on-site questionnaire surveys in uk leisure research

On- site questionnaire surveys in UK leisure

On-site questionnaire surveys have been commonly employed in leisure research in the last two decades. There are, however, some indications that the technique has been used indis- criminately and without due regard for problems such as questionnaire design, sampling, and survey objectives. This article critically evaluates the usefulness and limitations of on-site questionnaire surveys in recreation and tourism.

Keith S. Bardon is senior lecturer, Department of Planning and Land- scane. Citv of Birminaham Polvtechnic. Perry’Bai, Birmingham B42 2SU, UK: Dr. Donald M. Harding is lecturer in Environmental Management, Depart- ment of Forestry and Wood Science, University College of North Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, UK.

I. T.L. Burton, Experiments in Recreation Research (London, Allen and Unwin, 1971). 2. J. Davidson, Outdoor Recreation Surveys - The Design and Use of Questionnaires for Site Surveys (London, Countryside Commission, 1970). 3. M. Shechter,. “On the use of home and site surveys m recreation research”, in State-of-the-Art Methods for Research Planning and Detennin-ing the Benejits of Oitdoor Recreation. General Technical Reuort PSW-20 (Berkeley, CA, Pacific - South West Forest and Range Experimental Station, USDA Forest Service, 1977), pages 23-31. 4. T.L. Burton. OD tit reference 1. 5. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recreation for America, Summary Report plus 27 Study Reports (Washington. DC. US Government Printing &lice, 1962). 6. T.L. Burton. “A dav in the country: a survey of leisure activity at Box Hill, Surrey”, Journal of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, 1966, 98, pages 378-380. 7. T.L. Burton, Windsor Great Park - A Recreation Study (London, Department of Economics, University of London, 1967).

research Keith S. Bardon and Donald M. Harding

The use of questionnaire surveys in recreation and tourism research and planning has become widespread in the UK in the last 10-20 years.‘.z Indeed, it may be argued that both recreation and tourism have been over-surveyed. In particular, the use of on-site, as opposed to household and en route questionnaire surveys in these fields, has been the subject of considerable criticism.3*4 Consequently, it would seem appropriate to review the value of this investigative technique.

Such an exercise is especially relevant in view of the rapid development of other surveying and monitoring techniques, most notably those arising from microelectronic and other technological advances. Moreover, the recent trend in the UK towards even greater reductions in public expenditure may lead to local authorities and others involved in the supply of leisure opportunities concerning themselves less with the provision of new facilities and rather more with the management and more efficient use of the existing resources. Thus such bodies are likely to be increasingly involved in monitoring exercises, updating information, improving their data base, and perhaps engaging in preliminary planning work in anticipation of less restrictive times. As a result, site surveys might assume increasing importance, at least in the short term.

An historical overview

The origins of on-site questionnaire surveys in recreation and tourism research and planning in the UK are a little obscure. Never- theless, it is clear that British workers benefