practices As a multiple use area, management of Abaco National Park must meet several objectives including protection of the Bahama parrot and its habitat, protection of the entire ecosystem and its func tion, opportunities for student a nd visitor education, tourism, hunting, and opportunities to view wildlife. Working under the constraints of limited resources, each of these components must be weighed in importance relative to the others. To gain insight into which elemen ts hunters felt are most important and should receive the most resources, we asked them to rank each of the above objectives in order of their importance. To this question we found that many hunters interviewed (38%) ranked protection of the Bahama parrot and its habitat as the most important followed by protection of the entire ecosystem (25%), increased opportunities for education (19%), improving opportunities for tourism (9%), improving hunting (6%), and improving opportunities for wildlife viewing (3%). A variety of management policies and actio ns exist that can assist managers of protected areas in achieving the goals of both ecosystem protection and recreation. In this study we asked respondents the degree to which they would support or oppose 13 management activities. Participants we re supportive of the majority of proposed management actions (Figure 3-6). Respondents were generally favorable towards the expansion of park infrastructure including im proving some of the current roads, creating more and improving the current hiking trails, an d building a visitor cen ter. In contrast, creating new roads in the park ranked si gnificantly lower than all other proposed management options. Management that ma y regulate hunting more closely, such as employment of an on-site ranger, the establishment of a hunting season, and the requirement of hunting licenses, also were supported. Sixty-one percent of respondents

PAGE 97

86 either supported or strongly supported sett ing aside areas for parrot protection where humans would be excluded. This number in creased to 87% when these areas would only be restricted during th e parrot breeding season. Only one management option, creating new roads, showed significant differences in responses based on age (Table 3-11). For this proposed management option, younger hunters disagreed more with creating more ro ads in the park (92%) compared to older hunters (40%). Likewise, partic ipants with less than 25 years of hunting experience were significantly more opposed (100 %) to creating more roads co mpared to hunters with more than 40 years of hunting experience (36%) (Table 3-12). Days spent in the park per year did not significantly affect support of proposed management options (Table 3-13). Regarding who should oversee management of the park, th e majority (58%) suggested a combination of the Bahamas Nati onal Trust (the current quasi-governmental managing agency) and local management. Si xteen percent thought the Bahamas National Trust alone should manage the park, while 16% felt management should be conducted solely by locals; 10% did not know or had no opinion. Discussion Spatial and Temporal Recreation Patterns It is clear that the hunters interviewed ha ve strong ties to both Abaco National Park and hunting. Most respondents have lived on the island their entire life and have spent part of their free time since childhood hunti ng in the park. As the age of hunting initiation for Abaco hunters is approximately 11 years of age, our re sults support previous studies citing the importan ce of childhood hunting initiation in developing hunting behavior and reports of initiation rates 90% before age 20 (Hayslette et al. 2001; O'learly et al. 1987).

PAGE 98

87 The primary reason for examining recreati onal levels was to determine where and when hunting and other activitie s occur in the park so mana gement can be designed that best matches these needs. Taking into accoun t the average number of days spent in the park per year and the temporal distribution of hunting trip s, one management option to mitigate potential conflict between hunters and non-consumptive recreationists is to temporally zone areas in the park for hunti ng. In other words, the same area could be managed for hunting during the winter m onths and for non-consumptive recreation during the remaining months of the year. This same idea could be applied to ecologically sensitive areas. Although the few hunter s who hunt regularl y year-round may be dissatisfied with this option, it would appear to have little impact on the majority. Spatially, all participatory mapping ex ercises supported the same result – participation was highest in section four. Th is area includes the only wetland in the park and was noted by several hunters as the best place to find wild boar because of the abundant food and water available. Hunters like ly return to areas wh ere they have seen a large number of game species and enjoyed a pleasant experience (Frey et al. 2003). Therefore, maintaining access of these areas for hunting, if possible, is essential to sustaining hunters’ enjoyment of th e park (Thomas et al. 1973). Hunter Motivations and Satisfactions Respondents were relatively sa tisfied with their last vis it to the park and overall experiences in the park desp ite the fact that the park currently has little active management. A hunter’s success in obtaining an animal on his last visit to the park did not significantly affect his rating of satisfa ction, which conflicts w ith previous studies that suggest or show a correlation between satisfaction and harvest (Decker et al. 1980; Hazel et al. 1990; Wynv een et al. 2005).

PAGE 99

88 Harvest and Nonharvest Based Determinants Our results support the multiple-satisfac tion model of hunting and confirm past studies that suggest nonharvestbased satisfactions are more important than harvest-based satisfactions (Hammitt et al. 1990; Hendee 1974; Potter et al. 1973; Va ske et al. 1986). In our study, the four highest rated motivati ons were the opportunity to hunt with a dog, see game animals, get outdoors and enjoy natu re, and excitement. Hunters also agreed with statements reflecting satisfactions base d on exercise, companionship, skill, tradition, teaching a son or daughter to hunt, seeing wild life, escape, and education. These reflect similar important non-harvest based satisfacti ons found in a number of previous studies conducted in the United States (Hammitt et al. 1990; Hazel et al. 1990; Wynveen et al. 2005). Therefore, there do not appear to be large differences between U.S. and Abaco hunters in their agreement with a range of nonharvestbased satisfactions. Harvest-based satisfactions were relativel y unimportant to most hunters as they disagreed with statements relating to harv esting an animal for trophy and shooting or taking shots at an animal. Hunter res ponses to the importance of hunting for food showed the greatest variati on (S.D. 1.26). Although a mi nority (48%) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statem ent, 62% of these respondents ranked food as their number one, two, or three reason for hun ting. Additionally, the motivation to obtain food was inversely related to ten of the fi fteen non-harvest based statements, providing evidence that hunters who are motivated by th e desire to obtain food derive relatively little satisfaction from the company or se tting while hunting. The non-harvest based statements positively related to obtaining food included items such as testing one’s hunting skills, getting closer to one’s prim itive self, and learning about game animals – motivations that directly contribute to success in bagging an animal for food. Therefore,

PAGE 100

89 it appears that there is a st rong division between participan ts who hunt for food and are motivated by factors that contribute to the success of obtaining food and those who are not. This result is similar to other research findings, which have shown that hunters vary considerably on the importance of harvest variables (Wynveen et al. 2005). While discussing the issue further with hunters during the interview, I found that no hunter interviewed relied on wild meat for subs istence, but those who responded favorably towards hunting for food greatly preferred the taste of wild game over traditional storebought meat. Because not all hunters were motivated by th e same set of factors – some seek to bring home wild meat while others pursue an opportunity for personal growth or companionship – providing a range of hunting opportunities will result in a broader range of benefits to Abaco hunters. Predictors of Overall Satisfaction Our results from the stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that the determinants explained only 34% of the vari ance in overall hunter satisfaction. This result is not encouraging considering that previous hunter satisfaction models have explained between 30% and 50% of the va riance (Hammitt et al. 1990; McCullough and Carmen 1982; Vaske et al. 1986). Unlike a number of past studies, we did not find an appreciation of the natural outdoors (Hammitt et al. 1990), number of game seen (Frey et al. 2003) or determinants related to companionship (Po tter et al. 1973) to be signi ficant predictors of hunter satisfaction. Conversely, we found that we we re able to predict the outcome of overall satisfaction only based on a pers on’s motivation to see wildlife. The lack of variation in many of our tested nonharvest-b ased determinants, includi ng enjoyment of the outdoors,

PAGE 101

90 seeing game animals, hunting with a dog, excite ment and being with family and friends, may be one reason these determinants were not significant predictors of overall hunter satisfaction. An additional explanation may be that our results were confounded by our small sample size and large number of expl anatory variables. To further understand predictors of overall satisfaction among Ba hamian hunters, the sample size could be increased to include hunters throughout the Bahamas. Determinants related to companionship were positively correlated. Likewise, personal growth determinants, such as es cape, learning, and refining skills were positively correlated. This suggests that future studies may need to use only one determinant from each correlated group when testing these motivations. Although we surmised that harvest-based and nonharvest-based motivations would be negatively correlated, we were only pa rtially correct. Determinants related to companionship and nature showed an inverse relationship with harvest-based statements while personal growth motivations, such as escape, learning, being alone, and testing skills showed a positive relati onship with harvest-based statements. This may suggest that hunters who routinely hunt in a group ar e more concerned with the overall hunting experience, including the setting and compa ny, over bagging an animal. On the other hand, hunters who want to bag an animal, bring home food or display a trophy are interested in nonharvest-based motivations related to pers onal growth, such as skill building and learning about game animals, wh ich can aid them in the harvest of an animal. Assessment of Hypotheses Contrary to our first hypot hesis, we did not find signi ficant differences in any component of hunter satisfaction between wild boar hunters and wild bo ar/bird hunters.

PAGE 102

91 The specific determinants for hunting satisfac tion have been shown to differ between species such as deer (Hammitt et al. 1990), dove (Hayslette et al. 1990), pheasants (Frey et al. 2003) and turkeys (Hazel et al. 1990) ; however, we did not find evidence of significant differences in Abaco hunters. The findings of one study showed that turkey hunters ranked the opportunity to hunt with a dog among the lo west at contributing to their satisfaction (Wynveen et al. 2005). Because turkey hunters derived little satisfaction from hunting with dogs, we suspect ed that Abaco bird hunters may be less motivated by this element. However, wild boar and wild boar/bir d hunters did not differ significantly on this factor. The lack of significant diffe rences between wild boar and wild boar/bird hunters may be due to the sm all sample size and the overlap in the two categories. We were unable to compare pe ople who hunt wild boa r only to those who hunt birds only because all active hunt ers interviewed hunt wild boar. Our second hypothesis that age and experi ence would be positively associated with nonharvest-based satisfactions was only par tially correct. For most of the tested motivations/satisfactions, we did not find significa nt differences as a result of age or experience. Unlike previous studies (Hazel et al. 1990; Jackson and Anderson 1985), we did not find significant differences in satisfactions related to nature based on experience. We did find, however, that older hunters disagr eed significantly more with the statement, “I hunt to harvest trophy animals” than younger h unters. It is possibl e that older hunters already have obtained trophies, such as wild boar tusks, from earlier hunts and therefore, no longer view the attainment of an anim al for trophy as a motivation for hunting. Our third hypothesis that the number of days a hunter spends in the park would be positively associated with nonharvest-based sati sfactions was partially upheld. In one

PAGE 103

92 study, hunters who spend more time in the fiel d were more motivated to improve their hunting skills than hunters who spend less ti me hunting (Wynveen et al. 2005). Our results do not support this finding. The onl y significant difference we found between hunter satisfactions and the number of days they spend in the park was for the statement, “I must shoot an animal to have a satisfyi ng hunt.” As expected, hunters who spend more time in the park may feel less pressured to come home with a kill each time. Perceptions of Management Practices The majority of hunters interviewed did not appear opposed to increases in tourism or expanding opportunities for ot her user groups such as stud ents and ecotourists. Even though the expansion of park infrastructure may increase visitation, hunters showed support for improving the current roads, cr eating more and improving current hiking trails and building a visitor center. Th e only management option that hunters opposed was the construction of new roads. Historic ally, Abaco Island was logged heavily and as a result, old logging roads cove r the southern half of the island. Although many of these roads have been overgrown, a number of them are still passable by four-wheel drive vehicles. Therefore, many hunters felt that new roads were unnecessary considering the large number of roads already in the park. When analyzed based on age and experience, we found that older, more experienced hunters were more likely to suppor t the creation of new roads in the park. Perhaps older hunters can no longer walk the lo ng distances through the park to locate game animals and therefore desire more acc ess via roads throughout the park. Future management should consider that a third of current hunters intervie wed are older than 50 and should provide continuing oppor tunities for those hunters to recreate comfortably in the park.

PAGE 104

93 Further investigation into hunters’ attitu des toward several proposed management policies showed that most people are willi ng to accept restrictions. Hunters were relatively favorable toward increasing hunti ng regulations such as requiring a hunting license, employing an on-site ranger, and establishing a hun ting season. Past studies on anglers have shown that when faced with di fferent management scenarios, people prefer the scenario with the most liberal harvest re strictions (Gillis & D itton 2002; Oh et al. 2005). Therefore, our results corroborate the opinion that consumptive recreationists often demonstrate long-term concerns fo r game species by accepting management restrictions. Out of the 13 proposed management options hunters were the most supportive of establishing a hunting season. Many hunters be lieved that a winter boar season would allow the population to recove r in the summer months when piglets are born. Although establishing a hunting season would aid in temp oral management of the park to reduce conflicts between hunters and non-consumptive r ecreationists if they arise, it may not be the desired management option ecologicall y. As an exotic species, wild boar substantially affect natural ecosystems. R ooting by boar for herbs and invertebrates can increase the amount of bare ground, increase the loss of nutri ents from the forest, and impede woody plant regeneration (Simberloff et al. 2003). Furthermore, wild boar have been linked to increased incidence of dis ease (Hone 2002). Consequently, many national parks around the world have enacted manage ment to eradicate wild boar (Hone 2002; Simberloff et al. 2003). In Abaco National Park, hunters are worki ng towards the opposite goal. They are not only willing to accept the restrictions of a hunting season to increase the boar

PAGE 105

94 population, but some individuals have taken the matter into their own hands by raising wild boar on their own property and then re-rel easing them into the wild. This may be an area where education and comm unication between hunters and ma nagers can help derive management actions that satisfy both parties. Although only 30% of participants had atte nded a meeting about the park in the past five years, most hunters acknowledge the importance of pr otecting the Bahama parrot and the ecosystem of Ab aco National Park as the majority of hunters interviewed (63%) ranked these two items as most impor tant to management. A study of Florida residents who have lived in the periphery of a watershed for an average of 30 years showed similar results in which the manageme nt activities receiving th e highest levels of support by respondents were those related to ecosystem and habitat protection (Appelson 1999). These studies indicate that positive at titudes towards conser vation of an area may be related to long-time residency of that area. Similarly, when asked their opinion on the establishment of areas for parrot protection where humans would be excluded, 42% supported and 20% strongly supported this option. When we added an alternative option of temporally managing these areas so they are restricted only during the parr ot breeding season, 55% supported and 32% strongly supported this option. In a number of studies, bi rds were found to be most sensitive to disturbance during the breed ing season (Gotmark 1992; Knight & Cole 1995). Therefore, a reasonable management option might be temporal management of hunting areas around the parrot breeding season – May through September. As these months have relatively fewer total hunting days (Figure 32), this may be a promising management solution.

PAGE 106

95 The interview also explored local hunter s’ views on the managing agency of Abaco National Park. The findings reveal strong support for a new management scheme with the participation of lo cal communities in management. S lightly over half of the hunters interviewed (58%) want to see management as a partnership between the current managing agency, the Bahamas National Trus t, and the local community, while 16% want management of the park to be dictated solely by locals. Conclusion The Bahamas National Trust is preparing to develop its first management plan for Abaco National Park. From previous experi ence, managers know that this cannot be done without the involvement of local people. Participation from locals is vital to ensuring that management properly matches the needs and desires of park users as well as generating support for management goals and ob jectives. In this study, we sought input from a large and historical user group of Ab aco National Park – hunters. Prior to this study little was known about their spatial and temporal use of the park, game species hunted, factors from which they derive sati sfaction from hunting, and opinions on future management activities. Through personal interviews, we were able to obtain a comprehensive understanding of this key stakeholder group. We found that despite being a group of all males of Bahamian nationality, Abaco hunter s are rather diverse. Hunters range significantly in their age, hunting experience, number of visits to the park each year, species of game hunted, participation in non-consumptive activities, and relative importance of hunting motivations/satisfactions, specifically the desire to harvest animals for food. Future management must be equa lly as diverse as Ab aco hunters to provide opportunities for each type of hunter.

PAGE 107

96 Our results further supported the multiple-s atisfactions model of hunter satisfaction and confirmed past studies that have shown the importance of nonharvest-based determinants over those that are harvestbased. Providing for these nonharvest-based satisfactions is much more difficult than implementing management to increase harvestbased satisfactions. As hunters were str ongly motivated by getting outdoors and seeing wildlife, management should work to maintain the scenic beauty and ecosystem of the park for social as well as ecological reas ons. Additionally, many hunters were motivated by opportunities for interaction among family and friends; managers could provide for this interaction by creating picn ic areas where hunters could meet for lunch or instituting family hunting days where families from around the island could gather to enjoy a day of hunting in the park. Further re search is needed to further determine how to appropriately provide for the varying motiv ations of hunters. Further regarding hunter satisfa ction, we found that motiva tions and satisfactions of Abaco hunters are not largely different from those conducted in the U.S. Because this was one of the first studies of hunter satis faction outside the U.S., more research on hunter satisfaction in places ot her than the U.S. are needed to determine if satisfaction determinants vary between country and culture. Hunters in our study were favorable towa rds most management options. Most recognized the importance of protecting the Bahama parrot and preserving the entire ecosystem of the park, which may be a factor of local pride in having lived adjacent to the park for an average of 43 years. We also found support for the opinion that consumptive recreationists often demonstrat e long-term concerns for game species by accepting management restrictions. Assessing po tential hunter restrictions in conjunction

PAGE 108

97 with ecological constraints will further clarify which management activities will benefit both hunters and the park ecosystem. As management planning for Abaco Nati onal Park progresses, hunters continuing involvement needs to be a priority so they are supportive of manage ment decisions vital to the long-term success of the park. Most hunters desire to become partners with the Bahamas National Trust in the management of the park. To do so will require continued communication between the groups as well as compromise. Other stakeholder groups also must become involved and provided with an opportunity to be partners in the management of the park. If all this can be accomplished, Abaco National Park will likely be an example of success in which both human as well as ecological needs are realized.

PAGE 109

98 Table 3-1. Demographic su mmary of participants. Category Percent of Participants Gender Male 100 Nationality Bahamian 100 Age 21-30 10 31-40 29 41-50 29 51-60 19 61 and over 13 Birth Place Abaco, Bahamas 80 Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas 10 United States 10 Years on Abaco 0-10 3 11-20 0 21-30 10 31-40 29 41-50 26 51 and over 32 Current Town of Residence Marsh Harbour 71 Cherokee 19 Casurina Point 7 Crossing Rocks 3 Education Less than high school graduate 74 Graduated high school 23 Attended some college 3

PAGE 110

99 Table 3-2. Participation rates in recreation activities. Activity Participation Rate (%) Consumptive Activities Wild Boar Hunting 87 White-Crowned Pigeon Hunting 35 Dove Hunting 19 Duck Hunting 6 Fishing 0 Non-Consumptive Activities Driving 23 Birdwatching 10 Visiting the Ocean 10 Exploration 10 Caving 6 Camping 6 Hiking 3 Education 0 Table 3-3. Hunting of species in each park section, reported as a percentage of total respondents. Section Species Hunted 1 2 3 4 5 Wild Boar 87 81 84 90 84 White-Crowned Pigeon 13 0 19 35 19 Duck 10 13 16 23 16 Dove 0 0 0 6 0

PAGE 111

100Table 3-4. Mean and percent response to agreem ent with 19 components of hunter satisfaction. Percent Response Statement Mean (S.D.) Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Harvest-Based I hunt to obtain food 2.9 (1.26) 10 42 6 32 10 I hunt to harvest trophy animals 2.4 (1.09) 16 55 0 29 0 I must shoot an animal to have a satisfying hunt 2.3 (1.00) 19 55 6 20 0 I am satisfied if I take shots at an animal 2.2 (0.92) 16 62 6 16 0 Nonharvest-Based Hunting with a hunting dog is important to me 4.5 (0.63) 0 0 6 39 55 I hunt to get outdoors and enjoy nature 4.4 (0.50) 0 0 0 58 42 I am satisfied if I see a game animal 4.4 (0.50) 0 0 0 61 39 I hunt for the excitement 4.4 (0.49) 0 0 0 65 35 I hunt to spend time with family and friends 4.3 (0.53) 0 0 3 65 32 If I had (have) a son, it would be important to me to teach him to hunt 4.2 (0.55) 0 0 6 68 26 Hunting is a tradition in my family 4.2 (0.90) 0 10 3 48 39 The exercise I receive during hunting is important to me 4.1 (0.87) 0 10 3 55 32 I enjoy testing my hunting skills against the game I am hunting 3.9 (0.63) 0 6 3 81 10 Seeing wildlife while hunting is more important than harvesting wildlife 3.9 (1.00) 0 16 3 52 29 I hunt to escape from the worries of everyday life 3.8 (0.90) 0 16 0 68 16 I hunt to learn more about the animals I hunt 3.5 (0.99) 0 26 13 52 9 If I had (have) a daughter, it would be important to me to teach her to hunt 3.3 (1.15) 0 39 13 32 16 I hunt to become closer to my primitive self 3.0 (1.05) 6 26 33 29 6 I hunt to spend time alone 2.8 (1.25) 10 48 3 29 10

PAGE 112

101Table 3-5. Correlation coefficients betw een motivation/satisfaction statements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Overall Satisfaction -2. Obtain Food .244 -3. Obtain Trophy -.006 .325 -4. Shoot Game -.136 .261 .142 -5. Take Shots .062 -.183 -.031 .261 -6. See Game .140 -.261 -.188 -.276 -.052 -7. Exercise .143 -.298 -.009 -.221 .263 .220 --* 8. Be with Family .191 -.259 -.103 -.336 -.139 .702** .372* -9. Test Skills .116 .289 .187 .080 -.147 .083 .073 .259 -10. Enjoy Nature -.013 -.093 .033 -.223 -.068 .398* .286 .657* .300 -11. Family Tradition .188 .074 .167 .026 -.046 .305 .065 .390* .373* .067 12. Primitive Self .189 .104 .163 .278 .338 .232 .362* .223 .307 .290 13. Teach Son .193 -.179 .047 -.037 .174 .485** .187 .529** .235 .327 14. Teach Daughter .356* -.190 .123 -.262 .257 .403* .373* .419* .161 .210 15. See Wildlife .582** -.193* -.373* -.284 .125 .592* .123 .479**-.007 .189 16. Escape .247 .105 .106 .011 .086 .220 .319 .313 .571** .229 17. Learn .310 .386* .281 .080 -.079 .107 .410* .249 .528** .142 18. Hunt with Dog -.252 -.023 -.112 -.260 -.080 .128 .095 .267 -.003 .182 19. Excitement .137 -.106 .087 -.195 -.036 .518* .231 .623** .077 .736** 20. Be Alone .175 .201 .307 .041 -.048 -.144 .048 -.114 .280 -.026 Indicates values significant at p 0.05; ** Indicates va lues significant at p 0.01.

PAGE 113

102Table 3-5 continued. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1. Overall Satisfaction 2. Obtain Food 3. Obtain Trophy 4. Shoot Game 5. Take Shots 6. See Game 7. Exercise 8. Be with Family 9. Test Skills 10. Enjoy Nature 11. Family Tradition -12. Primitive Self .101 -13. Teach Son .431* .179 -14. Teach Daughter .312 .268 .609**--* 15. See Wildlife .310 .066 .415* .449* -16. Escape .075 .360* .274 .299 -.012 -17. Learn 364* .337 .149 .331 .064 .644** -18. Hunt with Dog -.203 .077 .197 .329 -.162 .144 -.041 -19. Excitement .475** .304 .392* .307 .392* -.017 .140 -.004 -20. Be Alone -.268 -.122 -.050 .128 -.251 .417* .153 -.004 -.377* -* Indicates values significant at p 0.05; ** Indicates va lues significant at p 0.01.

PAGE 114

103 Table 3-6. Stepwise multiple regression an alysis for high overall satisfaction. Prediction R Square Beta (Standardized Coefficient) t-value p-value See Wildlife 0.339 0.582 3.852 0.001 Note: F = 14.840 (N = 31, p = .001); Overa ll satisfaction = 1.976 + .498 (See Wildlife).

PAGE 115

104Table 3-7. Comparison of responses to hunt ing motivation/satisfaction statements be tween people who hunt wild boar only (N=17) and those who hunt both wild boar and ducks, dove s and/or white-crowned pigeon (N=11). Statement Mean (S.D.): Wild Boar Only Mean (S.D.): Wild Boar and Bird t-value P-value Harvest Based I hunt to obtain food 2.9 (1.27) 3.3 (1.19) -0.83 0.418 I hunt to harvest trophy animals 2.3 (1.05) 2.6 (1.12) -0.81 0.427 I am satisfied if I take shots at an animal 2.4 (0.86) 2.1 (1.08) 0.79 0.439 I must shoot an animal to have a satisfying hunt 2.4 (1.06) 2.2 (1.04) 0.33 0.663 Nonharvest-Based Hunting with a hunting dog is important to me 4.6 (0.62) 4.5 (0.69) 0.52 0.607 I hunt to get outdoors and enjoy nature 4.5 (0.51) 4.4 (0.50) 0.54 0.592 I am satisfied if I see a game animal 4.4 (0.86) 4.4 (1.08) 0.25 0.808 I hunt for the excitement 4.3 (0.47) 4.4 (0.50) -0.37 0.718 I hunt to spend time with family and friends 4.4 (0.51) 4.2 (0.60) 1.05 0.308 If I had (have) a son, it would be important to me to teach him to hunt 4.3 (0.58) 4.2 (0.60) 0.29 0.770 Hunting is a tradition in my family 4.2 (1.01) 4.1 (0.83) 0.24 0.810 The exercise I receive during hunting is important to me 4.1 (0.99) 4.1 (0.83) -0.47 0.939 I enjoy testing my hunting skills against the game I am hunting 4.0 (0.35) 4.0 (0.77) 0.00 1.000 I hunt to escape from the worries of everyday life 3.9 (0.83) 4.0 (0.77) -0.19 0.850 Seeing wildlife while hunting is more important than harvesting wildlife 3.9 (1.03) 3.9 (1.04) 0.08 0.937 I hunt to learn more about the animals I hunt 3.4 (1.00) 3.6 (1.03) -0.57 0.574 If I had (have) a daughter, it would be important to me to teach her to hunt 3.1 (1.17) 3.5 (1.29) -0.70 0.492 I hunt to become closer to my primitive self 3.1 (1.14) 3.1 (1.04) -0.08 0.940 I hunt to spend time alone 2.9 (1.32) 3.0 (1.18) -0.25 0.808

PAGE 116

105Table 3-8. Effect of age on hunt er satisfactions. Percentage of respondents in each age category that disagreed, were neutral or agreed with the statement. Fisher’s exact test p-values .05 indicate significant differenc es between age categories. 25-40 years old 41-50 years old 51 and above Statement Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Ne utral Agree Disagree Neutral Agree p-value Harvest-Based I hunt to obtain food 16 3 19 13 3 13 23 0 10 .576 I hunt to harvest trophy animals 16 0 23 29 0 0 26 0 6 .024 I must shoot an animal to have a satisfying hunt 29 3 6 26 0 3 19 3 10 .766 I am satisfied if I take shots at an animal 26 0 13 23 3 3 29 3 0 .164 Nonharvest-Based Hunting with a hunting dog is important to me 0 6 32 0 0 29 0 0 32 I hunt to get outdoors and enjoy nature 0 0 39 0 0 29 0 0 32 I am satisfied if I see a game animal 0 0 39 0 0 29 0 0 32 I hunt for the excitement 0 0 39 0 0 29 0 0 32 I hunt to spend time with family and friends 3 0 35 0 0 29 0 0 32 If I had (have) a son, it would be important to me to teach him to hunt 0 0 35 0 6 23 0 0 32 .277 Hunting is a tradition in my family 0 0 39 6 0 23 3 3 26 .228 The exercise I receive during hunting is important to me 6 0 32 0 3 26 3 0 29 I enjoy testing my hunting skills against the game I am hunting 0 0 39 0 3 26 6 0 26 .146 I hunt to escape from the worries of everyday life 10 0 29 0 0 29 6 0 26 .512 Seeing wildlife while hunting is more important than harvesting wildlife 3 3 32 3 0 26 10 0 23 .476 I hunt to learn more about the animals I hunt 10 10 19 6 0 23 10 3 10 .556 If I had (have) a daughter, it would be important to me to teach her to hunt 10 6 23 13 0 16 16 6 10 .214 I hunt to become closer to my primitive self 13 10 16 6 13 10 13 10 10 .815 I hunt to spend time alone 29 0 10 10 3 16 19 0 13 .312

PAGE 117

106Table 3-9. Effect of experience on hunter satisfactions. Percentage of respondents in each experien ce category that disagreed, were neutral or agreed with the statemen t. Fisher’s exact test p-values .05 indicate significant differe nces between categories. 10-25 years 26-39 years 40-50 years Statement Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Ne utral Agree Disagree Neutral Agree p-value Harvest-Based I hunt to obtain food 10 3 16 16 0 19 26 3 6 .237 I hunt to harvest trophy animals 16 0 13 23 0 13 32 0 3 .199 I must shoot an animal to have a satisfying hunt 19 3 6 29 0 6 26 3 6 .821 I am satisfied if I take shots at an animal 19 3 6 26 0 10 32 3 0 .421 Nonharvest-Based Hunting with a hunting dog is important to me 0 3 26 0 3 32 0 0 35 .300 I hunt to get outdoors and enjoy nature 0 0 29 0 0 35 0 0 35 I am satisfied if I see a game animal 0 0 29 0 0 35 0 0 35 I hunt for the excitement 0 0 29 0 0 35 0 0 35 .633 I hunt to spend time with family and friends 0 3 26 0 0 35 0 0 35 .300 If I had (have) a son, it would be important to me to teach him to hunt 0 0 29 0 6 26 0 0 35 .055 Hunting is a tradition in my family 0 0 29 3 0 32 6 3 26 .756 The exercise I receive during hunting is important to me 6 0 23 0 3 32 3 0 32 .409 I enjoy testing my hunting skills against the game I am hunting 0 0 29 0 3 32 6 0 29 .313 I hunt to escape from the worries of everyday life 10 0 19 3 0 32 6 0 29 .457 Seeing wildlife while hunting is more important than harvesting wildlife 3 3 23 3 0 32 10 0 26 .542 I hunt to learn more about the animals I hunt 3 10 16 10 0 26 13 3 19 .595 If I had (have) a daughter, it would be important to me to teach her to hunt 10 3 16 10 3 23 19 6 10 .323 I hunt to become closer to my primitive self 10 10 10 10 10 16 13 13 10 1.000 I hunt to spend time alone 23 0 6 13 3 19 23 0 13 .239

PAGE 118

107Table 3-10. Effect of number of days hunti ng in the park per year on hunter satisfact ions. Percentage of respondents in each ca tegory that disagreed, were neutral or agreed with the statement. Fisher’s exact test p-values .05 indicate signifi cant differences between categories. 0-10 days 11-40 days 41-174 days Statement Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Ne utral Agree Disagree Neutral Agree p-value Harvest-Based I hunt to obtain food 19 0 16 19 0 13 13 6 13 .483 I hunt to harvest trophy animals 29 0 6 26 0 6 19 0 13 .586 I must shoot an animal to have a satisfying hunt 19 0 16 19 6 6 32 0 0 .045 I am satisfied if I take shots at an animal 29 0 6 23 3 6 26 3 3 .821 Nonharvest-Based Hunting with a hunting dog is important to me 0 3 32 0 3 29 0 0 32 I hunt to get outdoors and enjoy nature 0 0 35 0 0 32 0 0 32 I am satisfied if I see a game animal 0 0 35 0 0 32 0 0 32 I hunt for the excitement 0 0 35 0 0 32 0 0 32 I hunt to spend time with family and friends 0 3 32 0 0 32 0 0 32 If I had (have) a son, it would be important to me to teach him to hunt 0 3 32 0 0 29 0 3 29 Hunting is a tradition in my family 3 0 32 0 0 32 6 3 23 .409 The exercise I receive during hunting is important to me 3 3 29 3 0 29 3 0 29 I enjoy testing my hunting skills against the game I am hunting 3 0 32 0 3 29 3 029 .910 I hunt to escape from the worries of everyday life 6 0 29 6 0 26 0 3 29 .300 Seeing wildlife while hunting is more important than harvesting wildlife 3 3 29 10 0 23 3 0 29 .416 I hunt to learn more about the animals I hunt 13 3 19 10 0 23 3 10 19 .591 If I had (have) a daughter, it would be important to me to teach her to hunt 16 6 13 16 3 13 6 3 23 .455 I hunt to become closer to my primitive self 10 16 10 10 6 16 13 10 10 .693 I hunt to spend time alone 16 3 16 26 0 6 16 0 16 .536

PAGE 119

108Table 3-11. Effect of age on the support of proposed management options. Percentage of respondents in each category that disa greed, were neutral or agreed with the stat ement. Fisher’s exact test p-values .05 indicate significant differences between categories. 25-40 years old 41-50 years old 51 and above Management Option Disagree Neutral Agree Disagr ee Neutral Agree Disagree Neutral Agree p-value Create more roads 35 0 3 23 0 6 13 3 16 .049 Improve current roads 13 3 23 13 0 16 3 0 29 .259 Create more walking trails 13 3 23 10 3 16 3 6 23 .758 Better maintain current walking trails 0 3 35 3 0 26 6 3 23 .521 Provide trash cans 3 0 35 0 0 29 6 0 26 .481 Build a visitor center with information 10 6 23 0 0 29 3 3 26 .322 Employ an on-site ranger 6 0 32 0 3 26 0 6 26 .298 Establish areas to protect parrot habitat where humans are excluded 13 0 26 6 6 16 10 3 19 .664 Establish areas to protect parrot habitat where humans are excluded but only during the breeding season 0 0 39 3 6 19 0 3 29 .114 Set up zones in the park where different activities and management should take place 6 3 29 6 3 19 3 6 23 .953 Restrict hunting to certain times of the year throughout the entire park 3 0 35 3 0 26 3 0 29 1.000 Require licenses for hunting 6 10 23 3 3 23 10 6 16 .814 Build rest areas throughout the park 3 13 23 0 3 26 0 16 16 .261

PAGE 120

109Table 3-12. Effect of experience on the s upport of proposed management options. Per centage of respondents in each category th at disagreed, were neutral or agreed with the statement. Fisher’s exact test p-values .05 indicate significant differences between categories. 10-25 years 26-39 years 40-50 years Management Option Disagree Neutral Agree Disagr ee Neutral Agree Disagree Neutral Agree p-value Create more roads 29 0 0 29 0 6 13 3 19 .009 Improve current roads 13 0 16 10 3 23 6 0 29 .536 Create more walking trails 13 6 10 6 3 26 3 6 26 .286 Better maintain current walking trails 0 3 26 3 0 32 6 3 26 .705 Provide trash cans 0 0 29 3 0 32 6 0 29 .758 Build a visitor center with information 6 6 16 3 0 32 3 3 29 .389 Employ an on-site ranger 3 0 26 3 0 32 0 10 26 .118 Establish areas to protect parrot habitat where humans are excluded 6 0 23 10 6 19 13 3 19 .826 Establish areas to protect parrot habitat where humans are excluded but only during the breeding season 0 0 29 3 6 26 0 3 32 .662 Set up zones in the park where different activities and management should take place 3 3 23 10 0 26 3 10 23 .401 Restrict hunting to certain times of the year throughout the entire park 3 0 26 3 0 32 3 0 32 Require licenses for hunting 3 6 19 10 6 19 6 6 23 .978 Build rest areas throughout the park 3 10 16 0 6 29 0 16 19 .384

PAGE 121

110Table 3-13. Effect of days hunting on the support of proposed ma nagement options. Percentage of respondents in each category that disagreed, were neutral or agreed with the statement. Fisher’s exact test p-values .05 indicate significant differences between categories. 0-10 days 11-40 days 41-174 days Management Option Disagree Neutral Agree Disagr ee Neutral Agree Disagree Neutral Agree p-value Create more roads 19 0 16 26 0 6 26 3 3 .217 Improve current roads 6 0 29 10 3 19 13 0 19 .537 Create more walking trails 6 6 23 6 3 23 10 6 16 .906 Better maintain current walking trails 0 3 32 6 0 26 3 3 26 .627 Provide trash cans 6 0 29 0 0 32 3 0 29 .755 Build a visitor center with information 6 3 26 3 0 29 3 6 23 .835 Employ an on-site ranger 3 6 26 0 0 32 3 3 26 .627 Establish areas to protect parrot habitat where humans are excluded 6 6 23 10 0 23 13 3 16 .650 Establish areas to protect parrot habitat where humans are excluded but only during the breeding season 0 6 29 3 0 29 0 3 29 .755 Set up zones in the park where different activities and management should take place 10 6 19 0 0 32 6 6 19 .136 Restrict hunting to certain times of the year throughout the entire park 3 0 32 0 0 32 6 0 26 .511 Require licenses for hunting 3 3 29 13 3 16 3 13 16 .158 Build rest areas throughout the park 0 6 29 0 16 16 3 10 19 .301

PAGE 122

111 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0-910-2425-4950-7475-100100-150Number of DaysPercent of Participants Figure 3-1. Annual visitati on to Abaco National Park. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200January February March April May June July August September October November DecemberMonthTotal Number of People Days Wild Boar White-Crowned Pigeon Dove Duck Figure 3-2. Temporal distribution of hunting in Abaco National Park.

PAGE 123

112 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10January February March April May June July August September October November DecemberMonthTotal Number of People Days Driving Birdwatching Visiting the Ocean Exploration Caving Camping Hiking Figure 3-3. Temporal distribu tion of non-consumptive activities in Abaco National Park.

PAGE 124

113 Figure 3-4. Section map shown as a reference to participants in interview questions 4349

PAGE 125

114 Figure 3-5. Hunter designated favorite places.

PAGE 126

115 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1412345Mean Response Create more roads Create more hiking trails Improve current roads Establish parrot protection areas humans excluded only during parrot breeding season Establish parrot protection areas Employ an on-site ranger Build a visitor center Provide trash cans Improve current hiking trails Create rest areas Require hunting licenses Establish activity zones Establish hunting season Strongly Su pp ort Neutral Strongly Oppose Figure 3-6. Hunter responses to proposed management activities. Given are means standard errors.

PAGE 127

116 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION Comparing Methods: Stakeholder Analysis and Interviews One of our broad objectives for this study was to compare the two methods used – stakeholder analysis and personal interviews – as techniques for incorporating public participation in recreation planning for a nati onal park. Ultimately, we found that both methods have strengths and weaknesses and wh en combined together, yield a wealth of information. Stakeholder analysis proved partic ularly useful in soliciting ideas and input from a range of people with different view s. The method allowed us insight into commonalities between stakeholder groups, area s and issues of potential conflict, and strategies that can be employe d to minimize these prospective conflicts (see below). When we compared our results from the hunter stakeholder group meeting to those of the personal interviews with hunters, we found that there were st rong similarities in hunters’ usage maps. In both the stakeholde r analysis where we used area data, and personal interviews where we used point-sp ecific data, we found th at the south-central portion of the park, including the only we tland in the park, was the most popular for hunting followed by the northern and sout hern extremes of the park. Surprisingly, we found that there were discrepancies between the two methods. Although five of the six hunters in the hunter st akeholder meeting later participated in our interviews, we found large diffe rences in responses to a fe w questions. Hunters in the stakeholder meeting were very outspoken and adamant against restrictions on where they could hunt in the park. This was reflect ed in their group map, which showed their

PAGE 128

117 reluctance to relinquish more than 8% of the park for other activities. In addition, although hunters stated ideas related to parro t protection and ecosystem preservation in their discussion of a vision statement for the pa rk, they did not include areas of protection on their group map. Finally, while other stak eholder groups wanted a game warden for hunting zones in the park, hunters did not express this desire. Results from personal interviews with hunter s paint a different pi cture. Data show that hunters supported the us e of resources for parrot and ecosystem protection over improving opportunities for hunting. Furthermor e, most hunters supported establishing parrot protection areas year-round (61%) or du ring the parrot breeding season (87%). Finally, when we asked their opinions on a number of potential management activities, we found that most hunters were favorable towa rds hunting restrictions, such as requiring hunting licenses, establishing a hunting seas on, and employing an on-site ranger. Due to these discrepancies, we believe th at stakeholder analysis is faulted by an uncertain group dynamic and/or social pres sures that exist among group members and have the potential of confounding personal op inions. Conversely, during the personal interviews, hunters may have been more inclin ed to give answers they thought desirable by the interviewer, such as an affinity fo r parrot protection, even though the interviewer remained objective throughout th e interviews. Despite this possibility, we believe that the results from personal interviews more accu rately reflect how an individual feels on a particular issue, however how they behave or act in the presence of others may be more accurately represented by data collected in the stakeholder analysis. Because managers deal with how people act in reality, where th ey are under social pressures, data from a stakeholder analysis may more realistically represent the issues managers face.

PAGE 129

118 Interviews, on the other ha nd, proved particularly usef ul in providing a deep understanding of a particular stakeholder group; however, they required significantly more time than the stakeholder analysis. In total, the stake holder analysis took approximately 10 hours to complete whereas conducting personal interviews with 31 people took more than 35 hours. Thus, the stak eholder analysis may be more efficient at understanding a range of stakeholder interest s when time is limited. When combined together, we believe that these two methods provide complementary information essential to park planning. As stated previously, we hope that the methods employed in this study will provide a useful model for the 25 ot her national parks throughout the Bahamas and elsewhere. Recommendations Our first overarching objective for this st udy was to identify st akeholder needs and desires as well as their compatibility with parrot resource needs in order to make recommendations for a recreation management plan for Abaco National Park. Prior to this study, little was known about the stak eholders of the park including their relationship, use and opinions of it. Us ing the information we obtained from the stakeholder analysis and hunter interviews we now feel confident to present a few general recommendations, which we later hope to expand upon and integrate into a complete management plan for the park. The reco mmendations and suggested actions outlined below include: ensuring traditional recr eational opportunities exist while ensuring sustainable parrot protection; continuing opportunities for a diversity of non-consumptive recreation opportunitie s; continuing opportunities for quality hunting experiences; expanding opportunities for people to visit the park; enhancem ent of local ownership of

PAGE 130

119 the park; and enhancement of learning opportun ities for students and adults. They are dynamic and should be revised as the planning process continues. 1. Ensure traditional recreational opportuni ties exist while ensuring sustainable parrot protection. Abaco National Park was established to protect the habitat and breeding range of the Bahama parrot. Thus, parrot protecti on should preclude recreation opportunities when and where the two are in conflict. Actions: 1. Establish parrot protection zones wher e humans are excluded at least during the parrot breeding season. Currently, we recommend this zone be placed in the northern third of the park. Further consultation with parr ot biologists is essential to ensure that areas where parrots nest and breed are sufficiently protected. 2. Promote research to continue to monito r the health of the Bahama parrot, other wildlife and ecological systems in the park. 3. Develop ecological and social sta ndards and indicators to monitor human impacts on the natural environment. 4. Use local guides with exte nsive knowledge of the park to lead visitors through sensitive areas of the park. 5. Use onand off-site education to info rm locals and tourists about the parks fragile ecosystem and proper c onduct while visiting the park. 2. Continue to provide a diversity of no n-consumptive recreation opportunities. Abaco National Park offers opportunities for both locals and tourists to hike, birdwatch, cave, explore, and enjoy nature in a unique environment. Future management should continue to provide for these types of activities and expand opportunities where appropriate. Actions: 1. Promote ecotourism activities throughout their current range, particularly along the coastal area of th e park where results show that a majority of people conduct ecotourism activities. 2. Expand opportunities for visitors to vi ew the Bahama parrot by establishing trails in non-nesting areas and training local guides. 3. Develop trails that run through a variety of settings (e.g. pine forest, coppice) and provide a diversity of experiences. Ensure trails are located and designed to have minimal impacts on wildlife and natural systems.

PAGE 131

120 4. Control visitor numbers and ensure o pportunities for solitude by keeping most roads through ecotourism areas un improved. Those roads which are consistently driven and already highly established (such as the central and south-central interior roads depicted in Figures 2-9 thru 2-14) could be improved for access to birdwatching and hi king trails. Consider closing roads in the northern area of the park, whic h are located in areas of high density parrot nesting. 5. Ensure non-consumptive recreationists a nd hunters do not inte rfere with each other or cause a safety concern. Use te mporal zoning if conflict arises. This could include zoning areas of conflic t for hunting between the months of October through February (when bird hunting is legal in addition to boar hunting) and for non-consumptive recrea tion the remaining months of the year. 6. Provide detailed maps and brochures of recreation opportunities in Abaco National Park. 3. Continue to provide opportuniti es for quality hunting experiences. Hunting is a historical use of the park and currently practiced by a relatively large number of locals. Furthermore, the park was establ ished under the stipulation that hunting would remain a legal activity. Hunting also is part of the Abaco culture. Therefore, management must focus on ma intaining quality h unting experiences. Actions: 1. Maintain hunting throughout its current range where it does not conflict with sustaining viable parrot populations. This particularly app lies to the wetland area and northern and southern extremes of the park where hunting is most popular. 2. Work with local agencies (e.g. Friend of the Environment-Abaco, Abaco Department of Agriculture) to determin e appropriate signage, regulations, and seasons. 3. Ensure hunting and non-consumptive recr eation do not interfere with each other or cause a safety concern. Use te mporal zoning if conflict arises. This could include zoning areas of conflic t for hunting between the months of October through February (when bird hunting is legal in addition to boar hunting) and for non-consumptive recrea tion the remaining months of the year. 4. Expand opportunities for pe ople to visit the park. Currently, the majority of Abaco National Park is inaccessible to most people. Although the main road through the park is travelab le, ancillary roads throughout the interior of the park require a four-wheel drive vehicle. Furthe rmore, there are no recr eation facilities to provide opportunities for a wide range of people to enjoy the park. To encourage

PAGE 132

121 more visitation to the park and greate r economic revenue to local communities, portions of the park should be made more accessible to the public. Actions: 1. According to our meetings with stake holders, people most wanted a visitor center, followed by souvenir shops, refres hment stands, a ranger station, park guides, educational materials, improved roads, and restrooms. Results show that infrastructure would be best pla ced as far north along the main road as possible without infringing upon hi gh density parrot nesting areas. 2. Improve the main road to the area of infrastructure. 3. Request public comment on all significant in frastructure projects in the park prior to finalizing plans. 4. Ensure facilities do not negatively imp act the natural ecosystem by monitoring human impacts. 5. Enhance local involvement in the park. As stated throughout this document, local involvement in conser vation and preservation effort s is essential to ensuring the long-term sustainability of protected areas. People living adjacent to Abaco National Park have a long-standing relati onship with the park and have expressed their interest in helping manage the pa rk. Groups, such as Friends of the Environment-Abaco, the Abaco Chamber of Commerce, and the stakeholder groups discussed in this study should be enc ouraged to participat e in the continuing planning and management of the park. Actions: 1. Provide locals the opportunity to participate in the management of the park. Locals could be involved in future p ublic meetings, surveys, informal interactions, citizen advisory councils, or more directly as game wardens, park guides or through comanagement arrangement s. Ensure locals are involved at every stage of the planning and management process. 2. Encourage local visitation to the park. This includes providing a diversity of recreation opportunities for people with all different skill levels. 3. Use education and outreach to help inform local communities about the benefits of Abaco National Park. 4. Establish regular intera ction between the Baha mas National Trust and community leaders to assess future community needs and desires. 6. Enhance learning opportuniti es for students and adults. Abaco National Park is a valuable educational opportunity for both residents of Abaco and tourists to

PAGE 133

122 learn about the natural and cultural envir onment of the area. Management should capitalize on th is opportunity. Actions: 1. Develop on-site education opportunities. This could involve creating a visitor center, interpretive trails and guided trail walks. 2. Distribute off-site educational mate rials, such as guide books, brochures, posters, teacher resources and a website. 3. Encourage local teachers to use the park as an educational resource to educate their students about the habita t and wildlife of the park.

PAGE 134

123 APPENDIX A INDIVIDUAL MAPPING ACTIVI TY MAP AND QUESTIONNAIRE Figure A-1. Base map provided to partic ipants in individual mapping activity.

PAGE 135

124 Supplementary Questionnaire Map Number Describe Each Map Area Area Number and Color 1. How do you use this area? Describe th e type of activity y ou do in this area. a. How often do you use this area? times per year b. What months do you use this ar ea? Please circle all that apply. Jan. Feb. Mar April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

PAGE 136

125 APPENDIX B VISION STATEMENT WORDS, IDEAS AND PHRASES Part 1: Vision Statement Question – please list the words, ideas and phrases you think should be included in the vision statement for Abaco National Park. WORD, IDEA OR PHRASE HMT S B E TOTAL Visitor Education 10 Education (General) X 1 Learning center for Bahama parrots X 1 Training for bird survival X 1 Educate people before coming to the park X 1 Education on local flora and fauna X 1 Create awareness on national heritage X 1 Ecosystem education X 1 Adult education X 1 Trails for learning natural vegetation X 1 Understand the environmental structure of the park X 1 Student Education 2 Educational field trips X 1 Kid education X 1 Protect parrots/wildlife 6 A sanctuary for Bahama parrots X XX 3 Conserve migratory birds and butterflies X 1 Increase the parrot population X 1 Endemic or endangered species X 1 Ecosystem Protection and Restoration 15 Ecosystem and biodiversity X XX 3 Sustainability XXX 3 Conservation X X 2 Wildlife habitat/nature X X 2 Park restoration XX 2 Keep the island green X 1 Conserve blue holes and swamps X 1 Conserve pine trees X 1 Low Impact Visitation to Enjoy Nature 11 Enjoyment of nature XX X 3 Make attractive for both tourists and locals XX X 3

PAGE 137

126 Home away from home X 1 Low impact visitation X 1 Restrict/avoid harmful practices on flora and fauna X 1 Unite traditional culture and ecotourism X 1 Recreation without abusing the resource X 1 Research 2 Research on parrots X 1 Research facility X 1 Development of Trails/tours 3 Guided tour X 1 Develop a walking tour X 1 Trails, boardwalks for sightseeing X 1 Community Involvement 4 Local community based organization to monitor park activities X 1 Local expertise X 1 Management with local oversight committee X 1 Locally managed organizations and park services X 1 Quality Management 12 Keep the environment safe X XX 3 Clean up litter X X 2 Automate lighthouse X 1 Cell phone communication system X 1 Clean and maintain roads X 1 Warning signs X 1 Watch out for poachers X 1 Enforcement of mandates X 1 Office for warden X 1 H = hunter group; M = tourism group; T = teacher group; S = Sandy Point group; B = business group; E = environmental group.

PAGE 138

127 APPENDIX C INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY MA PS BY STAKEHOLDER GROUPS Figure C-1. Activities of hunter group members.

PAGE 139

128 Figure C-2. Activities of tourism group members.

PAGE 140

129 Figure C-3. Activities of teacher group members.

PAGE 141

130 Figure C-4. Activities of Sandy Point group members.

PAGE 142

131 Figure C-5. Activities of business group members.

PAGE 143

132 Figure C-6. Activities of environmental group members.

PAGE 144

133 APPENDIX D ACTIVITY ZONE DISCUSSION IDEAS Part 4: Activity Zone Discussion Question – What activities and management activities are appropriate for each of the activity zones you included on your groups map? ACTIVITY ZONE IDEA H TM TR SP B E Infrastructure Visitor Center X X X X X Souvenir Shop X X X X Refreshments X X X X Ranger Station/Game Warden X X X X Guides/Binoculars X X X Educational Video X X X Improved Roads X X X Informational Literature X X X Restrooms X X Children’s Education X X Research Facility X X Communications X X Live Animal Display (parrots) X Picnic Areas X Rest Area X First Aid X Parking Lot X Bird Rehabilitation Center X Benches X Beach Facilities X Museum X Recreational Area for Locals X Main Entrance X User Fee X Solar Panel Construction X Meeting Room X Open Air Amphitheater X Library X Self-guided Nature Trails X Ecotourism Birdwatching X X X X Hiking Trails X X X

PAGE 145

134 Camping Sites X X X Non-motorized Vehicles Only X X X Restroom/Outhouse X X X Guided Tours X X X Trails (general) X X Educational Materials X X Picnic Area X X Interpretive Trails X Refreshments X Rest Area X Improved Roads X Trash Cans X Surfing X Scuba Diving X Crabbing X Fishing X Caving X Biking Trails X Research X Safety X Signs X Hunting X Protection Posted Regulations and Enforcement X X X X Research X X X X X Education for Locals X X Regulated Use X X Predator Control X X Seasonal Hunting X Finance X Hunting of Certain Species Allowed X Hunting Hunting of Wild Boar X X X X Hunting of White-Crowed Pigeon X X X Hunting of Ducks X X Hunting of Teal X X Research X X Hunting of Dove X Cell Phone Towers X Walking X Birdwatching X Drinking Water X

PAGE 146

135 Trash Cans X Communication X Posted Regulations X Hunting in Hunting Areas Only X Crabbing X Bounty of Feral Cats X Game Warden X Ecotourism X Research Research Facility X H = hunter group; TM = tourism group; TR = teacher group; SP = Sandy Point group; B = business group; E = environmental group.

PAGE 147

136 APPENDIX E HUNTER QUESTIONNAIRE (Introduce myself) “Hello, I am Lisa Marks, a master’s student at the University of Florida. We are working on a project with the Bahamas National Trust to interview hunters who use Abaco National Park in order to help develop a recreation plan for the park. The interview will focus on where and when you currently use Abaco National Park, what factors contribute to an enjoya ble hunting experience and how you would like Abaco National Park managed in the future. Your answers will be confidential to the extent provided by law and you will not be iden tified by name in any report of this interview. You do not have to answer any que stions you do not wish to answer. You are free to leave the interview at any time without penalty. There is no more than minimal risk to participating in this interview and you will not receive any direct benefits for your participation. The interv iew will take approximately 45 minutes. Do you have any questions or is it alright that begin now?” BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1. How many years have you lived on Abaco? 2. What town do you currently live in? 3. At what age did you begin hunting? 4. How many years have you hunted? 5. (a) Have you ever attended a meeting about Abaco National Park (b) If yes, who sponsored the meeting? (c) When was the meeting? CURRENT USE: 6. How many days did you spend in Abaco National Park over the last year? 7. (a) Please look at the list of activities and tell me how many days, if any, you participated in each of the activities each month over the past year. (b) Look over the list one more time and rank the 3 activities that represent the most important reasons why you go to Abaco National Park.

PAGE 148

137 ACTIVITY Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec RANK Hunting of wild boar Hunting of ducks Hunting of doves Hunting of white crowned pigeons Hiking Birdwatching/Viewing Bahama parrot Access to Hole in the Wall/Lighthouse Exploration Camping Fishing Enjoying nature Educational outing Access to ocean Caving 8. On a scale from 1-5, where 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neither dissatisfied nor satisfied, 4 = satisfied and 5 = very satisfied, pl ease rate the degree to which you were satisfied with your last hunting experience in Abaco National Park. 9. Using the same scale, how satisfied are you w ith your OVERALL hunting experiences in Abaco National Park? 10. (a) On your last visit to Abaco National Park were you successful in obtaining an animal (b) If yes, which one(s)? 11. The last time you hunted DUCKS, did you obtain your bag limit? 12. The last time you hunted DOVES, did you obtain your bag limit? 13. The last time you hunted WHITE CROWNED PI GEON, did you obtain your bag limit? 14. How many people are typically in your hunting party? Here are some reasons people might chose to hunt in Abaco National Park. Please tell me how much you agree with each of the following statements. STATEMENTS CONCERNING HUNTING Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 15. I hunt to obtain food 1 2 3 4 5 16. I hunt to harvest trophy animals 1 2 3 4 5 17. I must shoot an animal to have a satisfying hunt 1 2 3 4 5 18. I am satisfied if I take shots at an animal 1 2 3 4 5 19. I am satisfied if I see a game animal 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 149

138 20. The exercise I receive during hunting is important to me 1 2 3 4 5 21. I hunt to spend time with family and friends 1 2 3 4 5 22. I enjoy testing my hunting skills against the game I am hunting 1 2 3 4 5 23. I hunt to get outdoors and enjoy nature 1 2 3 4 5 24. Hunting is a tradition in my family 1 2 3 4 5 25. I hunt to become closer to my primitive self 1 2 3 4 5 26. If I had (have a son), it would be important to me to teach him to hunt 1 2 3 4 5 27. If I had (have) a daughter, it would be important to me to teach her to hunt 1 2 3 4 5 28. Seeing wildlife while hunting is more important than harvesting wildlife 1 2 3 4 5 29. I hunt to escape from the worries of everyday life 1 2 3 4 5 30. I hunt to learn more about the animals I hunt 1 2 3 4 5 31. Hunting with a hunting dog is important to me 1 2 3 4 5 32. I hunt for the excitement 1 2 3 4 5 33. I hunt to spend time alone 1 2 3 4 5 34. If you had to pick the top 3 reasons you hunt from this list, what would they be? 35. Over the past 10 years do you think that the number of days people hunt WILD BOAR has been: ___ Increasing ___ Not changing very much ___ Decreasing ___ Not sure 36. Over the past 10 years do you think the population of WILD BOAR has been: ___ Increasing ___ Not changing very much ___ Decreasing ___ Not sure 37. Over the past 10 years do you think that the number of days people hunt DUCKS has been: ___ Increasing ___ Not changing very much ___ Decreasing ___ Not sure 38. Over the past 10 years do you think the population of DUCKS has been: ___ Increasing ___ Not changing very much ___ Decreasing ___ Not sure 39. Over the past 10 years do you think that the number of days people hunt DOVES has been: ___ Increasing ___ Not changing very much ___ Decreasing ___ Not sure

PAGE 150

139 40. Over the past 10 years do you think the population of DOVES has been: ___ Increasing ___ Not changing very much ___ Decreasing ___ Not sure 41. Over the past 10 years do you think that the number of days people hunt WHITE CROWNED PIGEON has been: ___ Increasing ___ Not changing very much ___ Decreasing ___ Not sure 42. Over the past 10 years do you think the population of WHITE CROWNED PIGEON has been: ___ Increasing ___ Not changing very much ___ Decreasing ___ Not sure MAPPING: We have divided Abaco National Park into 5 sections. These sections reflect a variety of resources and uses within the area. Please look at the map and respond to the following questions. 43. Rank the sections in order from the one you spen d the most time in (1) to the one you spend the least time in (5). Section # Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 44. What section(s) did you visit on your last trip to Abaco National Park? 45. In what section(s) do you hunt for WILD BOAR, if any? 46. In what section(s) do you hunt for DOVES, if any? 47. In what section(s) do you hunt for DUCKS, if any? 48. In what section(s) do you hunt for WHITE CROWNED PIGEON, if any? 49. (a) If you had to choose 3 areas you MOST ENJOY, where would these areas be? (Record these on these on the map with an “E”). (b) Why do you enjoy area 1? (c) Why do you enjoy area 2? (d) Why do you enjoy area 3?

PAGE 151

140 FUTURE USE/MANAGEMENT: 50. Please rank from 1-6 what you think is the most important to the least important. ___ More effort should be spent on protecting the Bahama parrot and its habitat ___ More effort should be spent on protecting the whole ecosystem ___ More effort should be spent on educating the public about the local environment ___ More effort should be spent on improving hunting ___ More effort should be spent on improving opportunities for wildlife viewing ___ More effort should be spent on improving opportunities for tourism Please rate the degree to which you support or oppose the following management policies and actions. MANAGEMENT POLICY/ACTION Strongly Oppose Oppose Neutral Support Strongly Support 51. Create more roads 1 2 3 4 5 52. Improve current roads 1 2 3 4 5 53. Create more walking trails 1 2 3 4 5 54. Better maintain current walking trails 1 2 3 4 5 55. Provide garbage/trash cans 1 2 3 4 5 56. Build a visitor center with information 1 2 3 4 5 57. Employ an on-site ranger/warden 1 2 3 4 5 58. Establish areas to protect parrot habitat where humans are excluded 1 2 3 4 5 59. Establish areas to protect parrot habitat where humans are excluded but only during the breeding season (MaySeptember) 1 2 3 4 5 60. Set up zones in the park where different activities and management should take place 1 2 3 4 5 61. Restrict hunting to certain times of the year throughout the entire park 1 2 3 4 5 62. Require licenses for hunting 1 2 3 4 5 63. Establish rest areas____________ 1 2 3 4 5 64. Who would you like to see manage Abaco National Park? ___ Bahamas National Trust ___ Bahamas National Trust and local management -How would you like local management organized? ___ Local management -How would you like local management organized? ___ No opinion

PAGE 152

141 Look at the map of Abaco National Park again and rank the activities from 1-5, beginning with the activity you think is most appropriate for that section. 65. Section 1: ___ Hunting ___ Ecotourism such as hiking, exploring, etc. ___ A visitors’ center ___ Research ___ Parrot protection ___ Other:_____________________________ 66. Section 2: ___ Hunting ___ Ecotourism such as hiking, exploring, etc. ___ A visitors’ center ___ Research ___ Parrot protection ___ Other:_____________________________ 67. Section 3: ___ Hunting ___ Ecotourism such as hiking, exploring, etc. ___ A visitors’ center ___ Research ___ Parrot protection ___ Other:_____________________________ 68. Section 4: ___ Hunting ___ Ecotourism such as hiking, exploring, etc. ___ A visitors’ center ___ Research ___ Parrot protection ___ Other:_____________________________ 69. Section 5: ___ Hunting ___ Ecotourism such as hiking, exploring, etc. ___ A visitors’ center ___ Research ___ Parrot protection ___ Other:_____________________________ 70. Do you have any additional suggestions for the management of ANP to make your visits more enjoyable? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 71. Where were you born? 72. What is your current age?

PAGE 153

142 73. Are you presently: ___ Employed outside the home -__ Full time __ Part Time Occupation: __________________ ___ Unemployed ___ Retired -Previous Occupation: ___________________________ ___ Student -__ Full time __ Part time 74. Which of the following categories best describes your nationality? ___ Bahamian ___ European ___ U.S. ___ Other: _________________________ 75. What is the highest education level you have attained? ___ Less than high school ___ High school diploma ___ Attended business/technical school ___ Some college or 2 year degree ___ Completed 4 year college degree ___ Some graduate work ___ Completed graduate or advanced degree

PAGE 154

143 LIST OF REFERENCES Appelson, G.S. 1999. Knowledge and attit udes of residents toward watershed management: assessing the need for envir onmental education in the Orange Creek Basin, Florida. Wildlife Ecology and Cons ervation. University of Florida, Gainesville. Absher, J., L. McAvoy, R. Burdge, and J. Gramann. 1988. Public and commercial managers predicting recreationist opin ions. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 6:66-77. Aldskogius, H. 1977. A conceptual framework and a Swedish case st udy of recreational behavior and environmental cogn ition. Economic Geography 53:163-183. Ball, J. 2002. Towards a methodology for mappi ng “regions for sustainability” using PPGIS. Progress in Planning 58:81-140. Binns, T., T. Hill, and E. Nel. 1997. Learni ng from the people: participatory rural appraisal, geography and rural developmen t in the “new” South Africa. Applied Geography 17:1-9. Bissell, S. J., M. D. Duda, and K. C. Young. 1998. Recent studies on hunting and fishing participation in the United States. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 3:75-80. Brandon, K. E., and M. Wells. 1992. Planning for people and parks: design dilemmas. World Development 20:557-570. Browder, J. O. 2002. Conservation and develo pment projects in the Brazilian Amazon: lessons from the Community Initiative Program in Rondnia. Environmental Management 29:750-762. Brunson, M., and B. Shelby. 1992. Assessing recr eational and scenic quality: how does new forestry rate? Jour nal of Forestry 90:37-41. Burger, J. 2000. A comparison of on-site hunter s, sportsmen and the general public about recreational rates and future land use pr eferences for the Sa vannah River Site. Journal of Environmental Pl anning and Management 43:221-233. Callimanopulos, D. 1982. The tourist trap: Who's getting caught? Cultural Survival Quarterly 6:3-35.

PAGE 155

144 Chape, S., S. Blyth, L. Fish, and M. Spalding. 2003. 2003 United Nations List of Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Swit zerland and UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. Crissey, W. F. 1971. Some thoughts on wildlif e research and management objectives. Wildlife Society News 134:27-28. Dagmar, J. V., and G. Becker. 2002. Recreation in urban forests: monitoring specific user groups and identifying their needs with video and GIS-support. Pages 296-301 in A. Arnberger, C. Brandenburg, and A. Muhar, editors. Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas. Daigle, J. J., D. Hrubes, and I. Ajzen. 2002. A comparative study of beliefs, attitudes, and values among hunters, wildlife viewers, and other outdoor recr eationists. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7:1-19. Dawson, K. J. 1985. Natural area planning for recreational use tran sition. Landscape and Planning 12:111-123. Decker, D. J., T. L. Brown, and R. J. Guti rrez. 1980. Further insights into the multiplesatisfaction approach for hunter manage ment. Wildlife Society Bulletin 8:323-331. Decker, D. J., T. L. Brown, and W. F. Siemer. 2001. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda. Downs, R. M., and D. Stea 1977. Maps in Minds. Harper and Row, New York. Driver, B. L., P. J. Brown, and G. L. Pe terson 1991. Benefits of Leisure. Venture Publishing, State College PA. Driver, B. L., P. J. Brown, G. H. Stanke y, and T. G. Gregoire. 1987. The ROS planning system: evolution, basic concepts, and re search needed. Leisure Sciences 9:201212. Duffas, D. A., and P. Dearden. 1990. Non-c onsumptive wildlife oriented recreation: A conceptual framework. Biol ogical Conservation 53:213-231. Flood, C., and R. McCarville. 1999. Lessons from a successful service quality initiative: a case study in organizational change Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 17:102-113. Frey, S. N., M. R. Conover, J. S. Borgo, and T. A. Messmer. 2003. Factors influencing pheasant hunter harvest a nd satisfaction. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:277286. Gigliotti, L. M. 2000. A classification scheme to better understand satisfaction of Black Hills deer hunters: The role of harves t success. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:32-51.

PAGE 156

145 Gillis, K.S., and R.B. Ditton. 2002. A conjoint an alysis of U.S. Atlantic billfish fishery management alternatives. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1218-1228. Gotmark, F. 1992. The effects of investigator disturbance on nesting birds. Pages 63-104 in D. M. Power, editor. Current Ornithology. Plenum Press, New York. Grimble, R., and M.-K. Chan. 1995. Stake holder analysis fo r natural resource management in developing countries Natural Resources Forum 19:113-124. Grimble, R., and J. Quan 1993. Tree resource s and the environmen t: stakeholders and trade-offs: phase I an analytical review. NRI, Chatham (unpublished). Grimble, R., and K. Wellard. 1997. Stake holder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems 55:173-193. Hall, M. C., and S. J. Page 2002. The Geography of Tourism and Recreation. Routledge, London. Hammitt, W. E., C. D. McDonald, and F. P. Noe. 1989. Wildlife management: Managing the hunt versus the hunting experience. Environmental Management 13:503-507. Hammitt, W. E., C. D. McDonald, and M. E. Patterson. 1990. Determinants of multiple satisfaction for deer hunting. W ildlife Society Bulletin 18:331-337. Harmon, D. 1987. Cultural diversity, human subs istence, and the national park ideal. Environmental Ethics 9:147-158. Harris, L. K., R. H. Gimblett, and W. W. Shaw. 1995. Multiple use management: Using a GIS model to understand conflicts between recreationists and sensitive wildlife. Society and Natural Resource 8:559-572. Hayslette, S. E., J. B. Armstrong, and R. E. Mirarchi. 2001. Mourning dove hunting in Alabama: motivations, satisfactions and sociocultural influences. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:81-95. Hazel, K. L., E. E. Langenau, and R. L. Levine. 1990. Dimensions of hunting satisfaction: Multiple-satis factions of wild turkey hunting. Leisure Sciences 12:383-393. Heatwole, C. A., and N. C. West. 1982. R ecreational-boating patterns and water-surface zoning. Geographical Review 72:304-314. Hendee, J. C. 1974. A multiple-satisfaction approach to game management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2:104-113.

PAGE 157

146 Holling, C. S. 1992. Cross-scale morphology, ge ometry and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Management 62:447-502. Hone, J. 2002. Feral pigs in Namadi Nationa l Park, Australia: dynamics, impacts and management. Biological Conservation 105:231-242. Jaakson, R. 1988. Recreation boating spatial pa tterns: Theory and management. Leisure Sciences 11:85-98. Jackson, R. M., and R. K. Anderson. 1985. The deer hunting experience: Its satisfactions and expectations. Deer a nd Deer Hunting 8:9-18. Jackson, R. M., R. C. Norton, and R. K. Anderson. 1981. The resource manager and the public: An evaluation of historical and curre nt concepts and practices. Transactions of North American Wildlife and Na tural Resources Conference 46:208-221. Jacob, S., and A. E. Luloff. 1995. Exploring th e meaning of rural through cognitive maps. Rural Sociology 60:260-273. Jacobson, S.K. 1999. Communication Skills for Cons ervation Professionals. Island Press, Washington D.C. Jacobson, S. K. 2001. Monitoring public sati sfaction in an ecosystem management framework. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19:83-101. Jacobson, S. K., L. Gape, M. Sweeting, and T.V. Stein. 2005. Using a nominal group process to plan educational outreach fo r a Bahamas park. Applied Environmental Education and Comm unication 4:1-12. Jelinski, D. E., C. C. Krueger, and D. A. Duffas. 2002. Geostatistical analyses of interactions between killer whales (Orcinus orca) a nd recreational whale-watching boats. Applied Geography 22:393-411. Jenkins, J. M., and D. J. Walmsley. 1993. Ment al maps of tourists: A study of Coffs Harbour, New South Wales. GeoJournal 29:233-241. Kellert, S. R., and P. J. Brown. 1985. Huma n dimensions information in wildlife management, policy, and planning. Leisure Sciences 7:269-280. Kliskey, A. D. 1994. A comparative analysis of approaches to wilderness perception mapping. Journal of Environm ental Management 41:199-236. Knapp, G., and P. H. Herlihy. 2001. Mapping the landscape of identity. Latin America in the 21st Century 27:251-271.

PAGE 158

147 Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1995. Factor s that influence wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexis tence Through Management. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Langenau, E. E., R. J. Morgan, J. R. Terr y, and D. C. Cue. 1981. Relationship between deer kills and ratings of the hunt. Jo urnal of Wildlife Management 45:959-964. Larson, R. A. 1995. Balancing wildlife viewing with wildlife impacts. Pages 327-333 in R. L. Knight, and K. J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Res earch. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the C ity. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. McCullough, D. R., and W. M. Carmen. 1982. Management goals for deer hunter satisfaction. Wildlife So ciety Bulletin 10:49-52. Mehta, J. N., and S. R. Kellert. 1998. Local attitudes toward community-based conservation policy and programmes in Nepal: a case study in the Makalu-Barun Conservation Area. Environm ental Conservation 25:320-333. Michaelidou, M., D. J. D ecker, and J. P. Lassoie. 2002. The interdependence of ecosystem and community viability: a theore tical framework to guide research and application. Society and Natural Resource 15:599-616. Miller, J. R., and N. T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreati on trails, human activit y, and nest predation in lowland riparian areas. La ndscape and Urban Planning 50:227-236. Moore, R. L., and A. R. Graefe. 1994. Attach ments to recreation se ttings: The case of rail-trail users. Leisure Sciences 16:17-31. More, T. A. 1973. Attitudes of Massachusetts hunters. Transactions of North American Wildlife and Natural Res ources Conference 38:230-234. Oh, C.-O., R. B. Ditton, B. Genter, and R. Riechers. 2005. A stated preference choice approach to understanding angler pref erences for management options. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10:173-186. O'learly, J. T., J. Behrens-Teppeer, F. a. Mcguire, and F. D. Dottavio. 1987. Age of first hunting experience: Results from a nationw ide recreation survey. Leisure Sciences 9:225-233. Potter, D. R., J. C. Hendee, and R. N. Cl ark. 1973. Hunting satisfaction: Games, gun, or nature? Transactions of North Amer ican Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 38:220-229. Sekercioglu, C. H. 2002. Impacts of bird watching on human and avian communities. Environmental Conservation 29:282-289.

PAGE 159

148 Simberloff, D., M.A. Relva, and M. Nuez. 2003. Introduced species and management of a nothofagus/austrocedrus forest. En vironmental Management 31: 263-275. Smith, D. A. 2003. Participatory mapping of community lands and hunting yields among the Bugl of Western Panama Human Organization 62:332-343. Songorwa, A. N. 1999. Community-based wildli fe management (CWM) in Tanzania: are the communities interested? World Development 27:2061-2079. Stahala, C. 2005. Demography and conserva tion of the Bahama parrot on Great Abaco Island. Zoology. North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Stankey, G. H., R. C. Lucas, and R. R. Ream. 1973. Relationships between hunting success and satisfaction. Transactions of North American W ildlife and Natural Resources Conference 38:235-242. Steiner, F. 1991. The Living Landscape: An Ec ological Approach to Landscape Planning. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. Taylor, A. R., and R. L. Knight. 2003. Wildlif e responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. Ecologi cal Applications 13:951-963. Thomas, J. W., J. C. Pack, W. M. Healy, J. D. Gill, and H. R. Sanderson. 1973. Territoriality among hunters The policy im plications. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natu ral Resources Conference 38. Trakolis, D. 2001. Local people's perceptions of planning and management issues in Prespes Lakes National Park, Greece. J ournal of Environmental Management 61:227-241. Vaske, J. J., M. P. Donnelle, T. A. He berlein, and B. Shelby. 1982. Differences in reported satisfaction ratings by consump tive and non-consumptive recreationists. Journal of Leisure Science 14:195-206. Vaske, J. J., A. J. Fedler, and A. R. Gr aefe. 1986. Multiple determin ants of satisfaction from a specific waterfowl hunting trip. Leisure Sciences 8:149-166. Vining, J., H. W. Schroeder, a nd T. C. Daniel. 1984. Predicting scenic values in forested residential landscapes. Journal of Leisure Research 16:124-135. Walmsley, D. J., and J. M. Jenkins. 1992. Tourism cognitive mapping of unfamiliar environments. Annals of Tourism Research 19:268-286. Weladji, R. B., S. R. Moe, and P. Vedel d. 2003. Stakeholder attit udes toward wildlife policy and the Bnou Wildlife Co nservation Area, North Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 30:334-343.

PAGE 160

149 Wells, M. P., and T. O. McShane. 2004. Integrating protected area management with local needs and aspirations. Ambio 33:513-519. Wing, M. G., and R. Johnson. 2001. Quantifying fo rest visibility with spatial data. Environmental Management 27:411-420. Wing, M. G., and B. Shelby. 1999. Using GIS to integrate information on forest recreation. Journal of Forestry 97:12-16. Wynvee, C.J., D.A. Cavin, B.A. Wright, and W.E. Hammitt. 2005. Determinants of a quality wild turkey hunting season. Environmental Management 36:117-124. Younge, A., and S. Fowkes. 2003. The Cape Action Plan for the Environment: overview of an ecoregional planning proce ss. Biological Conservation 112:15-28. Zurayk, R., F. el-Awar, S. Hamaeh, S. Tal houk, C. Sayegh, A. Chehab, and K. al Shab. 2003. Using indigenous knowledge in land use investigations: a participatory study in a semi-arid mountainous region of Lebanon. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 86:247-262.

PAGE 161

150 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lisa Marks was born on August 28, 1981, in De nver, Colorado. She grew up in the small town of Vail, Colorado, where she quickly came to love the great outdoors. Lisa’s higher education began at Da vidson College, a small liberal arts college in North Carolina, where she earned a bachelor’s de gree in biology. Thr ough her research in North Carolina, Colorado, Florida and Africa, she was exposed to magnificent wildlife species and landscapes, but also to the re alization that many were undergoing rapid human alteration. In the fall of 2003 Lisa began her pursuit of a master’s degree in the Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation at the Univers ity of Florida. She was married in June of 2005 to the love of her life, a medical student also at the University of Florida. After graduation, Lisa would like to continue to c ontribute to the conser vation of our earth’s greatest species, lands capes, and resources.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0013279/00001

Material Information

Title: Participatory Planning for Recreation Management in Abaco National Park, Bahamas
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: UFE0013279:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0013279/00001

Material Information

Title: Participatory Planning for Recreation Management in Abaco National Park, Bahamas
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: UFE0013279:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












PARTICIPATORY PLANNING FOR RECREATION MANAGEMENT IN
ABACO NATIONAL PARK, BAHAMAS















By

LISA CATHERINE MARKS


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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Lisa Catherine Marks















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to acknowledge the Abaco community, whose participation and

interest were essential to the completion of this study. I truly appreciate the time, effort,

and willingness each person provided me in sharing his/her experiences and opinions.

Special thanks are extended to the Friends of the Environment Abaco, especially to

Anita Knowles, and to David Knowles of the Department of Agriculture for their help in

engaging people in this study. I would also like to thank the Bahamas National Trust,

who provided extraordinary support and resources.

I am extremely grateful to my advisor, Susan Jacobson, for sharing with me her

many years of wisdom, guiding me in my research goals, and supporting me throughout

this entire project. I would also like to thank my supervisory committee, Taylor Stein

and John Confer. They were instrumental in providing insights and suggestions to

elevate this work to its full potential.

This research would not have been possible without funding from the Disney

Wildlife Conservation Foundation. To this institution, I extend my deepest gratitude.

Special thanks go to my parents, Don and Susan, and to my wonderful husband,

Matt, who have been there each day to love and support me. They have grounded me in

strong principles and values, and continually challenge me to be my very best and to

dream of great things in life. They are behind every one of my accomplishments and I

am so grateful to have them walk alongside of me through this life.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iii

LIST O F TA B LE S ......... ............... ......... ..................... .. .............. .. vii

L IST O F F IG U R E S ......... ............................................................... ..... viii

A B STR A C T ................................................. ..................................... .. x

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ............................................................................. .............. ...

2 USE OF A STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS IN RECREATION PLANNING .............3

Intro du action ...................................... .................................. ................ .. 3
R atio n ale ...................................... ................................ ................ 3
Objectives ...................................... ................................ ......... 4
Background .................................. .......... ... .................. ........... 4
Local Participation in Protected Area Planning ..........................................4
Stakeholder Analysis ........................................... .... ........... ..... ......... 7
Planning for M multiple U se A reas...................................................... ..................8
Incorporating a Spatial Dimension in Recreation Planning ...............................11
Participatory Mapping in Recreation Planning ................................................12
M e th o d s ..............................................................................14
S tu d y S ite ........................................................14
Stakeholder A analysis ........................... ......... ......... ....... .... ............16
D ata A naly sis ......................................... .. .. ................................19
R e su lts ............................ .. ........................................................................................... 2 0
Vision Statem ent .......................... ............. ... ............ .. ............. 21
Visitation and Recreation Activities......................................... ............... 21
Spatial D distribution of A ctivities......... ................................. ........ ............... 23
Overlap Between Hunting and Non-Consumptive Uses................................25
Tem poral Distribution of Activities ..................... ....... ...................................27
Group Mapping: Activity Zone Distribution.................... .................28
A activity Zone D discussion ............................................................................. 30
Discussion ......... ............................ ................... 31
Commonalities among Stakeholder Groups............................................32
Tapping into Local Knowledge ...... .....................................................34










Identifying Potential Conflict and Opportunities for Prevention ......................35
Recom m endations .................................. .. .. ...... ............ 39
L im itatio n s ..................................................................................................... 4 2
C conclusion ...................................................................................................... ....... 43

3 ABACO HUNTER BEHAVIOR, SATISFACTIONS, AND MANAGEMENT
PER CEPTION S .................................................... ............ ............68

In tro d u ctio n ........................................................................................................... 6 8
Protected A rea M anagem ent ........................................ .......... ............... 68
H unter Satisfaction ...................... ...... .......... ................. .... ....... 71
Study Context ..................................................................... ......... 74
O b j e c tiv e s .................................................................. ..................................7 4
M eth o d s ...................................................................7 5
Study Site..................................................75
Interview Design and Implementation .............................. ...........75
D ata A n a ly sis ................................................................................................. 7 8
R results .............................................................................................79
Characteristics of Participants .................................................. ..... ......... 79
Hunting Frequency and Participation in Other Outdoor Activities..................80
Spatial Patterns of H hunting ....................................................................... ...... 82
H u n ter S atisfactio n ........................................................................................ 82
Perceptions of Management Practices ............................................................. 85
D iscu ssio n ............................................................................................................. 8 6
Spatial and Temporal Recreation Patterns ................. ................. ..........86
Hunter M motivations and Satisfactions ..................................... ............... 87
Harvest and Nonharvest Based Determinants ...........................................88
Predictors of Overall Satisfaction .............................. ...........89
A ssessm ent of H ypotheses .................................................................. 90
Perceptions of Management Practices ......................................................... 92
C conclusion .................. ................................. ...................... ....... .... 95

4 C O N C L U SIO N ............................................................................116

Comparing Methods: Stakeholder Analysis and Interviews ...................................116
R ecom m endation s........................ ......................................................... 118

APPENDIX

A INDIVIDUAL MAPPING ACTIVITY MAP AND QUESTIONNAIRE ...............123

B V ISION STA TEM EN T ID EA S ...................................................................125

C INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY MAPS BY STAKEHOLDER GROUPS .....................127

D ACTIVITY ZONE DISCUSSION IDEAS ..........................................................133

E HUNTER QUESTIONNAIRE .............................. ..................... ............ 136


v









L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ......................................................................... ................... 143

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................. ..................150
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 V vision state ent them es ............................................................................ ..... ... 45

2-2 Percent of park area marked for each activity .....................................................45

2-3 Percent of park area marked per activity per person........................ ...............46

3-1 Demographic summary of participants. ....... ....... ............... ..... .... .................. 98

3-2 Participation rates in recreation activities ..................................... ............... ..99

3-3 Hunting of species in each park section. ....................................... ............... 99

3-4 Mean and percent response to agreement with 19 components of hunter
satisfaction ............... ....... ............................ ...........................100

3-5 Correlation coefficients between motivation/satisfaction statements....................101

3-6 Stepwise multiple regression analysis for high overall satisfaction.......................103

3-7 Comparison of responses to hunting motivation/satisfaction statements between
people who hunt wild boar only (N=17) and those who hunt both wild boar and
ducks, doves and/or white-crowned pigeon (N=11). ..........................................104

3-8 Effect of age on hunter satisfactions. .......................................... ..................105

3-9 Effect of experience on hunter satisfactions...................... .... ............... 106

3-10 Effect of number of days hunting in the park per year on hunter satisfactions...... 107

3-11 Effect of age on the support of proposed management options .............................108

3-12 Effect of experience on the support of proposed management options ...............109

3-13 Effect of days hunting on the support of proposed management options ............10
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2-1 Location of Abaco N national Park................................................. ....... ........ 47

2-2 G roup m apping exercise ............................................................................ ..... ... 47

2-3 Vision statement ideas by stakeholder group. ................... ......................... 48

2-4 Overall annual visitation to Abaco National Park.................................................48

2-5 Annual visitation to Abaco National Park by stakeholder group.............................49

2-6 Percentage of people participating in each activity............... ....... ............... 49

2-7 Frequency of activities conducted in Abaco National Park. ...................................50

2-8 Percentage of park labeled for each activity by stakeholder group..........................50

2-9 D distribution of hunting ............................................................................. ..... .......5 1

2-10 Distribution of non-consumptive activities ................................... .................52

2-11 Distribution of birdwatching ........... ..... ......... ...................... 53

2-12 D distribution of ecotourism ............................................... ............................ 54

2-13 D distribution of driving....... .......................................................... ............... 55

2-14 D distribution of education ............................................ ........................................ 56

2-15 Overlap in areas defined as "high density" hunting and "high density" non-
consum ptive recreation. ................................................ ............................... 57

2-16 Overlap in areas defined as "high density" hunting and "high density"
b irdw watching ..................................................... ............ .. ............... 58

2-17 Overlap in areas defined as "high density" hunting and "high density"
ecotou rism ........................................................ ................. 59

2-18 Temporal distribution of activities in Abaco National Park. ..................................60









2-19 Percent of park prioritized for each activity zone by stakeholder group. ...............60

2-20 Hunter group map of desired future activity zones ............................................61

2-21 Tourism group map of desired future activity zones ...........................................62

2-22 Teacher group map of desired future activity zones. .............................................63

2-23 Sandy Point group map of desired future activity zones ....................................64

2-24 Business group map of desired future activity zones........................ ...............65

2-25 Environmental group map of desired future activity zones. ...................................66

2-26 Stakeholder group compatibility on future activity zone distribution................. 67

3-1 Annual visitation to Abaco National Park.............. ........................ ..................111

3-2 Temporal distribution of hunting in Abaco National Park..................................111.

3-3 Temporal distribution of non-consumptive activities in Abaco National Park...... 112

3-4 Section map shown as a reference to participants ............... ............................113

3-5 Hunter designated favorite places. .............................................. ............... 114

3-6 Hunter responses to proposed management activities ........................... ........115

A-i Base map provided to participants in individual mapping activity....................123

C-l Activities of hunter group members....................... ....................... ............... 127

C-2 Activities of tourism group members .......................................... ......... .............. 128

C-3 Activities of teacher group m embers. ............. ............................ .... ............. 129

C-4 Activities of Sandy Point group members ............... ...................................130

C-5 Activities of business group members. ...................................... ............... 131

C-6 Activities of environmental group members ............................................. .........132















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

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING FOR RECREATION MANAGEMENT IN
ABACO NATIONAL PARK, BAHAMAS

By

Lisa Catherine Marks

December 2005

Chair: Susan K. Jacobson
Major Department: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation

This study involved key stakeholders in recreation management planning for

Abaco National Park under the auspices of the Bahamas National Trust. Data were

collected using two methods a stakeholder analysis and personal interviews. For the

stakeholder analysis, meetings were conducted with six stakeholder groups: hunters,

tourism industry representatives, teachers, business leaders, local community members,

and environmentalists. Each meeting involved group members in developing a vision

statement for the park and in participatory mapping to spatially identify current and

desired future uses of the park. Spatial information was entered into ArcGIS software for

analysis of trends and overlap among recreation activities and between recreation

activities and nesting sites of an endangered parrot (Amazona leucocephala bahamensis).

Subsequently, we conducted 31 interviews with a key stakeholder group, hunters, to

incorporate data on their current uses of the park, levels of satisfaction, and opinions

about future management.









Results from the stakeholder analysis show that birdwatchers and other non-

consumptive recreationists use areas along the main road and coastline of the park most

often. In contrast, hunting occurs to a greater extent throughout the interior of the park.

Each stakeholder group varied in its priorities for future land use planning of the park;

however, all groups allocated park area for ecotourism and infrastructure development.

Overlap existed among recreational uses and between recreation and parrot nesting sites,

indicating that spatial and/or temporal zoning may be necessary to reduce potential

conflict.

Consistent with other studies employing the multiple-satisfactions model of

hunting, we found that participants are motivated primarily by nonharvest-based factors.

Among 19 potential components of hunting satisfaction, respondents rated hunting with a

dog, seeing game animals, getting outdoors, and excitement as their top four motivations.

However, a regression model showed that seeing wildlife was the only significant

predictor of overall satisfaction. Harvest success was not related to overall satisfaction.

We also found that hunters were in favor of a variety of management activities. In

particular, they recognized the importance of protecting the park ecosystem and are

willing to accept management actions that place additional regulations on hunting.

When combined together, we found that conducting a stakeholder analysis in

conjunction with personal interviews provides complementary sociological information

valuable for park planning.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Abaco National Park was established in 1994 to protect the endangered Bahama

parrot (Amazona leucocephala bahamensis) and its diminishing pine forest habitat. To

date, little infrastructure or management has been developed for the park. The park

incorporates a variety of objectives in addition to parrot protection including

opportunities for research, recreation, education, and hunting. Long-term achievement of

these objectives ultimately will rely on proper management. Prior to the 1970s, park

regulations often were determined by park managers (Oh et al. 2005). Today, however,

the importance of incorporating public participation as a way of gaining input and

support for management initiatives is well documented (Ball 2002; Zurayk et al. 2003).

A variety of different methods exist for involving the public in protected area

planning and management. These methods range from surveys and interviews to public

meetings, citizen advisory committees, stakeholder analyses, and collaborative efforts

(Grimble & Chan 1995; Jacobson 1999; Smith 2003). Although all of these techniques

involve public participation, each requires differing amounts of resources and yields

unique information. For this study, we combined a stakeholder analysis with interviews

with a key stakeholder group.

Stakeholder analyses have been championed for investigating and seeking

compromises between different stakeholders who affect or are affected by a management

policy or action (Grimble & Chan 1995). In natural resource management, the method

has proved successful in understanding conflicts, compatibility, and trade-offs in order to









develop appropriate policy. In addition to conducting a stakeholder analysis, we

interviewed local hunters, a large, traditional user group of the park. As a key

stakeholder group, hunters' support of park management activities is uncertain but vital

to ensuring the area's long-term success. In both methods, we integrated a participatory

mapping component. Participatory mapping has been used across disciplines, but has

been particularly useful in recreation planning to understand the space utilization of an

area by various user groups in order to appropriately direct management efforts (Kliskey

1994; Wing & Johnson 2001; Wing & Shelby 1999).

This study demonstrates the use of participatory methods to obtain the necessary

sociological information to make recommendations for a recreation management plan for

Abaco National Park. In chapter two, we detail our use of a stakeholder analysis for

recreation planning while chapter three focuses on interviews conducted with local

hunters. Although each chapter has its own specific objectives, ultimately our goals

included (1) identifying stakeholder needs and desires as well as their compatibility with

parrot resource needs, and (2) testing the techniques of a stakeholder analysis and

interviews for supporting local participation in the park planning process.














CHAPTER 2
USE OF A STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS IN RECREATION PLANNING

Introduction

Rationale

Natural resource management lies at the confluence of the social, physical and

natural environment (Harris et al. 1995). However, in many instances appropriate

sociological information has not been collected or incorporated in natural resource

planning and management projects. Frequently, this information is regarded as an "add-

on" instead of a fundamental component. Human communities that border natural areas,

such as national parks, often have historic and significant relationships with those areas

(Trakolis 2001). They may depend on the resources of these areas for subsistence,

cultural identity, or physical and emotional well-being. Too often, however, the

relationships between local communities and protected areas have been ignored and

management decisions made without their consideration (Michaelidou et al. 2002).

Where this has occurred, inappropriate decisions, displeased communities, and local

hostility often prevail. Because protected areas cannot co-exist with neighboring

communities that are hostile to them (Trakolis 2001), understanding individual and

community needs and desires as they relate to these areas is critical to ensuring an area's

long-term success.

With a growing number of local users and the desire to attract more tourists,

recreation management in Abaco National Park is essential. Of primary importance is

maintaining the quality of the Caribbean pine forest and endangered Bahama parrot









(Amazona leucocephala bahamensis) while accommodating the needs of a growing

recreational population. Currently, little is known about the various people who use

Abaco National Park. Therefore, if an appropriate recreation management plan is to be

developed, the characteristics and spatial patterns of a variety of user groups need to be

explored. Additionally, investigation into the desires of different stakeholder groups for

the future management of Abaco National Park is essential.

Objectives

This study demonstrates the use of participatory methods to obtain the necessary

sociological information to make recommendations for a recreation management plan for

Abaco National Park, Bahamas. The specific objectives are to:

1. Develop a vision statement for Abaco National Park;

2. Examine levels of participation in and spatial patterns of recreation in the park;

3. Examine stakeholder groups' desired future uses of the park;

4. Identify areas of potential conflict between recreational activities and assess

recreational compatibility with parrot resource needs; and

5. Generate recommendations for future management of Abaco National Park.

Background

Local Participation in Protected Area Planning

The first efforts to incorporate humans into protected area planning involved an

assessment of what people 'need' by managers and the assimilation of these 'needs' into

management decisions (Michaelidou et al. 2002). However, several studies have shown

that resource managers possess different perceptions than their stakeholders and have

difficulties predicting stakeholders' perceptions and preferences (Absher et al. 1988). In









response to this deficiency, new methods arose, which furthered the integration of human

needs into natural resource management.

In recognition of the intimate relationship between man and the environment, the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed in 1969 along with other similar

initiatives, which mandated public agencies incorporate public opinion into land

management decisions. Since then, the theory of incorporating greater stakeholder

participation throughout the planning process has progressed, and is now proposed as an

alternative for natural resource management (Zurayk et al. 2003). Participatory research

seeks to directly involve local people in research so they can become partners in the

design of management initiatives from the onset. A variety of methods exist to achieve

local involvement; they range from public surveys to citizen advisory committees,

stakeholder analyses, and collaborative efforts (Grimble & Chan 1995; Jacobson 1999;

Smith 2003; Steiner 1991).

Although participatory research is inherently more complicated, it has several

benefits. Unlike earlier techniques, participatory research recognizes that people are

capable of identifying and expressing their needs and aspirations themselves (Binns et al.

1997). Additionally, it assumes that local people hold important knowledge that can be

accessed through participatory methods and which can complement scientific data (Ball

2002; Zurayk et al. 2003). It is also believed that in order to manage ecosystems in

which humans are an important component, we need a better understanding of human

behavior, which can be solicited through participatory methods (Younge & Fowkes

2003). Another assumption is that participation leads to more successful outcomes

because of increased partnerships and dialogue among stakeholders (Zurayk et al. 2003)









and the fact that people are genuinely concerned about the outcome (Smith 2003) and

have a sense of ownership in the final decision or product. Therefore, public

participation is thought to ensure cooperation and support for management decisions and

be a vital component in developing long-term viable land management strategies (Ball

2002).

Although participatory methods are generally regarded as an improvement over

traditional methods, several factors constrain efforts to involve local people in the

management of natural resources. In many cases the largest limitation is the lack of

overlap between project and community interests (Brandon & Wells 1992). In other

words, what the project considers as problems and priorities for the area may not be of

interest to local communities. Instead, the community may define a set of needs that

conflict with conservation objectives. When the goal of the project is community

empowerment over resources, the differences between project and local ambitions can

result in communities making decisions that counter conservation objectives (Brandon &

Wells 1992). Therefore, many participatory approaches, such as integrated conservation

and development projects (ICDP), have drawn criticism from conservation biologists for

failing to ensure adequate protection of biodiversity (Browder 2002).

Another constraint of local involvement is that it is often difficult to ensure the

participation of all affecting or affected actors in the system. In many situations, people

are reluctant to participate in projects due to raised expectations that are not met, greater

costs than benefits associated with the program, and a lack of trust (Songorwa 1999). In

other cases, decisions may benefit one group and meet conservation objectives, but harm

another group. These divisions are often based on class, ethnicity, and gender and may









lead to hostility toward the project (Brandon & Wells 1992). Finally, even in locations

where participatory approaches appear to have been successfully implemented,

respondents typically do not have a particularly favorable perception of the program

(Mehta & Kellert 1998).

Despite these potential pitfalls, participatory methods nevertheless show promise in

achieving socially-acceptable natural resource management and protection. The concept

remains strong; however, the methods must advance in order to meet the full potential of

participatory projects.

Stakeholder Analysis

Although participatory approaches have made advances in developing strategies for

community involvement, they do not necessarily give insight into understanding and

dealing with potential conflict (Grimble & Wellard 1997). Simply increasing the

participation of supporters of a project alone will not guarantee that the effort will be

successful. Rather the interests of a range of stakeholders who affect or are affected by

the policy or project must be investigated and compromises sought between potential

conflicting interests (Grimble & Chan 1995).

Stakeholder analysis (SA) is "an approach and procedure for gaining an

understanding of a system by means of identifying the key actors or stakeholders in the

system, and assessing their respective interest in that system" (Grimble & Chan 1995,

p. 114). Here, stakeholders are defined as "any group of people, organized or

unorganized, who share a common interest or stake in a particular issue or system"

(Grimble & Wellard 1997, p.175). Any management policy will have consequences that

affect various groups and individuals differently. Therefore, to better assess the policy,

we must identify the possible effects on and likely responses of different groups and









individuals. SA attempts to provide a methodology for the accomplishment of this

objective by identifying the different consequences for stakeholder groups due to a

particular management action. Ultimately, the objective is development of management

policies that best suit society as a whole (Grimble & Wellard 1997).

Although SA emerged in the field of business management, it has been increasingly

applied to natural resource management. SA was first proposed in natural resource

management on the basis of the weaknesses of conventional methods in the field for

dealing with stakeholder interests in policy and project design (Grimble & Chan 1995).

It was further supported by the fact that natural resource management situations, in

particular, require an understanding of conflicts, compatibility, and trade-offs in order to

develop appropriate policy. Typically these situations have been described as a "web" of

interests, trade-offs, and interactions between locals, government departments, planners,

and consultants (Grimble & Quan 1993). They are further characterized by multiple

users, unclear or open access property rights, temporal trade-offs, the presence of

externalities, imperfect markets, and geographically widespread problems or issues that

traverse social, economic and political institutions (Grimble & Chan 1995; Grimble &

Wellard 1997). All of these characteristics make the development of appropriate and

equitable policy difficult. However, application of SA can assist in these complex cases

by getting to the core of an issue and understanding the conflicts of interest that may

preempt the success of a project (Grimble & Chan 1995).

Planning for Multiple Use Areas

The majority of protected areas are managed for multiple uses (Wing and Johnson

2001). Thus, they can have many management objectives including biodiversity

conservation, outdoor recreation, tourism, sustainable forestry, hunting, fishing, scientific









research, and environmental education. In many developing countries, neighboring

communities rely on the natural resources contained within protected areas to meet basic

human needs such as food, fuel, and medicine. Management of these areas can be

particularly complex as biodiversity conservation must be compatible with providing for

human subsistence needs. Recently, the application of participatory research methods in

these cases has augmented and proven to be a promising approach to understanding and

balancing human needs with conservation.

Participatory research methods also can assist managers in dealing with conflict in

areas where local people do not rely on protected areas for subsistence, but rather to meet

needs and desires such as physical and emotional well-being. Typically, these needs and

desires are achieved through a variety of recreational activities (Driver et al. 1991).

Recreation can be either consumptive or non-consumptive. Consumptive users are

typically defined as hunters or anglers who actively extract a resource, while non-

consumptive recreationists are considered passive users such as wildlife-watchers and

hikers (Duffas & Dearden 1990; Kellert & Brown 1985; Vaske et al. 1982). Although

consumptive recreation is typically considered more damaging, over-use by non-

consumptive users may be equally or more harmful to the environment (Jelinski et al.

2002). It is commonly believed that the observation of wildlife is harmless, however

increasing evidence supports the belief that wildlife viewing can have negative impacts

on wildlife including behavioral and physiological stress (Jelinski et al. 2002), decreased

reproductive success (Miller & Hobbs 2000), and reduced fitness (Taylor & Knight

2003).









Combining both consumptive and non-consumptive recreation in the same area is

generally believed to create more conflict than if the area is only managed for a single

type of recreation. According to Jaakson (1988, p.96), "freedom is a central tenet in

recreation." Where different users must share the same area, freedom may be

compromised, resulting in diminished recreational satisfaction. In particular,

consumptive recreation, such as hunting, is thought to reduce the opportunity for safe and

satisfying activities by other recreationists.

When a combination of many different recreational uses occurs in the same area,

balancing the distribution of these uses can pose considerable challenges for managers

and planners. Often these challenges arise when the goals and desires of user groups

conflict, creating situations that may compromise resource use for all groups (Wing &

Johnson 2001). Management to alleviate or avoid such conflicts requires a large amount

of information such as the number and composition of visitors, demands of different user

groups, and potential for conflict between different user groups (Dagmar & Becker

2002). However, in many cases this type of sociological information is missing.

Surveys of users provide important information for planners to match park space to

local needs and accommodate a growing number of user groups (Hall & Page 2002).

Where user needs go unrecognized in the decision-making process, "there is a very real

danger that planning will be inefficient, ineffective, and perhaps even misguided"

(Jenkins & Walmsley 1993, p.235). As recommended by Moore and Graefe (1994,

p. 18), "an understanding of how recreationists perceive, choose, and relate to various

settings is essential for researchers attempting to understand recreation behavior and

managers attempting to provide opportunities for satisfying recreation experiences."









Therefore, sociological assessments are becoming more common as managers seek to

understand public and visitor attitudes, preferences, and behaviors (Flood & McCarville

1999).

Incorporating a Spatial Dimension in Recreation Planning

Although the incorporation of sociological information is becoming standard in

recreation planning, few have addressed the spatial dimensions of recreation. Just as

wildlife do not use the landscape homogeneously, neither do people. Because of the

heterogeneous nature of ecosystems, people often cluster their activities based on specific

environmental features (Holling 1992). Knowing the spatial distribution of activities and

uses is therefore essential when planning for recreation.

Many studies have noted the benefit of collecting and analyzing spatial user

information (Heatwole & West 1982; Wing & Johnson 2001; Wing & Shelby 1999).

Especially in situations where conflict ensues, mitigation requires an understanding of the

time and space utilization of the area by various user groups (Heatwole & West 1982).

For example, in protected areas where timber production occurs alongside recreation,

management activities such as road closures and harvesting can impact recreation

conditions and availability (Brunson & Shelby 1992; Vining et al. 1984). However, if

planners knew which roads and trails were most frequented by recreationists, they could

avoid potential conflicts (Wing & Shelby 1999). Management that uses zoning to

alleviate conflicting uses also requires a knowledge of how and where areas are used to

realize this goal (Heatwole & West 1982). Therefore, considering visitor preferences and

travel patterns in the planning process can reduce discord between resource users in a

variety of different ways (Wing & Johnson 2001). It is also suggested that knowing what









areas are used by which user groups can help direct management efforts (Wing & Shelby

1999).

One significant technological innovation that currently exists to help planners

incorporate social aspects of land use into planning is Geographic Information Systems

(GIS) (Hall & Page 2002). With the use of GIS software, human behavior can now be

described spatially and incorporated into recreation management (Wing & Shelby 1999).

One study used GIS to compare models of recreation use patterns and visibility in a forest

to determine the scheduling of harvest operations (Wing & Johnson 2001). In a similar

study, the results from a recreational trail use survey were combined with maps of

potential mountain sheep habitat in a GIS system to determine locations where users may

be encroaching on the sheep (Harris et al. 1995). Another study used surveys of visitors

to determine geographical variation in wilderness perceptions (Kliskey 1994). Before

spatial use patterns can be assimilated into planning and into a GIS database, methods

must exist to obtain this information. Common methods have been aerial surveys,

analyses of digital photography, and movie cameras (Jaakson 1988). However, none of

these methods incorporate public participation.

Participatory Mapping in Recreation Planning

An emerging method of research in recreation management that not only seeks to

understand the spatial relationships between people and their environment but also

directly involves people in the planning process is participatory mapping. In simple

terms, participatory mapping is a method that elicits the relationships between people and

their environment by involving community members in drawing maps of their

surroundings (Knapp & Herlihy 2001). The foundation for participatory mapping was

laid in a seminal study by Lynch (1960) in which he asked a small sample of people in









Jersey City, Boston, and Los Angeles to draw freehand sketch maps of their cities.

Results from the exercise helped demonstrate the ability of sketch maps to reveal

information about how people perceive their city of residence. Since then, the method

has been applied across a wide range of disciplines including urban planning,

anthropology, psychology, and agriculture. Recently, tourism and recreation planners

have found utility in the method (Kliskey 1994; Wing & Johnson 2001; Wing & Shelby

1999).

From experience, it is known that each person perceives the world very differently

than how it exists in reality. According to Walmsley and Jenkins (1992, p.269), "the real

world is too big and too complex for people to know it completely." Therefore, people

are thought to reduce this complexity by subjectively acquiring, storing, and

manipulating information about the environment (Jenkins & Walmsley 1993; Walmsley

& Jenkins 1992). Because information is sought in a subjective and purposeful way, each

individual's simplification of the real world reflects his or her needs and values

(Walmsley & Jenkins 1992).

The simplified images that people construct are known as environmental images,

cognitive images, cognitive maps, or mental maps. Simply put, these maps are a

summary of an individual's knowledge, preferences, and evaluations of the environment

(Walmsley & Jenkins 1992). These mental maps in turn have a significant effect on

people's behavior, beliefs, and attitudes regarding places (Jacob & Luloff 1995). For

example, recreational day trip behavior is assumed to be dependent upon the cognitive

map people form of their spatial environment (Aldskogius 1977). Therefore, a study of

recreationists' cognitive maps may lead to a better understanding of day trip behavior and









aid in marketing recreation opportunities of which visitors are unaware (Aldskogius

1977). It is therefore maintained, that in tourism and recreation planning, we need to

understand the cognitive maps of those for whom we are planning (Jenkins & Walmsley

1993).

Numerous methods exist to explore an individual's cognitive map. However, as

cognitive maps are internal representations, an external form must be obtained to be

examined. This external form can be elicited through a variety of participatory mapping

techniques. By far the most popular of the techniques involves individuals drawing

sketch maps of an area. A criticism of this methodology, however, is that respondents

have a broad range of artistic abilities and so the sketch map may not accurately represent

the internal cognitive map (Jacob & Luloff 1995). An alternative is to provide

participants with a base map consisting of minimal spatial references. A base map

reduces the effect of the individual's artistic ability on the representation of his or her

cognitive map and provides a structure for the participant's response, thereby making the

results more comparable for analysis (Jacob & Luloff 1995). Unfortunately, regardless of

the technique used, researchers have no way of knowing how well each map represents

an individual's cognitive map. However, an abundance of research supports that these

maps do provide important insights into how people acquire environmental knowledge

(Downs & Stea 1977).

Methods

Study Site

The area for this study was Abaco National Park on Abaco Island in the Bahamas

(Figure 2-1). Abaco National Park encompasses 8,300 hectares of Caribbean pine (Pinus

caribaea) forest in the southern quarter of the island. The area was first proposed as a









national park in 1983, and established in 1994. The primary reason for establishment was

to protect the habitat and breeding area of the endangered Bahama parrot (Amazona

leucocephala bahamensis) (Jacobson et al. 2005). The Bahama parrot was originally

found throughout the Bahamas in large quantities. However, today the parrots are found

only on Abaco and Great Inagua islands, numbering less than 3,000. Abaco National

Park is of particular importance as it is believed to support a third of the surviving

Bahama parrot population.

Abaco Island has a population of approximately 14,000 people. Historically, many

residents visited Abaco National Park to hunt wild boar (Sus scrofa), duck (e.g. Anas

dicors), dove (Streptopelia decaoctu, Zenaida macroura, Zenaida aurita), and white-

crowed pigeon (Columba leucocephala). However, in recent years it also has become a

popular area for recreation such as birdwatching, hiking, exploring for caves and blue

holes, and picnicking. Additionally, many people drive through the park on their way to

the southern coast of Abaco Island, to an area called Hole in the Wall, where there is a

historic lighthouse. New teacher training, which aims to help teachers bring their classes

to the park, also has led to increased interest in the park as a site for environmental

education.

Currently, the majority of visitors to the park arrive from the neighboring towns of

Marsh Harbour, Cherokee, Sandy Point, and Crossing Rocks. Although tourism to

Abaco Island is a large industry, Abaco National Park is not a heavily used tourist

destination. To date, there has been only minimal marketing of the park. This, in

addition to the poor quality of roads to and within the park coupled with a lack of

facilities, inhibit many tourists from visiting the park. However, the opportunity to view









the unique parrots in addition to other Caribbean birds and migrants continues to draw

more birders to the park each year. Additionally, the establishment of a new ferry service

to Sandy Point (the closest town to Abaco National Park) from Nassau may increase

visitation and the need for better management.

Research is another activity conducted in the park. Current scientific research in

Abaco National Park includes mapping the vegetation of the park, understanding the

ecology of the Bahama parrot population, identifying the impacts of raccoons and feral

cats on Bahama parrots, and studying the fire ecology of the park.

Hunting, recreation, research, and parrot protection each make demands on

resources within the forest, and their co-existence creates the potential for conflict.

Moreover, although Abaco National Park was established in 1994, it does not currently

have a recreation or management plan. The Bahamas National Trust (BNT) is the non-

governmental agency that oversees the 25 protected areas in the Bahamas. However, a

lack of resources has made adequate management of Abaco National Park challenging.

Stakeholder Analysis

This study was executed in collaboration with the Bahamas National Trust. During

January of 2004, stakeholder meetings about Abaco National Park were conducted in

Marsh Harbour, Abaco. A stakeholder analysis was chosen as the method of study

because researchers were interested in assessing the interests and potential conflicts of

key stakeholder groups that may respond differently to policy changes of Abaco National

Park. In this study, stakeholders were characterized as residents with a strong

relationship with Abaco National Park, and were concerned about or affected by its

management. The stakeholder groups in this study were identified from a previous study









that used a stakeholder analysis to develop educational materials for the park (Jacobson et

al. 2005). The six stakeholder groups included:

Hunters a group with a long history of hunting in the park and who may
have strong opinions on its future management

Tourism agency representatives -includes people who provide services that
take tourists to the park or indirectly benefit from tourism to the park and
therefore, may be affected by changes to park management

Teachers a group that may be interested in using the park as an educational
resource for their students

Neighboring community members includes locals from the town of Sandy
Point who may enjoy recreational activities in the park and could be
influenced by future park decisions

Business leaders a group that indirectly benefits from tourism to the park
and may be affected by changes to its management

Environmentalists primarily members of Friends of the Environment-
Abaco who have previously expressed strong opinions on maintaining the
ecological integrity of the park

Stakeholder meetings were conducted with each of the six stakeholder groups. An

initial meeting was held with the collaboration of the Friends of Environment Abaco,

with members from all key stakeholder groups in October 2002 to develop park

interpretation materials. Representatives of each group were contacted again in 2003 and

asked to invite 8-10 members of their stakeholder group to a meeting scheduled for the

beginning of January 2004. The meetings were arranged with the help of Friends of the

Environment Abaco and the Abaco Chamber of Commerce. Each group meeting took

from 1.5-2 hours. The group meetings were conducted at several locations. Most

meetings were held in the conference room of the Ministry of Tourism office. Due to a

night-time meeting schedule, the hunter group met at the courthouse and the neighboring









Sandy Point community met at a local restaurant. Refreshments, but no compensation,

were provided to participants.

Each stakeholder meeting followed the same format. First, facilitators introduced

the purpose of the meeting: A process to seek input from Abaco Stakeholders regarding

a vision statement for Abaco National Park, to assess current uses of the park and

examine stakeholders' desires for the future of the park. Following this introduction,

meetings were divided into four parts: (1) a visioning exercise (15 minutes); (2) an

individual mapping exercise (25 minutes); (3) a group mapping exercise (30 minutes);

and (4) a follow-up group discussion (20 minutes).

In part 1, we asked participants to think of key words, ideas, and phrases that they

would like included in the vision statement for Abaco National Park. Participants were

given five minutes to silently write ideas on a pad of paper before sharing. Ideas were

shared in a round-robin fashion and recorded on wall charts.

Participatory mapping played a primary role in the meetings. In part 2, a 27 by 43

centimeter topographical map of Abaco National Park was distributed to each participant.

Each person was then asked to outline areas in the park they use for different activities.

Participants were provided with different colored pencils and asked to use a unique

colored pencil for each different activity in which they participated in the park.

Additionally, each respondent was asked to complete a short questionnaire for each

activity they practiced in the park (Appendix A). Questions focused on the type of

activity, frequency of use, and seasonality of use. Information obtained in the

questionnaire helped to further qualify and quantify recreational uses of the park.









In the group mapping exercise, a large (61 by 127 centimeter) topographic map was

laid on the table between participants. Participants were then asked to discuss and decide

upon how they would zone activities in Abaco National Park for the future. Participants

could select from five general activity zones (hunting, ecotourism, interpretive

center/infrastructure, protection, research) and could add additional zones that they felt

were necessary. To visually show how they would zone activities in the park,

participants glued 4 centimeter colored squares (which each represented one of the 5 pre-

determined zones) onto the large map where they felt that activity zone would be

appropriate (Figure 2-2). A total of 107 squares could fit within the park boundary.

The meeting concluded with a follow-up discussion where participants conversed

about the activities and management that should take place in each of the zones they

included on their group map. Ideas generated for each activity zone were recorded on

wall charts.

Data Analysis

Basic user characteristics were entered into an Excel worksheet for descriptive

analysis. To analyze data from the individual and group mapping activities we used

ArcGIS software. In both cases, a one-by-one kilometer grid system, based on that of the

topographic base map, was used as the unit of analysis. Each grid cell on the base map

was digitized and given a unique code number. The collection of all grid cells within the

park was then saved as a shapefile. For the individual mapping exercise, presence or

absence of an activity within each grid cell for each respondent was entered into an Excel

spreadsheet using zero and one. Similarly, for the group mapping exercise, presence or

absence of each activity zone within each grid cell for each stakeholder group was

entered into an Excel spreadsheet using zero and one. The table-based Excel









spreadsheets were then 'joined' to the digitized grid system. Using the Spatial Analyst

function, we were able to obtain the overall spatial distribution of each activity conducted

in the park, including the intensity in which it is conducted. We then separated the spatial

distribution of each activity by stakeholder group in order to compare stakeholder groups'

activity patterns. Finally, we created a digital map of each stakeholder groups' desired

future distribution of activity zones in Abaco National Park.

Examining the potential for conflict between hunting and the variety of non-

consumptive uses in the park was also of great interest. Increasing numbers of non-

consumptive recreationists may increase the number of encounters with hunters. These

encounters may create an unsafe situation if hunters are not properly trained in hunter

safety. Therefore, to identify "hot-spots" of potential conflict, we used overlays of high

use hunting areas on popular non-consumptive activities such as birdwatching and other

ecotourism activities.

Similarly, to determine compatibility between recreational uses and important

ecological areas for parrots, we incorporated spatial data on Bahama parrot nesting sites

(Stahala 2005). Parrot nesting was defined by Stahala (2005) as high versus

comparatively low or peripheral nesting activity.

Results

A total of 35 people participated in the stakeholder meetings including six hunters,

six environmental group members, eight teachers, four business community members,

seven neighboring community members from the town of Sandy Point, and four tourism

industry representatives. Characteristics and trends of all participants collectively were

analyzed as well as each stakeholder group individually for comparison.









Of the 35 participants, the majority (69%) were male and of Bahamian nationality

(72%). Other nationalities included American (14%), Canadian (11%), and Guyanese

(3%). The average age of participants was 47 years old and the average number of years

a participant had lived on Abaco Island was 22 years.

Vision Statement

The 35 participants listed 48 different words, ideas, and phrases they wanted to

include in the vision statement for Abaco National Park. These 48 ideas could be

grouped into nine major themes (Table 2-1). The top three ideas mentioned were

ecosystem protection/restoration (15 times), quality management (12 times), and low

impact visitation to enjoy nature (11 times). A full listing of ideas can be found in

Appendix B.

When separated based on stakeholder group, we found that every group mentioned

ecosystem protection/restoration and quality management at least once (Figure 2-3).

Additionally, five out of the six stakeholder groups agreed that low impact visitation to

enjoy nature and protection of parrots/wildlife were important to include in the vision

statement for Abaco National Park. Visitor education also was mentioned by the

majority of groups, with the teacher group stating ideas related to visitor education most

frequently. Community involvement was important to both the business and

environmental groups while the business and teacher groups valued student education.

The tourism, environmental and Sandy Point groups desired including the development

of trails in the park vision statement.

Visitation and Recreation Activities

We found that people were either regular visitors of the park (had visited more than

13 times in the last year) or had visited the park very little or not at all (Figure 2-4).









Analyzing visitation by stakeholder group, we found that the hunter group visited the

park most often, followed by the environmental and Sandy Point groups (Figure 2-5).

Both the teacher and the business groups had only a few members who visited the park

more than four times a year. The tourism group was split between people who had never

been to the park and those who visited regularly (>13 times/year).

Collectively, participants identified 13 different activities they conducted in Abaco

National Park. More than half of the participants (54%) indicated they birdwatched or

went to see the Bahama parrot, while 22% hiked, 20% drove the road through the park to

access Hole in the Wall (not within the park boundaries), 17% hunted, and 11% explored

(Figure 2-6). Frequency of activities differed slightly with people participating in

birdwatching the most number of days per year (9), followed by hunting (4.68), hiking

(2), exploration (1.76), and driving (1.53) (Figure 2-7).

To facilitate analysis, the 13 park uses were classified into seven categories.

Birdwatching, hunting, fishing, camping, and access to the eastern coast of the

island/ocean served as their own category. A category labeled "ecotourism"

encompassed hiking, exploration, caving and enjoying nature. Birdwatching was

separated from the "ecotourism" category because birdwatchers who actively seek out

birds and their nests may have a greater impact on bird populations, such as the Bahama

parrot. A "driving" category included both driving and driving to Hole in the Wall. An

"education" category was composed of both student and visitor education.

In examining the total area of the park used for each activity category, we found

that both hunting and ecotourism are conducted throughout the entire park area. In other

words, each grid cell was marked at least once for that activity. Participants indicated









ninety-three percent of the park area as birdwatching while education and driving were

also denoted in more than half of the park area (Table 2-2). However, this may be

misleading if only one person marked the majority of the grid cells. Therefore, our next

step was to look at the overall number of grid cells marked by all participants for each

activity and then calculate a percentage area of the park used per participant per activity.

In doing so, we found that although hunting and ecotourism are conducted throughout the

entire range of the park, they are not conducted as intensively as birdwatching. Per

person, birdwatching covered the largest percent of the park area, followed by hunting,

ecotourism, driving, and education (Table 2-3).

When classified by stakeholder group, we found that the total park area labeled for

each activity varied by group (Figure 2-8). Spatially, each group also varied in its

distribution of activities (Appendix C). Although all groups reported birdwatching, the

tourism group used the largest area for birdwatching, followed by the teacher and Sandy

Point groups. All groups also participated in ecotourism; however the hunters conducted

these activities over larger areas than other groups, followed by the tourism and teacher

groups. The business group covered the largest park area for driving. Hunters hunted in

the largest area of the park compared to other groups. Fishing and visits to the ocean

were split between the teacher and hunter groups while camping was conducted only by

two groups, the Sandy Point group and hunter group. Education was conducted only by

the teacher group.

Spatial Distribution of Activities

A collective analysis of individual maps by activity revealed several trends. The

highest use area for hunting was indicated in a 4 km2 area located in the south-central

portion of the park (Figure 2-9). Although the majority of Abaco National Park is









composed of Caribbean pine, within this 4 km2 area lays the only wetland in the park.

This wetland serves as good habitat for white-crowned pigeons and ducks as well as a

water source for wild boar, making it particularly popular area for hunting. Analysis also

revealed a segmentation of moderate use of hunting at both the northern and southern

extremes of the park. Although the entire park area is used for hunting, use is not

common in the central portions of the park or along the coastline.

To analyze non-consumptive activity patterns, we first examined the spatial

distribution of all non-consumptive activities together. In doing so, we found that non-

consumptive activity is highest along the main road through the park with use decreasing

as distance from this road increases (Figure 2-10). Moderate usage also occurs in the

northwestern corner of the park and along the coastline.

To further characterize patterns of non-consumptive use of the park, we mapped the

spatial distribution of birdwatching, ecotourism, education, driving, access to the ocean,

camping, and fishing individually. Although all seven non-consumptive use categories

were spatially analyzed, only trends for those with greater than five participants showed

clear patterns and are therefore described below. These use categories included

birdwatching, ecotourism, and driving.

The spatial distribution of birdwatching is similar to what we found for non-

consumptive recreation overall. Results show birdwatching activity is heaviest in the

areas surrounding the access points of the park, especially along the main road from the

central portion to the southern end of the park (Figure 2-11). From these access points,

use intensity decreases proportionally to the distance from the main road. Moderate use

for birdwatching also occurs along the coastline.









Ecotourism is heaviest along the coastline of the park (Figure 2-12). A moderate

amount of use exists along the main road, especially in the southern quarter of the park.

Use for ecotourism is relatively low throughout the interior of the park.

As expected, park use for driving is highest along the main road through the park

with use decreasing proportionally to distance from the main road (Figure 2-13).

Therefore, most people drive only on the main road, while a few venture onto the smaller,

more rugged roads throughout the interior of the park.

Although education is not currently a major use of Abaco National Park, a new

environmental education program on Abaco Island aims to help more teachers bring their

students to the park. We examined the areas of the park used currently for education, as

they may be increasing and becoming more important in the near future. Use of the park

for education is highest in the southern quarter of the park, in a 4 km2 area in the central

part of the park in close proximity to the main road, and in a smaller area near the

coastline (Figure 2-14).

Overlap Between Hunting and Non-Consumptive Uses

Because at least some level of hunting occurs in all areas throughout Abaco

National Park, we looked at the percent of the park area used for each of the non-

consumptive activities to examine the overlap between hunting and other uses (Table 2-

2). Ecotourism and birdwatching cover 100% and 93% of the total park area

respectively; therefore, they may have the greatest potential for conflict with hunting.

Education and driving also may be of concern since they both cover a large portion of the

park area (79% and 60% respectively). However, conflict is more likely to occur in areas

with high concentrations of users.









First, we examined at the overlap between hunting and non-consumptive recreation

overall. In this case, we defined a "high concentration" of non-consumptive recreation as

an area with 11 or more people per 1 km2 grid cell. Eleven was chosen as the cut-off

between a high and low concentration of users because it was the approximate mean and

median of the total number of respondents who conduct non-consumptive activities in

each grid cell. A "high concentration" of hunting was defined in areas with greater than

four people per 1 km2 grid cell. Four people provided an appropriate division for

hunting, which is conducted by at least three people in every grid cell in the park. Using

these criteria, we found that 22% of the grid cells within the park can be considered as

having both high concentrations of hunting and high concentrations of non-consumptive

recreation activities (Figure 2-15). Spatially, these areas are located in the northwestern

corner, southern quarter, and surrounding the wetland located in the south-central portion

of the park.

Next, we examined the overlap between hunting and specific non-consumptive

activities including birdwatching and ecotourism. In these cases, a "high concentration"

of birdwatching was defined as an area with five or more people per 1 km2 grid cell while

a "high concentration" of ecotourism was defined as an area with three of more people

per 1 km2 grid cell. In each case, the criterion was determined based on examining the

mean and median ofbirdwatching and ecotourism activity in each grid cell. Using this

criterion and the criterion above for high use hunting areas, we found that 23% of the grid

cells within the park area can be considered as having both high concentrations of

hunting activity as well as high concentrations of birdwatching activity. Spatially, areas

of potential conflict are located predominately at both the northern and southern extremes









of the park, although both birdwatchers and hunters heavily use the 4 km2 wetland area in

the south-central area of the park (Figure 2-16). When looking at potential conflict sites

between hunters and ecotourists, 23% of the park area met our criteria. Spatially, these

areas are found in the northern comer of the park, surrounding the wetland in the south-

central portion of the park, and along the main road and bordering areas of white coppice

in the southern quarter of the park (Figure 2-17).

We did not assess the potential for conflict between driving and hunting, as drivers

are not likely to get out of their car and therefore, their conflict with hunters would be

minimal if at all. Additionally, because student education is not yet a highly used activity

in the park, its overlap with hunting was not assessed.

Temporal Distribution of Activities

In analyzing the temporal distribution of activities in Abaco National Park, we

found that hunting occurs most frequently during December and January (Figure 2-18).

Although wild boar hunting occurs throughout the year, duck, dove, and white-crowned

pigeon season is officially designated from 29 September to 1 March.

In general, we found no overall temporal trend among non-consumptive activities

in Abaco National Park. Birdwatching occurs most heavily during the months between

March and May and in November. This pattern appears to be consistent with the natural

occurrence of bird migration from North America to the island during these months.

Other ecotourism occurs most frequently early in the season from the months of January

through May, while trips to the ocean peak in both May and December. Driving is fairly

consistent year round. Fishing, camping, and education, although not depicted in Figure

2-18, are all practiced in low frequency year round.









Group Mapping: Activity Zone Distribution

Data from the group mapping activity showed that each group varied in the amount

of area they allocated for each activity zone (Figure 2-19). Tourism industry

representatives, teachers, and Sandy Point community members felt that ecotourism

should be allocated the most area in Abaco National Park, while hunters felt that hunting

should be the priority in the majority of the park. The business and environmental groups

were similar in their distribution of activities, with protection covering more than half of

the park, followed by ecotourism. All groups agreed that there should be at least a

portion of the park prioritized for infrastructure as well as for ecotourism.

Spatially, many of the group maps showed similarities (Figures 2-20 to 2-25). All

but the hunter group allocated areas in the northern quarter of the park for protection.

Additionally, the teacher group designated protection areas in portions of the central and

southern areas in the park while the environmental and business groups were more

generous with protection areas, designating them in the northern 50% of the park as well

as in large amounts in the southern half of the park. The Sandy Point, teacher, and

tourism groups all allocated large amounts of ecotourism in the central park area. The

business and hunter groups allocated a smaller area for ecotourism in the central portion

of the park while the environmental group designated ecotourism areas in close proximity

to current roads. All but the hunter group wanted ecotourism areas designated on the

coastal area of the park. The Sandy Point, teacher, environmental, and business groups

all allocated portions of the southern half of the park for hunting. Hunters covered 93%

of their map with hunting areas while tourism did not allocate any area for hunting.

Groups generally designated at least one infrastructure area somewhere along the major









road to the park, while some groups added additional infrastructure areas along the coast

(business) or at the southern end of the park (tourism).

To further quantify the compatibility between stakeholder groups on future activity

zones, we created a map depicting areas for each activity zone where there was either

"some" or "strong" agreement between stakeholder groups (Figure 2-26). "Some"

agreement was defined as areas where three to four groups had placed the same activity;

"strong" agreement were areas where five to six groups corresponded on the placement

of an activity. Further supporting our initial observations, some groups agreed on placing

protection areas in the northern quarter of the park, with groups strongly agreeing only on

two 1-km2 areas for protection within this region. Groups either somewhat or strongly

agreed on the placement of ecotourism zones throughout the central two-thirds of the

park and along the main road through the park. Hunting zones were somewhat agreed

upon in a 6 km block in the southern quarter of the park; there were no strongly agreed

upon areas for hunting. Only one 1-km2 cell was somewhat agreed upon for

infrastructure, which is located at the most northern intersection where the main road

converges with the park boundary.

Next, we combined the stakeholder group compatibility map with the parrot nesting

data. In the high parrot nesting site area, there was some to strong agreement on the

majority of this area as protection. Ecotourism was also somewhat agreed upon in this

area, while a single 1 km2 area was designated as infrastructure. For areas with

additional, but not high, parrot nesting activity, ecotourism was somewhat to strongly

agreed upon in the majority of this area. Areas some groups agreed upon for hunting also

fell within this area.









Activity Zone Discussion

Stakeholders shared a variety of ideas about the types of management and activities

they would include in each of the activity zones they designated on their group map. For

sites labeled as infrastructure, the majority of groups wanted a visitor center, souvenir

shops, a place to purchase refreshments, and a ranger station with a permanent game

warden (Appendix D). Most groups also cited education, in the form of informational

literature, an educational video, children's education, a museum, and library as a priority

in these areas. Many groups also desired the necessary infrastructure for dealing with

larger crowds in these areas, such as parking lots, improved roads, restrooms, rest areas,

and first aid.

When discussing what was desired for areas labeled as ecotourism, passive

recreation opportunities both on land and water were cited most. The majority of

stakeholder groups agreed that birdwatching would be appropriate in these areas.

Similarly, all groups desired some type of trail, whether it be a general trail, a hiking trail,

biking trail, or interpretive trail for visitors and locals to enjoy. Many groups also wanted

opportunities for guided tours as well as established campsites. A few groups desired

amenities such as restrooms, picnic areas, rest areas, and trash cans in ecotourism areas.

In the protection zones, almost all stakeholder groups desired some form of active

management to regulate and maintain those areas. Most groups wanted posted

regulations and enforcement of protection zones. Some groups wanted regulated use of

the areas, while other groups felt that hunting certain species during certain times of the

year could be permitted in these areas. All but one group (hunters) mentioned research as

an important activity to include in protection zones.









Many groups felt that hunting of wild boar, white-crowned pigeon, ducks and teal

were appropriate for hunting zones. A few groups desired management in the form of

posted regulations and a game warden for hunting areas. Additionally, a few groups felt

that non-consumptive activities such as walking, birdwatching, crabbing, and research

could occur in these areas.

Although research was introduced as an activity zone unto itself, only one group

(teachers) allocated park area specifically for research. Rather, most groups included

research as an activity that could occur in all of the zones.

Discussion

Abaco National Park presented an opportunity to involve local people in

management and recreation planning from the onset. Including the public in research and

decision-making not only helps ensure their support for the final management plan, but

also produces important sociological information that is essential to management

planning. Particularly in multiple use areas where demands on resources from different

user groups present a challenge to managers, knowledge about user groups and support of

these groups can help assure the long-term viability of an area.

This study coupled an examination of basic and spatial user characteristics with

participatory methods of research. To obtain the necessary sociological information to

make recommendations for a park recreation plan, we used a variety of methods

including brainstorming of ideas for a vision statement, participatory mapping, and a

group discussion. As little information about stakeholders of Abaco National Park

currently exists, the immediate issue was to describe park usage and identify potential

conflict among recreational activities and between recreation and parrot resource needs.

The next step of recreation planning should include further describing a range of









recreation opportunities that can be provided in the park. One method that exists for

doing so is the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). The ROS planning framework

enables the use of information about user desires and behaviors in determining specific

types of recreation opportunities to provide (Driver et al. 1987).

Participatory approaches to recreation planning, including stakeholder analysis and

participatory mapping, were strongly supported by this study. In particular, these

methods assisted in illuminating planning opportunities in three major ways through

identifying commonalities among stakeholder groups, tapping into local knowledge, and

recognizing areas of potential conflict.

Commonalities among Stakeholder Groups

Our goal for conducting a visioning exercise with participants was to understand

their priorities for Abaco National Park and formulate a single vision statement for the

park that stakeholder groups could rally behind and park management could support.

Results from the visioning exercise showed that all six stakeholder groups expressed

relatively similar ideas that they wanted included in the vision statement. Regardless of

group, people wanted ecosystem protection/restoration, quality management, and low

impact visitation, revealing that most people place a high emphasis on maintaining the

ecological integrity of the park. From the ideas generated by stakeholders, we have

drafted a preliminary vision statement that reads as follows:

"Recreation management in Abaco National Park should protect the park's unique
ecosystem, particularly habitat for the Bahama Parrot, while maintaining and
improving quality nature-based recreation opportunities that promote appreciation
and education of Abaco's natural resources for local residents and visitors."

Future plans include presenting the above vision statement to stakeholders to obtain their

feedback and suggestions for a final vision statement for the park. If groups can find









common ground in these ideas and long-terms goals for Abaco National Park,

negotiations concerning specific activities and management of the park may be less

contentious.

We also found commonalities in the activities conducted by members of different

stakeholder groups. Across stakeholder groups, we found that birdwatching is most

popular and covers the largest percent of the park area per person. Birdwatching, in

addition to other forms of ecotourism including hiking, exploring, and enjoying nature

were conducted by members of each stakeholder group. Revealing these commonalities

between stakeholder groups further supports the benefits of using a stakeholder analysis.

One way results from stakeholder analyses have been used in the past is to prioritize

objectives (Grimble & Wellard 1997). In this case, a primary objective may be

management that continues to provide opportunities for birdwatching and ecotourism.

Finally, results from the group mapping activity show that there are a number of

similarities in stakeholders' desires for future land use planning of the park. All groups

agreed that ecotourism zones and infrastructure are necessary. Spatially, we found that at

least three groups agreed on the majority of the middle two-thirds of the park as

ecotourism. Strong agreement for an ecotourism zone was reached along the middle half

of the main road through the park and along the coastline. The agreement of an

ecotourism zone along the park's coastline, in particular, corroborates the information we

obtained from the individual mapping exercise, which shows that ecotourism is highest

along the coastline. Between three and four groups agreed that infrastructure for the park

should be located along of the main road just as it converges with the park boundary.

When parrot nesting data was overlaid, however, we found that locating the infrastructure









of the park at that particular site may affect parrot nesting. Therefore, it may be

necessary to move the site for infrastructure further south where parrot nesting density is

lower, but keep it located on the main road for easy access. Anywhere from three-to-six

groups agreed that the northern quarter of the park should be zoned as protection. In

addition, hunting was most agreed upon in portions of the southern quarter of the park.

Although hunting is conducted throughout the entire park, one of its highest use areas is

located in the southern quarter of the park. Therefore, this may be an agreeable area for

hunting.

The theory that stakeholder analysis can illuminate commonalities was supported

by the results of this study. Revealing commonalities may have several benefits to park

planning. First, it can help managers in prioritizing objectives for the park. Another

important benefit is fostering positive relations between stakeholder groups. When

people from different groups can find similarities with one another, they begin to relate

and respect each other, even if their interests in a particular area differ. The ultimate

result is a greater willingness of different groups to work together and more successful

park planning projects.

Tapping into Local Knowledge

Participatory research is based on the assumption that people are capable of

identifying and expressing their needs and aspirations themselves (Binns et al. 1997).

Additionally, it presumes that local people hold important knowledge that can be

accessed through participatory methods and can complement scientific data (Ball 2002;

Zurayk et al. 2003). This study provided evidence that local people can provide quick,

reliable, and novel information.









Prior to this study, little was known about when, where and how different

stakeholders currently use Abaco National Park. Therefore, results from this study

provide the first data on recreational use of the park. We also found that stakeholders

were highly knowledgeable about the park ecosystem itself. In the group mapping

activity, we noticed that most groups knew approximately where parrots are located and

designated those areas as protection. When we overlaid ecological data on parrot nesting

sites, we found that high density parrot nesting areas corresponded strongly with the

protection zones delineated by the stakeholder groups. This provides further support that

local people can provide a valuable resource not only in attaining desired social

information, but also in their ecological knowledge of natural areas.

Identifying Potential Conflict and Opportunities for Prevention

In multiple use areas where a number of different activities occur simultaneously,

there is the potential for conflict. When the goals and desires of user groups conflict,

often the result is adversarial situations that may endanger the resource use for all groups

(Wing & Johnson 2001). However, if conflict can be predicted, there is a greater chance

that it can be mitigated before reaching this point (Wing & Johnson 2001). Integrating

participatory mapping with stakeholder analysis allowed us to reveal both areas and times

of potential conflict between different user groups. Additionally, we were able to

illuminate areas where parrot resource needs may conflict with recreation by overlaying

parrot nesting data with our collected social data. Once areas and times of potential

conflict were revealed, formulation of prospective trade-offs for management was

possible.

In analyzing participants' spatial maps, we found that the highest use areas for

birdwatching were centered upon the main road through the park with use decreasing as









distance increased from this road. Thus, it appears that most birdwatchers spend their

time driving along the main road, stopping periodically to get out and birdwatch in

relatively nearby locations, while only a few people venture further into the interior of the

park. We believe this is a factor of access and the quality of roads within the interior of

the park, which are rugged and require a four-wheel-drive vehicle. As birdwatching

increases in popularity, management to meet these needs will require consideration of

creating one or more birdwatching trails. However, as birdwatching has been linked with

negative impacts on bird populations (Sekercioglu 2002), trail placement must coincide

with sustaining viable populations of Bahama parrots. When we overlaid parrot nesting

sites on the birdwatching distribution map, all areas where people birdwatch overlapped

parrot nesting sites to some extent. The majority of areas where birdwatching is heaviest

overlap with areas where some parrot nesting occurs, although a few sites of heavy

birdwatching exist in the high density parrot nesting area. Therefore, to reduce potential

conflict between birdwatchers and parrot resource needs, the best places for these trails

would be in the southern half of the park where visitors are likely to see parrots, but

where parrot nesting sites are less abundant and less likely to be disturbed or abandoned.

Unlike birdwatching, the most popular place for other ecotourism activities is

along the coastline of the park. Thus, management to improve ecotourism opportunities

could focus on expanding access to these areas and providing hiking trails and sites for

exploration and enjoying nature. Because parrot nesting does not occur along the

coastline, potential conflict between recreationists and parrot protection in these areas is

low. One foreseeable problem, however, is that to provide access to the coastline a road

must be constructed through parrot nesting sites. Additional ecological information may









be necessary before decisions can be reached on management for ecotourism along the

coastline.

A stakeholder analysis in 2002 regarding environmental education revealed the

desire of teachers to take school groups to Abaco National Park (Jacobson et al. 2005).

Therefore, while visitation by these groups is currently low, recreation and management

planning require consideration of this future user group. From the few groups that have

visited Abaco National Park, it appears that the entire park area could be suitable for

education. New environmental education materials developed for teachers focus on

exploration of the pine forest and the Bahama parrot. Developing sites suitable for

school visits could assist teachers and help manage this user group. Subsequently, access

would need to be provided to appropriate areas if not currently available. As educational

opportunities expand in the park, attention to their potential conflict with other user

groups and ecological factors will be necessary.

Hunting is often perceived as an activity that reduces other recreationists'

opportunity for safe and satisfying activities (Jaakson 1988). Thus, examining the spatial

distribution of hunting within the park and its overlap with non-consumptive uses was

critical. As expected, hunting occurs throughout the entire park area. However, areas of

high hunting use only overlapped by 22% with non-consumptive activities overall. More

specifically, high use hunting areas overlapped by 23% with both high use birdwatching

areas and high use ecotourism areas. Knowing where activities overlap can significantly

aid planners in mitigating potential conflict. For example, one 4 km2 block in the central

portion of the park appears particularly important for hunting as all of the hunters who

participated in this study marked this area for hunting. Therefore, it appears that this area









would be an important area to manage for hunting. Although birdwatching and

ecotourism both share an interest in this location, most of the popular sites for these non-

consumptive activities fall outside of this area. Therefore, quality opportunities to

birdwatch and conduct other ecotourism activities could be provided in other park areas

and still have a high likelihood of meeting the needs of these user groups. Another prime

hunting area could be designated in the southern quarter of the park where parrot nesting

is less abundant than in the north.

Conversely, temporal management may assist in alleviating potential conflict. We

found that although hunting, birdwatching, and ecotourism are conducted year-round,

they vary in their temporal patterns. Hunting is conducted most intensely during the

winter months, while the most popular times for birdwatching and ecotourism are in the

spring and early fall. Therefore, potential conflict sites could be managed for hunting

during the winter months and for non-consumptive recreation during the spring and early

fall.

Presently, these temporal patterns of recreation are largely compatible with

sustaining the Bahama parrot population. Parrots breed from May through September, a

time when most recreational activities are at their lowest due to high heat, humidity, and

an abundance of insects. Birdwatching is of particular concern since it is noted that the

high expectations and excessive enthusiasm of many birdwatchers to see or photograph a

bird can have harmful consequences (Sekercioglu 2002). Birdwatchers have been linked

to greater nest abandonment, increased predation rates, visitor-related pollution, and

habitat destruction (Miller & Hobbs 2000; Sekercioglu 2002). In the majority of studies,

birds were most sensitive to disturbance during the breeding period (Gotmark 1992;









Knight & Cole 1995). Therefore, it has been suggested that birdwatching be minimized

around nests and young, which can be deserted as the result of disturbance generated by

just one person (Larson 1995). In Abaco National Park, high density parrot nesting areas

may be managed best by limiting access during the parrot breeding season and

monitoring the impacts on parrots by birdwatchers during other times of the year.

Encouragement and/or regulation of visitors to birdwatch with a guide may also be

preferable as guides can help minimize disturbance of birds by birdwatchers if

appropriately trained (Sekercioglu 2002).

Recommendations

One of our objectives for this study was to generate recommendations for a

recreation management plan for Abaco National Park. The methods of stakeholder

analysis and participatory mapping proved invaluable in achieving this objective. We

found them successful in highlighting areas and times of potential conflict among

different user groups and between user groups and parrot resource needs. Recognizing

these conflicts subsequently allowed us to consider trade-offs that may aid in reducing

conflict. Additionally, the methods helped us find commonalities among stakeholder

groups that not only signify priorities for management but also provide the basis for a

working relationship among the stakeholders. From these results, we suggest the

following recommendations:

1. Ensure recreation opportunities do not compromise the sustainability of the
Bahama parrot population.

Actions:

1. Establish parrot protection zones where humans are excluded at least during the
parrot breeding season. Currently, we recommend this zone be placed in the
northern third of the park. Further consultation with parrot biologists is









essential to ensure that areas where parrots nest and breed are sufficiently
protected.

2. Promote research to continue to monitor the health of the Bahama parrot, other
wildlife, and ecological systems in the park.

3. Develop ecological and social standards and indicators to monitor the human
impacts on the natural environment.

4. Use local guides with extensive knowledge of the park to lead visitors through
sensitive areas of the park.

5. Use on- and off-site education to inform locals and tourists about the park's
fragile ecosystem and proper conduct while visiting the park.

2. Enhance birdwatching and ecotourism opportunities.

Actions:

1. Establish birdwatching trails that allow more access to the park by
birdwatchers. These may be best placed in the southern and south-central
portions of the park where visitors are likely to see parrots, but where less
parrot nesting sites are located.

2. Expand opportunities for ecotourism throughout their current range, particularly
along the coastal area of the park where results show that a majority of people
conduct ecotourism activities.

3. Control visitor numbers and minimize impacts of visitors on parrots by keeping
all but a few roads through ecotourism and birdwatching areas unimproved.
Those roads which are consistently driven and already highly established (such
as the central and south-central interior roads depicted in Figures 2-9 thru 2-14)
could be improved for access to birdwatching and hiking trails. Consider
closing roads in the northern area of the park, which are located in areas of high
density parrot nesting.

4. Monitor the impacts of birdwatchers and other ecotourists on parrots.

5. Expand opportunities for people to view the Bahama parrot by training local
guides.

6. Ensure non-consumptive recreationists and hunters do not interfere with each
other or cause a safety concern. Use temporal zoning if conflict arises. This
could include zoning areas of conflict for hunting between the months of
October through February (when bird hunting is legal in addition to boar
hunting) and for non-consumptive recreation the remaining months of the year.


3. Expand opportunities for student education.









Actions:

1. Encourage local teachers to use the park as an educational resource to educate
their students about the habitat and wildlife of the park.

2. Select areas for student education that meet teacher objectives but avoid parrot
nesting sites.

3. Ensure student activities and hunters do not interfere with each other or cause a
safety concern. If conflict arises, use temporal zoning in which hunting is
permitted during the months of October through February and student activities
can occur during the early fall or spring.

4. Maintain opportunities for quality hunting experiences.

Actions:

1. Maintain hunting throughout its current range where it does not conflict with
sustaining viable parrot populations. This particularly applies to the wetland
area and northern and southern extremes of the park where hunting is most
popular.

2. Ensure hunting and non-consumptive recreation do not interfere with each
other or cause a safety concern. Use temporal zoning if conflict arises. This
could include zoning areas of conflict for hunting between the months of
October through February (when bird hunting is legal in addition to boar
hunting) and for non-consumptive recreation the remaining months of the
year.

5. Develop appropriate infrastructure.

Actions:

1. According to our meetings with stakeholders, people most wanted a visitor
center, followed by souvenir shops, refreshment stands, a ranger station, park
guides, educational materials, improved roads, and restrooms.

2. Results show that infrastructure would be best placed as far north along the
main road as possible without infringing upon high density parrot nesting
areas.

3. Ensure facilities do not negatively impact the natural ecosystem by monitoring
human impacts.









Limitations

Despite its overall success, we recognize a few limitations in this study. First, we

had a relatively small sample size of 35 people among six stakeholder groups. A larger

sample size may have provided us greater detail and more accurate information regarding

stakeholder use of the park. Particularly in the business and tourism industry

representative groups, which only had four people each, a greater level of participation

may have revealed different results.

Second, because Abaco National Park is large in size, we used a relatively large

grid cell size for our unit of analysis in the participatory mapping activities in this study.

Each grid cell measured one kilometer squared, which does not provide a fine scale of

detail for planning. However, we were unsure if people would be capable of providing

accurate information at a finer scale of detail for areas they go in the park. When using

grid cells as a unit of analysis, it may be beneficial to attempt analysis at multiple scales

to compare their accuracy and the detail of information they are able to provide.

Finally, it is recognized that there is no way of knowing how well a person's map

accurately represents his or her mental map (Walmsley & Jenkins 1992). Therefore, the

maps that participants constructed on their current use of the park may not be completely

correct in illustrating where they travel in reality. In analyzing participants' maps of

driving in the park, we found evidence that these mental maps may not be exact. In

particular, it appears that participants perceived the most southern of the interior roads in

the park as further south than it is located in actuality (Figure 2-13). Therefore, when

applying maps that people construct from memory to planning, consideration of errors is

essential.









Conclusion

The results from this study reveal that investigation into local stakeholder groups'

current activity patterns in a national park and future desires for management can produce

useful information that can be incorporated into the park planning process. Although

general information on user characteristics of Abaco National Park proved important,

both the individual and group maps that resulted from this study provided a greater

contribution to recreation planning in the park. For example, individual activity maps

showed that birdwatchers and other non-consumptive recreationists use areas along the

main road and the coastline more than any other areas in the park. Hunting, on the other

hand, occurs to a greater extent throughout the interior of the park. Knowing where

activities are conducted can help in the allocation of resources and appropriate

management of those areas. Spatial analysis of use patterns also proved beneficial in

identifying areas of potential conflict. As conflicts can create contentious situations that

threaten resource use for all users (Wing & Johnson 2001), recognizing potential areas of

conflict before they occur can greatly benefit the planning of recreation in Abaco

National Park.

When combined together, the stakeholder group maps illuminated areas where the

majority of groups agreed on a particular activity. This map strongly corroborated the

information we obtained in the individual mapping activity. Finally, when we overlaid

parrot nesting data on these maps, we found the resulting map valuable in terms of

formulating recommendations for a recreation management plan for Abaco National

Park. Although the development of this plan will be an accomplishment in itself, we

hope that the methods used in this study can be applied to other national parks in the






44


Bahamas in need of management planning to protect biodiversity while concurrently

providing for a variety of recreational uses and stakeholder interests.









Table 2-1. Vision statement themes.
Vision Statement Theme
Ecosystem protection/restoration
Quality management
Low impact visitation to enjoy nature
Visitor education
Protection of parrots/wildlife
Community involvement
Development of trails/tours
Student education
Research


Number of Times Mentioned
15
12
11
10
6
4


Table 2-2. Percent of park area marked for each activity.

Activity Percent of Park Area

Hunting 100
Ecotourism 100
Birdwatching/Viewing Parrots 93
Education 79
Driving 60
Access to Ocean 24
Camping 16
Fishing 0.5









Table 2-3. Percent of park area marked per activity per person. Percent grids per person
are calculated as grids per person (N=35) over the total number (107) of grid
cells in the park.


Total Number of
Grids Marked


Activity


Percent of Grids
Marked per Person


Birdwatching/Viewing Parrots 502 13.40
Hunting 383 10.23
Ecotourism 299 7.98
Education 159 4.25
Driving 147 3.92
Ocean 23 0.61
Camping 17 0.45
Fishing 10 0.27






























Figure 2-1. Location of Abaco National Park.


Figure 2-2. Group mapping exercise. One stakeholder group decides how to distribute
different activity zones in Abaco National Park. Their final map is shown on
the right.














Ecosystem Protection/Restoration (15)

Quality Management (12)

Low Impact Visitation to Enjoy Nature (11)

Visitor Eduction (10)

ca Protection of Parrots/Wildlife (6)

Community Involvement (4)

Development of Trails/Tours (3)

Student Education (2)

Research (2)


:::::::::::l Hunters

A+ +TTTTTT+T+TT Tourism
o Teachers
5//////////////l1111lllllllllllll [] Business
Sandy Point
1111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII' ' P a] Environmental


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of Total Times Mentioned



Figure 2-3. Vision statement ideas by stakeholder group (N=35). Numbers in parenthesis
indicate the total number of times the idea was mentioned overall.






35


30


2 25
o.

i 20
a.
o
4-
S15

-
0,
o 10
a.

5


0


4-6

Visits to ANP


Figure 2-4. Overall annual visitation to Abaco National Park (N=35).


:..............ii:/// ~ lllllllll ',,

.................~~iii~~~ii~~~iii~~ii/////tt !,,


iiiiiiiiiiiil1111111111111111111111111111 11111111111

i:::::::::::::::::::::::::ggg gg gg ggg gg gg ggg gg gg gi i i i i 'i 'i 'i 'i i
...............ll l ll ll l ll l ll ll l ll rT T TT T














Environmental



Business



Sandy Point



Teachers



Tourism



Hunters


.::.:.: : :.1::.II.


E 0 visits
0 1-3 visits
E 4-6 visits
M 7-12 visits
* >13 visits


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Group


Figure 2-5. Annual visitation to Abaco National Park by stakeholder group (N=35).





60

S50 -
C
r-
Q.
3 40


30 -
0

S20 -

o 10
( 0


.a I


C- C C --. C
o >0 (> ) **
M 0Z r M0 M =0
z g ,O
0) 0 Q

w


Activity


Figure 2-6. Percentage of people participating in each activity (N=35).


...........1


.. . . . . . ........... . . . .,


::: :: :: :............11 ~


























0) 0
So o

aa Q


0) '
"z 0

w


Activity



Figure 2-7. Frequency of activities conducted in Abaco National Park (N=35).


Birdwatching

Hunting


Ecotourism *III ] Teachers
U Sandy Point
Education ***************************************** Hunters

Driving ,, Environmental
o Business
O cean I::::: ........................::: 0 Tourism


Camping


Fishing [.........


0% 20%


40%


60%


80%


100%


Percentage of Cells



Figure 2-8. Percentage of park labeled for each activity by stakeholder group (N=35)
listed in order of total number of cells labeled for that activity.


..........iiiiiiiiiiii:....... III ............|| ..////////////

::::::: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:: : .: :.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : : : ::::::::::::::::::: : : ::.. . .


E














S
S


ft
*
SI
SL


p

I'























1N
'S



















0 1 2 3 4 5 Km


Figure 2-9. Distribution of hunting and parrot nesting in Abaco National Park.

Figure 2-9. Distribution of hunting and parrot nesting in Abaco National Park.


Legend

SPark Boundary
.***- Roads

Hunting (# respondents)


3
110-2


-4
5
Parrot Nesting

i High Density
^ Low Density






52




















Legend
SPark Boundary
...... Roads
Non-Consumptive Recreation
0-5 respondents
6-10 .
11-15
S16-20
21-25 N
Parrot Nesting W+ I.
High Density s
SLow Density

0 1 2 3 4 5 Km


Figure 2-10. Distribution of non-consumptive activities and parrot nesting in Abaco
National Park.

















I
1I


Figure 2-11. Distribution ofbirdwatching and parrot nesting in Abaco National Park.
Figure 2-11. Distribution of birdwatching and parrot nesting in Abaco National Park.


Legend

SPark Boundary
.***- Roads
Birdwatching (# respondents)
0
1-3
4-6
7-9
Parrot Nesting

Zi High Density
^ Low Density


53






**

































0::





0 1 2 3 4 5 Km
















>
>
1


fi
1
p


I

'S


Legend

= | Park Boundary
.**** Roads

Ecotourism (# respondents)
0

1-3

4-6

- 7-9
Parrot Nesting

: High Density

Low Density


N




S


0 1 2 3 4 5 Km


Figure 2-12. Distribution of ecotourism and parrot nesting in Abaco National Park.























I r
*
S:
A 'NVV








o' .& ./ ., "
1~ '/ .'d '-
<.,-











,o-I5~ iio
c I,,/,j,,



;~...,,,


/' ""'

.,/,,o w.
p t.
'9'+

II /



Illl~ l
I A4




,-'KYT/-, '
V.,
'I
. ..4


I. '-' -

.8k, 7'







1/1

S


Figure 2-13. Distribution of driving and parrot nesting in Abaco National Park.

Figure 2-13. Distribution of driving and parrot nesting in Abaco National Park.


Legend

W | Park Boundary
.***- Roads

Driving (# respondents)

0

1-3

S4-6

S7-10

Parrot Nesting

i High Density

^ Low Density














S
S
S
S
S

ft
*
SI
S


. . ..















CN
.. .. "
















':~~ '..'..':..'.."

























o 1 2 3 4 5Km


and parrot nesting in Abaco National Park.


Legend

SPark Boundary
....* Roads

Education (# respondents)

I 0



2

Parrot Nesting

Z High Density

^ Low Density


I I


Figure 2-14. Distribution of education






57











K --a- /























Park Boundary .. w L
*,*























Roads

r Overlap
II I



















0 1 2 3 4 5 Km


Figure 2-15. Overlap in areas defined as "high density" hunting and "high density" non-
consumptive recreation.






58



















---- ----


Roads: ....
Overlap.











o I








I IPark Boundary .
Roads ::.'^L s
Overlap : : :. :. .., :

0 1 2 3 4 5 Km


Figure 2-16. Overlap in areas defined as "high density" hunting and "high density"
birdwatching.






59




































Legend .
i .
























SPark Boundary :S ., w I.,
...... Roads ....

Overlap. .


O 1 2 3 4 5 Km


Figure 2-17. Overlap in areas defined as "high density" hunting and "high density"
ecotourism.
.. ,' .
.... O erlpR~ ds -'- :- 1 ".._,.. ..,,,,.. :,.,.4
I 4.. .. .

0 1 2 4 4 5K

Figure 2-17. Overlap in areas defined as hg est"hnigad"ihdniy
ecotorism













Parrot Breeding Season


12


10
c
C
t-c


o.
0 6


E
" 4
z


2


0


-E- Birdwatching
-- Hunting
-A- Ecotourism
-K- Driving
-- Ocean


S-< 0) E E E
Sz >
LL 0 0

Month


Figure 2-18. Temporal distribution of activities in Abaco National Park.


E Other
I Research
* Protection
0 Hunting
O Infrastructure
E Ecotourism


t-1 c0 -O



o a)
UJ
Stakeholder Group
Stakeholder Group


Figure 2-19. Percent of park prioritized for each activity zone by stakeholder group.


100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%







61










































Legend

| | Park Boundary ..


Ecotourism



M Infrastructure
S1 2 3 4 5 K
I
I





I




















Legend
Park Bundar
***** R oad | W






















0 1 2 3 4 5 Km


Figure 2-20. Hunter group map of desired future activity zones.











* :






\
ii .







*









11
\ ** < '
0 2 3 5K
1 : ,. :: J:

0 1 2 3 4 5 Km:::1:::


Figure 2-21. Tourism group map of desired future activity zones.


Legend

SPark Boundary
...... Roads

Protection
ii:i:ii:i Ecotourism
Infrastructure













a
a


II




I

S

































0 1 2 3 4 5 Km


Figure 2-22. Teacher group map of desired future activity zones.


Legend

SPark Boundary
----** Roads

Protection

I Ecotourism
Hunting

SInfrastructure

,l~j Research














r




r


*
;;
:t
*

;,


: f~;l .,,;1.
.., t.t i;:
ii~;i
;t; ;
;;ii
;;;:: ~r~rlt~r~r~ t:

I1~';tt.r~

::::::~r;T;1:.::::
:r:r:
;1 ;; ;;; ;;
:::::'''' :::

t:t:t:? :?:1:t:t:?:r:1:? :t:
.;tlt.11;;'1;'.t;.';;';I';';~;;
~;;;,
.,;
:::: ::::::::::
'' ''
I'.t.'i.'.t.i'.i
:
~lt ;;
...
::
.:t
..*

::t:?:*::r ''
::


i: ;t t:
'~' ;
::::::::::::::::
~'rti'~t*it*t~ 'rlr'~i*'rli'

1;; ;;:.;t.


:I:
;1;
; iiiiiI f
:
;l;t;t ;1;1
: ::
ttI :1:ii 1.; ;rlr
.it i. i
1 .: t,

::
Iii;r;r
;
::::: ::;f
;;
:::::::i:::c:
:~;S5f~:::::::
Irl~
11'
;
::::: :.:: i;:u3:


0 1 2 3 4 5 Km


Figure 2-23. Sandy Point group map of desired future activity zones.


Legend


S| Park Boundary

..*..* Roads


Protection


iiiiil Ecotourism

Hunting


M Infrastructure


7 Other

















4,




7 7
*





w I
I ,





























2S




0 1 2 3 4 5 Km


Figure 2-24. Business group map of desired future activity zones.


Legend

...... Roads

W | Park Boundary
Protection

M Ecotourism
Hunting

Infrastructure
Other







































Legend

W | Park Boundary
..---. Roads

Protection
SEcotourism
Hunting
Infrastructure


0 1 2 3 4 5 Km


Figure 2-25. Environmental group map of desired future activity zones.
























Legend

SI|I Park Boundary
.--- Roads
Protection
Strong ..
SSome
Ecotourism i :
iiiii Strong :
Some
Hunting '
RiMSome
Infrastructure N
Some
W 1:
Parrot Nesting
L |High Density .. _- s
1 1 Low Density ,

0 1 2 3 4 5 Km


Figure 2-26. Stakeholder group compatibility on future activity zone distribution.
"Strong" signifies areas where 5-6 groups agreed; "Some" signifies areas
where 3-4 groups agreed.














CHAPTER 3
ABACO HUNTER BEHAVIOR, SATISFACTIONS, AND MANAGEMENT
PERCEPTIONS

Introduction

In the struggle to retain the earth's remaining biodiversity, the establishment of

protected areas has played a central role. Today, over 12% of the world's land area is

protected as national parks and preserves (Chape et al. 2003). However, the designation

of a protected area is only the first step toward preservation (Dawson 1985). Ultimately,

an area's success will depend on the design and implementation of quality management;

if a protected area cannot be managed effectively, then the loss of essential elements of

biodiversity is inevitable (Wells & McShane 2004).

Protected Area Management

Early efforts to manage protected areas were based on centralized regulatory

control (Weladji et al. 2003) and the exclusion of local people. Although human

communities living in close proximity to protected areas often have long-standing

relationships with those areas, those attachments were frequently ignored (Trakolis

2001); park management concentrated on keeping people out (Wells & McShane 2004).

This method was successful in protecting some endangered species from extinction

(Harmon 1987), but local people were often left deprived and hostile. The most extreme

cases, typically in developing countries, resulted in disruption of local culture

(Callimanopulos 1982), increased poverty due to wildlife depredation, and resource

access deprivation (Weladji et al. 2003). Other cases involving reserves with a history of









unrestricted recreational use that suddenly was prohibited resulted in vandalism and

disorderly behavior by community members (Dawson 1985). Without receiving the

benefits they previously enjoyed, disdain from local communities jeopardized the

accomplishment of many conservation objectives.

In the 1980s, conservation and management agencies began pioneering new

approaches to protected area management that sought active involvement of local

communities and consideration of their needs and aspirations (Weladji et al. 2003; Wells

& McShane 2004). Today, public participation is promoted at all stages of protected area

administration from planning to decision-making and management. Public participation

is regarded as having several benefits. Park and recreation agencies that are charged with

addressing the needs and desires of the constituents they serve (Jacobson 2001) can

involve the public in social assessments to better understand their attitudes, preferences,

and behaviors (Flood & McCarville 1999). Results from these surveys provide valuable

data for planners to match park space to local needs and desires (Hall & Page 2002).

Likewise, collecting and analyzing spatial user information can assist planners in

understanding the time and space utilization of an area by various user groups (Heatwole

& West 1982). Public participation also can be used as an approach for planners to gain

access to local knowledge, thereby complimenting scientific information (Ball 2002).

Finally, participation is believed to increase cooperation and support for management

decisions vital to ensuring long-term conservation strategies (Ball 2002).

The majority of protected areas are managed for multiple uses in addition to

conservation, such as outdoor recreation, tourism, sustainable forestry, hunting, fishing,

scientific research, and environmental education. In many developing countries,









neighboring communities rely on the natural resources contained within protected areas

to meet basic human needs such as food, fuel, and medicine. Management of these areas

can be particularly complex as biodiversity conservation must be compatible with

providing for human subsistence needs. In the recent past, the application of

participatory research methods in these cases has augmented and proven to be a

promising approach to understanding and balancing human needs with conservation.

Participatory research methods also can assist in the management of areas where

local people do not rely on protected areas for subsistence, but rather to meet needs such

as physical and emotional well-being. Typically, these needs are met through a variety of

recreational activities (Driver et al. 1991). Several agencies have recognized the

importance of public participation and sociological data in decision-making concerning

recreation management. To appropriately manage a public river area for a variety of user

groups, researchers used surveys of recreational rates and preferences for future land use

(Burger 2000). Oh et al. (2005) used questionnaires of Texas anglers to collect data on

fishing participation, motivations, attitudes, and management preferences. A similar

study surveyed people in North Florida to determine public knowledge of a local

watershed, attitudes and opinions toward management activities, and recreational use of

the area (Appelson 1999). Many studies demonstrate the importance of public surveys

and input in protected area recreation planning.

Many protected areas are managed for both consumptive and non-consumptive

recreationists. Consumptive users are typically defined as hunters or anglers who

actively extract a resource, while non-consumptive recreationists are considered passive

users such as wildlife-watchers and hikers (Duffas & Dearden 1990; Kellert & Brown









1985; Vaske et al. 1982). Consumptive users typically are a large focus of management

because they play a necessary role in managing the population of some species, are an

important funding source for wildlife agencies, and must be regulated in order to avoid

overexploitation (Decker et al. 2001). Additionally, in many places, hunting has a

traditional cultural value. For these hunters, their families and communities, hunting is

not simply a recreational activity but rather an essential part of their social being (Decker

et al. 2001). Hunting can be a family or community tradition in which hunting behavior

is initiated early in childhood by a family member or friend (Hayslette et al. 2001). In

many developed countries, hunting plays an important role in how local residents identify

and feel attached to protected areas. Therefore, planners must single out this group when

potentially impacting the management of these areas.

Hunter Satisfaction

Like any user group, understanding hunters' beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors is

fundamental to protected area management. However, because of hunters' intimate

relationship with wildlife management by providing a funding source and regulating

populations of some species keeping hunters satisfied and involved in hunting also has

been of great interest. In order to achieve this additional goal, managers require

information on issues such as hunting satisfactions and motivations (Decker et al. 2001).

Over the years hunter satisfaction has been measured in several different ways.

Initially, hunting quality was measured largely in terms of harvest. A subsequent

approach assumed that as the number of hunters in the field increased, so did the total

amount of hunter benefits and satisfaction (Crissey 1971). Within the past 20 years,

however, it has become evident that game bagged and days-afield approaches fail to









recognize the social, psychological, emotional, and physical benefits associated with

hunting (Daigle et al. 2002; Hammitt et al. 1990).

The idea that hunter satisfaction is derived from multiple determinants was first

proposed in the early 1970s ( Hendee 1974; Potter et al. 1973). Since then, numerous

studies have sought to identify the various factors that contribute to hunter satisfaction

and their relative importance. Of particular debate has been the relative importance of

harvest-based versus nonharvest-based satisfactions in determining overall hunting

satisfaction (Decker et al. 1980). Some studies support that successful harvest and/or

related aspects, such as perceived game numbers, continue to dominate hunting

satisfaction, while other satisfactions remain secondary (Decker et al. 1980; Gigliotti

2000; McCullough & Carmen 1982; Stankey et al. 1973). Decker et al. (1980) reported

that deer hunters who saw fewer deer and shot less than their ideal number rated their

experience less favorably. A study involving ratings of hunting quality in Michigan

showed that hunter satisfaction was largely influenced by the presence of a deer, seeing a

deer, and the success of a member of the hunting party (Langenau et al. 1981). In a

similar study, Frey et al. (2003) found that the number of male pheasants seen by hunters

was the most influential factor on hunter satisfaction, followed by the number of

pheasants harvested.

Other studies have found that nonharvest-based motivations and satisfactions,

including companionship, nature, or escape are more important than those related to

harvest (Hammitt et al. 1990; Hendee 1974; Vaske et al. 1986). Hunters in

Massachusetts reported being more interested in the hunting experience rather than the

physical take of an animal (More 1973). Similarly, in a study of Washington hunters, 11









dimensions of hunting satisfaction were identified that differed in importance both within

and between game specific hunter groups. Of these, nature, escapism, and

companionship were more important to hunters than harvesting, shooting, or obtaining an

animal for trophy (Potter et al. 1973). These findings were corroborated by a study of

mourning dove hunters in Alabama that found that most dove hunters were more strongly

motivated by nonharvest-based satisfactions than by obtaining a bag limit (Hayslette et

al. 2001). Hazel et al. (1990) identified seven components of satisfaction among turkey

hunters in Michigan, with harvesting a turkey ranking third. Hammitt et al. (1989) found

that although seeing and taking shots at a deer were most important to hunter satisfaction

for a particular hunt, that satisfaction with the overall hunting experience was equated

with environmental and social factors. The relative importance of harvest-based versus

nonharvest-based satisfactions also was found to vary with number of years of experience

with more experienced hunters being less harvest-oriented than those with less

experience (Jackson et al. 1981).

Conflicting results from hunter satisfaction studies validate the idea that

satisfaction may be dependent upon a particular area and species (Hayslette et al. 2001).

Each type of hunting likely derives satisfaction from different determinants, making

investigations into the motivations/satisfactions associated with specific locations and/or

species essential for a comprehensive understanding of hunting satisfactions (Gigliotti

2000; Hammitt et al. 1990; Hazel et al. 1990; Vaske et al. 1986). Although species and

location specific studies are essential to advancing our knowledge of hunter motivations

and satisfactions, past research has focused primarily on deer and waterfowl (Hazel et al.

1990). Additionally, studies are overwhelmingly conducted in the United States.









Study Context

Abaco National Park is one of 25 national parks in the Bahamas. Established in

1994, the primary objective behind designation of the 8,300 hectare area was to protect

the endangered Bahama parrot (Amazona leucocephala bahamensis) and its rapidly

diminishing Caribbean pine forest habitat. The area also has a long history of wild boar

(Sus scrofa), duck (e.g. Anas dicors), dove (Streptopelia decaoctu, Zenaida macroura,

Zenaida aurita), and white-crowed pigeon (Columba leucocephala) hunting. Anxious

that their rights to hunt in the park would be abolished, hunters initially opposed the park

when it was first proposed in 1983. With the promise that hunting would remain a legal

activity in the park, hunters agreed to support the park. More than ten years have passed

since the establishment of Abaco National Park, but no formal management or recreation

plan has been developed. With a growing number of user groups, formulating a

recreation management plan is crucial. However, little is known about the largest and

most historical user group of the park the hunters. Information on their spatial and

temporal use of the park, perceptions of potential management activities, current

satisfaction with their experiences in the park, and factors that influence this satisfaction

are needed before appropriate management can be enacted.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to gather sociological information in order to make

recommendations for a recreation management plan for Abaco National Park. The

specific objectives were threefold:

Objective 1: Examine the spatial and temporal use of the park by hunters.

Objective 2: Assess hunter support and preferences for a variety of potential management

actions.









Objective 3: Test the multiple-satisfactions model of hunting among Abaco hunters.

Hypothesis 1: There will be significant differences in responses to hunter

satisfactions and motivations between hunters who hunt only wild

boar and those who hunt both wild boar and ducks, doves, and/or

white-crowned pigeon. As past studies have confirmed differences

in hunter satisfaction based on species (Hayslette et al. 2001), we

hypothesized different satisfactions reported by each group.

Hypothesis 2: Age and experience will be positively associated with non-harvest

based satisfactions, such as companionship, tradition, and nature

(Hayslette et al. 2001; Hazel et al. 1990; Jackson et al. 1981).

Hypothesis 3: Total number of days spent in the park per year will be positively

associated with non-harvest based satisfactions, as people who

spend more time in the park may feel less pressure to return with a

kill each time.

Methods

Study Site

See Chapter 2.

Interview Design and Implementation

Typically, surveys of hunters are sent to a random or stratified sample of licensed

hunters (e.g. Hayslette et al. 2001; Hazel et al. 1990). However, hunters on Abaco Island

are not required to have a hunting license. Therefore, a list of 40 hunter names was

generated by staff of the Department of Agriculture and other veteran hunters on the

island based on their knowledge of hunters in the park. Each of the 40 hunters was

mailed a short letter explaining the purpose of the study and the dates when we would be









conducting interviews. These letters were mailed two weeks before we arrived on

Abaco. Upon arriving on the island, we contacted all 40 hunters for an interview.

However, four people were on vacation or on business trips away from the island and

therefore unavailable for an interview. Eleven others, who reported that they had not

hunted in the past five years, were eliminated from the study since they were less likely

to be concerned about management for hunting in Abaco National Park. Because of an

initial sample size of 25 (after excluding those hunters who were unavailable or currently

do not hunt in the park), we additionally employed a snowball sampling approach in

which each person interviewed was asked if they knew additional hunters who were not

on the original list. Using this method, six more hunters were identified and contacted,

giving us a total of 31 hunters interviewed. Although a small sample size, we believe

there are only approximately 40-45 residents who currently hunt in Abaco National Park.

Therefore, we are confident that we sampled a minimum of 70% of the hunter population

on Abaco Island.

Interviews were conducted with hunters during July, 2005. The location for the

interviews varied based on where the individual resided. Hunters in Marsh Harbour were

encouraged to meet us at the Abaco Chamber of Commerce/Friends of the Environment -

Abaco office. Those who were reluctant to meet us at this location and those who lived

in other towns (Cherokee, Casurina Point, Crossing Rocks) were interviewed at their

private residence or business establishment. Interviews lasted approximately one hour.

The interview design was based on a review of previous studies that included: (1)

attitudes of local residents towards proposed management, (2) recreation experiences, and









(3) hunter motivations and satisfactions. The final interview comprised 75 questions,

which were organized into six sections (Appendix E).

1. General Background: This section included five questions (Q1-Q5), which
solicited information on the participant's town of residence, years residing on
Abaco, age of initial hunting experience, number of years hunting, and prior
attendance at a meeting about Abaco National Park.

2. Current Use: Fifteen questions (Q6-Q7, Q10-Q14, Q35-Q42) were designed to
address participants' current use of Abaco National Park including how many days
they spent in the park over the past year, and the number of days they spent
conducting each activity per month. Although this measure refers to past behavior,
it is generally accepted that participation in outdoor recreation activities is
relatively stable over time and therefore can serve as an indicator of probable future
behavior (Bissell et al. 1998; Daigle et al. 2002). Respondents also were asked if
they were successful in obtaining an animal on their last visit to the park and how
many people were in their typical hunting party. Since the population and hunting
status of game species in Abaco National Park is currently unknown, we also
included six questions that asked hunters their opinions on the population and
hunting status of wild boar, white-crowned pigeon, ducks, and doves.

3. Hunter Motivations and Satisfactions: This section included 22 questions (Q8-
Q9, Q15-Q34). The first two questions (Q8-Q9) asked respondents to rank their
satisfaction in regards to their last visit to the park and to their overall experiences
in the park on a 5-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied). Similarly,
a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) was designed to
measure the degree to which 19 various aspects affected the respondent's
motivations for and satisfactions from hunting. The hunting aspects included those
from Hayslette et al. (2001) with some modifications. Three of these statements
reflected harvest-based satisfactions (obtaining food, harvesting trophy animals,
shooting an animal) while the remaining 16 reflected nonharvest-based motivations
and satisfactions (seeing a game animal, exercise, spending time with family and
friends, testing hunting skills, getting outdoors, following tradition, becoming
closer to one's primitive self, teaching a son or daughter, seeing wildlife, escape,
hunting with a dog, education, excitement, solitude). In addition, participants were
asked to rank their top three reasons for hunting from the list of
motivations/satisfactions provided.

4. Participatory Mapping Activity: Questions 43-49 asked participants several
questions pertaining to a map of Abaco National Park divided into five north-south
segments. Using this map, we asked participants to rank the sections in order,
beginning with the one in which they spend the most time hunting. Next,
participants were asked which sections) they had visited on their last trip to Abaco
National Park, and in which one(s) they hunt for wild boar, ducks, doves, and
white-crowned pigeon. In the final exercise we gave participants a marker and









asked them to locate three specific areas in the park that they most enjoy and record
those locations by writing an "E" on the map.

5. Attitudes toward Proposed Management: Sixteen questions (Q50-Q64, Q70)
were designed to measure attitudes toward park management. The first question
solicited participants' opinions on the relative importance of management for parrot
protection, protection of the entire ecosystem, and education, hunting, wildlife
viewing, and tourism. The next 13 questions asked respondents to rate their level
of support for 13 management actions on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5
= strongly agree). The final question asked respondents their opinion on who
should oversee management of the park.

6. Demographics: The final section of the interview encompassed five demographic
questions (Q71-Q75) relating to the respondent's birth place, age, occupation,
nationality and education.

Before leaving for Abaco, we obtained expert review on the questionnaire by three

social scientists. Comments and suggestions were incorporated into a second draft of the

interview. Because the sample size of hunters on Abaco National Park was already very

small, we pilot tested the questionnaire only on two Abaco hunters to determine question

clarity, neutrality, time to complete the interview, and additional input on interview

questions. The feedback received was incorporated into a final draft of the interview.

One set of questions (Q66-Q70), which asked respondents their desired future land

uses for the park, was omitted in the analysis due to confusion among interviewees. The

deficiency in this question was not detected during our pilot test of the survey.

Data Analysis

Data were entered into an Excel Spreadsheet and imported into a SPSS 12.0.1

software package for statistical analysis. Preliminary analysis included calculations of

means, standard deviations, and frequency distributions.

To investigate the relationship between each motivation/satisfaction and a

participant's overall satisfaction, we used correlation and step-wise regression analyses.

Correlation coefficients between overall satisfaction and hunting motivations were used









to determine which motivations should be included in the regression model. The F

statistic was used to identify if the regression model was significant and R2 value used to

determine the percent of variance in overall satisfaction explained by the model. We used

t-values to identify which variables in the model were significant and Beta values to

determine the relative importance of each variable in their relationship with overall

satisfaction. To test for differences in hunter motivations/satisfactions between wild boar

hunters and wild boar/bird hunters we used a t-test.

To compare hunter motivations/satisfactions and support of management actions

based on age, number of years of experience, and number of days spent in the park per

year, we used the Fisher's exact test due to our small sample size. For the analysis we

pooled "strongly disagree" and "disagree" responses to motivations/satisfactions

statements, as "disagree" and "agree" and "strongly agree" responses as "agree."

Likewise, "strongly oppose" and "oppose" responses to management option statements

were pooled as "oppose" and "support" and "strongly support" responses were pooled as

"support."

Data from the participatory mapping activity in which participants were asked to

mark their favorite hunting spots on the map were digitized into ArcGIS software and

analyzed using a kernel density measure. More sophisticated methods of spatial analysis

were not possible because we lacked spatial reference in our map.

Results

Characteristics of Participants

All 31 hunters interviewed were male and of Bahamian nationality (Table 3-1).

Participants were generally middle-aged and experienced in hunting; the majority (58%)

were between the ages of 31 and 50 and had hunted an average of 32 years (S.D. =









10.86). The mean age of hunting initiation was approximately 11 years old (S.D.=

4.61). Eighty-one percent of participants were born on Abaco and most have lived on the

island for a long time, averaging 43 years. Thirty-two percent of respondents have lived

locally for more than 50 years. Almost three-quarters (74%) of the hunters interviewed

had not finished high school. The predominant occupations of participants were fishing

(39%) and business (32%), while 22% work in construction, and 7% perform manual

labor. Thirty percent of participants had attended a previous meeting about Abaco

National Park.

Hunting Frequency and Participation in Other Outdoor Activities

The mean number of days participants spent in Abaco National Park over the past

year was 27 days (S.D. = 37.01), however responses to this question ranged from 0-150

days. A frequency distribution of number of days spent in the park shows that the

majority of participants (71%) spend 25 days or less in the park per year (Figure 3-1).

Respondents identified recreational activities they participated in from a list of 13

choices. With regards to hunting, the majority of participants (87%) hunt wild boar, 35%

hunt white-crowned pigeon, 19% hunt doves, and 6% hunt ducks in the park (Table 3-2).

The number of people in a respondent's hunting party ranged from 2-6 people; however,

the majority (55%) hunt in parties of three people. Twenty-nine participants also checked

at least one non-consumptive activity in which they participate in the park; three percent

of respondents participate in two non-consumptive activities, 6% participate in four non-

consumptive activities and 3% participate in five non-consumptive activities. The most

popular non-consumptive activity conducted in the park is driving (23%) followed by

birdwatching (10%), visiting the ocean (10%), and exploration (10%). When asked to

identify their primary activity conducted in Abaco National Park, 87% cited wild boar









hunting; no participant identified a non-consumptive activity as their primary reason for

visiting the park.

Temporally, wild boar hunting is most popular between the months of October and

March as each month totaled over 140 person days of hunting (Figure 3-2). Duck, dove,

and white-crowned pigeon hunting are most popular during the month of October, the

first entire month of legal bird hunting. The total number of person days per month each

non-consumptive activity is practiced is much lower than for hunting (Figure 3-3). Most

activities are conducted with greatest intensity during the beginning of the year, from

January through March. However, birdwatching is most popular during September and

camping most popular in April.

When asked their opinion on the population and hunting status of games species in

the park, the majority (74%) felt that the population of wild boar was relatively stable.

As for the hunting of wild boar, most (61%) thought that more people hunted wild boar

today than 10 years ago. Regarding white-crowned pigeon, hunters were divided

between those who believed the pigeon population was increasing (26%), those who

thought the population was decreasing (32%), and those who were not sure (32%). Most

(58%) agreed that the total number of days people hunt white-crowned pigeon has been

increasing. Hunters were more uncertain about the population and hunting status of

ducks and doves. For ducks, 65% were not sure if the population or hunting of ducks

was increasing, decreasing, or unchanging over the past 10 years. Similarly, 48% did not

feel confident enough to respond about their opinions on the population and hunting

status of doves.









Spatial Patterns of Hunting

To understand where participants hunt, we asked several questions pertaining to a

map of the park divided into five north-south segments (Figure 3-4). Ninety-percent of

hunters reported hunting in section four. However, the majority of participants hunt wild

boar in all sections (Table 3-3). White-crowned pigeon hunting, although practiced in

smaller numbers, also is conducted by the greatest percentage of participants in section

four. This pattern is similar for duck and dove hunting (Table 3-3).

Ranking the five sections in order of how much time they spend hunting in each,

participants again cited section four as the one in which they spend the most time

followed by section three, one, five and two. On a subsequent question that asked

participants which sections) they had visited on their last trip to the park we found

corroborating results the greatest number of people had visited section four followed

again by section three, one, five and two.

The intense use and importance of section four was confirmed in the final mapping

exercise in which we asked participants to identify and mark their three favorite places in

the park. Each favorite place was digitized as a point into ArcGIS software. We then

calculated a kernel density from the spatial arrangement of hunters' favorite places to

show bounded areas where 50%, 75%, and 90% of hunter favorite places fall. Results

show a large cluster of favorite places in the center of the park (corresponding to sections

three and four) along with a smaller clump in the northern quarter of the park

(corresponding to section one) (Figure 3-5).

Hunter Satisfaction

The mean value for hunter satisfaction with overall experiences in the park was

3.93 + 0.85. When asked about satisfaction with their last visit to the park, mean









satisfaction was 3.50 + 0.97. Overall satisfaction and satisfaction with a hunter's last

visit to the park were positively correlated (r = 0.526, p = 0.002). A hunter's satisfaction

with his last visit to the park did not appear to be affected by his success in obtaining an

animal (t = 1.23, p = 0.225).

In general, respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with harvest-based

satisfactions except for hunting to obtain food, for which respondents were relatively

divided (52% strongly disagreed or disagreed, 6% were neutral, and 42% agreed or

strongly agreed) (Table 3-4). Most (>60%) agreed or strongly agreed with nonharvest-

based satisfaction statements except for becoming closer to one's primitive self, teaching

a daughter to hunt, and spending time alone.

Correlations between overall satisfaction and hunting motivations showed that only

two motivations the importance of teaching one's daughter to hunt and the feeling that

seeing wildlife is more important than harvesting wildlife were significantly correlated

with overall satisfaction (Table 3-5). These two motivations were entered into a

regression analysis to determine the predictability of overall satisfaction based on

responses to these two motivations. The regression model accounted for 34% of the

variance in hunter satisfaction with overall experiences in the park (Table 3-6). The only

significant predictor of overall satisfaction was the opinion that seeing wildlife was more

important than harvesting wildlife.

We found positive correlations between several variables (Table 3-5). Most

notably, there were strong positive correlations between spending time with family and

friends, and teaching a son or daughter to hunt. Likewise, the correlation between

escaping the worries of everyday life, learning about game animals, and testing hunting









skills was positive. Harvest-based statements showed an inverse relationship with a

number of nonharvest-based statements (seeing game animals, getting exercise, spending

time with family and friends, getting outdoors and enjoying nature, teaching a son or

daughter to hunt, seeing wildlife, hunting with a dog, and hunting for the excitement). Of

these, a significant negative correlation existed only between hunting to harvest a trophy

animal and seeing wildlife. Conversely, we found some indication that harvest-based

statements were positively related to testing hunting skills, getting closer to one's

primitive self, hunting because it is a tradition in one's family, escaping the worries of

everyday life, learning about game animals, and being alone. However, the correlation

was only significant between hunting to obtain food and learning about game animals.

We found no significant differences in responses to hunter satisfactions and

motivations between hunters who hunt only wild boar and those who hunt both wild boar

and doves, ducks, and/or white-crowned pigeon (Table 3-7).

Our comparisons of hunter motivations/satisfactions and age show that the

importance of harvesting trophy animals differs significantly between older and younger

hunters (Table 3-8); 80% of older hunters disagreed with hunting to harvest a trophy

animal compared to 42% of younger hunters. There we no significant differences in

hunter motivations based on the number of years of hunting experience (Table 2-9).

When analyzed based on number of days hunting in the park, we found that the

importance of shooting an animal differs significantly between hunters who spend more

versus less days in the park per year (Table 3-10); 100% of participants who spend more

than 40 days in the park per year disagreed with the importance of shooting an animal

while 52% of participants who spend less than 10 days in the park per year disagreed.









Perceptions of Management Practices

As a multiple use area, management of Abaco National Park must meet several

objectives including protection of the Bahama parrot and its habitat, protection of the

entire ecosystem and its function, opportunities for student and visitor education, tourism,

hunting, and opportunities to view wildlife. Working under the constraints of limited

resources, each of these components must be weighed in importance relative to the

others. To gain insight into which elements hunters felt are most important and should

receive the most resources, we asked them to rank each of the above objectives in order

of their importance. To this question we found that many hunters interviewed (38%)

ranked protection of the Bahama parrot and its habitat as the most important followed by

protection of the entire ecosystem (25%), increased opportunities for education (19%),

improving opportunities for tourism (9%), improving hunting (6%), and improving

opportunities for wildlife viewing (3%).

A variety of management policies and actions exist that can assist managers of

protected areas in achieving the goals of both ecosystem protection and recreation. In

this study we asked respondents the degree to which they would support or oppose 13

management activities. Participants were supportive of the majority of proposed

management actions (Figure 3-6). Respondents were generally favorable towards the

expansion of park infrastructure including improving some of the current roads, creating

more and improving the current hiking trails, and building a visitor center. In contrast,

creating new roads in the park ranked significantly lower than all other proposed

management options. Management that may regulate hunting more closely, such as

employment of an on-site ranger, the establishment of a hunting season, and the

requirement of hunting licenses, also were supported. Sixty-one percent of respondents









either supported or strongly supported setting aside areas for parrot protection where

humans would be excluded. This number increased to 87% when these areas would only

be restricted during the parrot breeding season.

Only one management option, creating new roads, showed significant differences

in responses based on age (Table 3-11). For this proposed management option, younger

hunters disagreed more with creating more roads in the park (92%) compared to older

hunters (40%). Likewise, participants with less than 25 years of hunting experience were

significantly more opposed (100%) to creating more roads compared to hunters with

more than 40 years of hunting experience (36%) (Table 3-12). Days spent in the park per

year did not significantly affect support of proposed management options (Table 3-13).

Regarding who should oversee management of the park, the majority (58%)

suggested a combination of the Bahamas National Trust (the current quasi-governmental

managing agency) and local management. Sixteen percent thought the Bahamas National

Trust alone should manage the park, while 16% felt management should be conducted

solely by locals; 10% did not know or had no opinion.

Discussion

Spatial and Temporal Recreation Patterns

It is clear that the hunters interviewed have strong ties to both Abaco National Park

and hunting. Most respondents have lived on the island their entire life and have spent

part of their free time since childhood hunting in the park. As the age of hunting

initiation for Abaco hunters is approximately 11 years of age, our results support previous

studies citing the importance of childhood hunting initiation in developing hunting

behavior and reports of initiation rates > 90% before age 20 (Hayslette et al. 2001;

O'learly et al. 1987).









The primary reason for examining recreational levels was to determine where and

when hunting and other activities occur in the park so management can be designed that

best matches these needs. Taking into account the average number of days spent in the

park per year and the temporal distribution of hunting trips, one management option to

mitigate potential conflict between hunters and non-consumptive recreationists is to

temporally zone areas in the park for hunting. In other words, the same area could be

managed for hunting during the winter months and for non-consumptive recreation

during the remaining months of the year. This same idea could be applied to ecologically

sensitive areas. Although the few hunters who hunt regularly year-round may be

dissatisfied with this option, it would appear to have little impact on the majority.

Spatially, all participatory mapping exercises supported the same result -

participation was highest in section four. This area includes the only wetland in the park

and was noted by several hunters as the best place to find wild boar because of the

abundant food and water available. Hunters likely return to areas where they have seen a

large number of game species and enjoyed a pleasant experience (Frey et al. 2003).

Therefore, maintaining access of these areas for hunting, if possible, is essential to

sustaining hunters' enjoyment of the park (Thomas et al. 1973).

Hunter Motivations and Satisfactions

Respondents were relatively satisfied with their last visit to the park and overall

experiences in the park despite the fact that the park currently has little active

management. A hunter's success in obtaining an animal on his last visit to the park did

not significantly affect his rating of satisfaction, which conflicts with previous studies

that suggest or show a correlation between satisfaction and harvest (Decker et al. 1980;

Hazel et al. 1990; Wynveen et al. 2005).









Harvest and Nonharvest Based Determinants

Our results support the multiple-satisfaction model of hunting and confirm past

studies that suggest nonharvest-based satisfactions are more important than harvest-based

satisfactions (Hammitt et al. 1990; Hendee 1974; Potter et al. 1973; Vaske et al. 1986).

In our study, the four highest rated motivations were the opportunity to hunt with a dog,

see game animals, get outdoors and enjoy nature, and excitement. Hunters also agreed

with statements reflecting satisfactions based on exercise, companionship, skill, tradition,

teaching a son or daughter to hunt, seeing wildlife, escape, and education. These reflect

similar important non-harvest based satisfactions found in a number of previous studies

conducted in the United States (Hammitt et al. 1990; Hazel et al. 1990; Wynveen et al.

2005). Therefore, there do not appear to be large differences between U.S. and Abaco

hunters in their agreement with a range of nonharvest-based satisfactions.

Harvest-based satisfactions were relatively unimportant to most hunters as they

disagreed with statements relating to harvesting an animal for trophy and shooting or

taking shots at an animal. Hunter responses to the importance of hunting for food

showed the greatest variation (S.D. 1.26). Although a minority (48%) of respondents

agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, 62% of these respondents ranked food as

their number one, two, or three reason for hunting. Additionally, the motivation to obtain

food was inversely related to ten of the fifteen non-harvest based statements, providing

evidence that hunters who are motivated by the desire to obtain food derive relatively

little satisfaction from the company or setting while hunting. The non-harvest based

statements positively related to obtaining food included items such as testing one's

hunting skills, getting closer to one's primitive self, and learning about game animals -

motivations that directly contribute to success in bagging an animal for food. Therefore,









it appears that there is a strong division between participants who hunt for food and are

motivated by factors that contribute to the success of obtaining food and those who are

not. This result is similar to other research findings, which have shown that hunters vary

considerably on the importance of harvest variables (Wynveen et al. 2005). While

discussing the issue further with hunters during the interview, I found that no hunter

interviewed relied on wild meat for subsistence, but those who responded favorably

towards hunting for food greatly preferred the taste of wild game over traditional store-

bought meat.

Because not all hunters were motivated by the same set of factors some seek to

bring home wild meat while others pursue an opportunity for personal growth or

companionship providing a range of hunting opportunities will result in a broader range

of benefits to Abaco hunters.

Predictors of Overall Satisfaction

Our results from the stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that the

determinants explained only 34% of the variance in overall hunter satisfaction. This

result is not encouraging considering that previous hunter satisfaction models have

explained between 30% and 50% of the variance (Hammitt et al. 1990; McCullough and

Carmen 1982; Vaske et al. 1986).

Unlike a number of past studies, we did not find an appreciation of the natural

outdoors (Hammitt et al. 1990), number of game seen (Frey et al. 2003) or determinants

related to companionship (Potter et al. 1973) to be significant predictors of hunter

satisfaction. Conversely, we found that we were able to predict the outcome of overall

satisfaction only based on a person's motivation to see wildlife. The lack of variation in

many of our tested nonharvest-based determinants, including enjoyment of the outdoors,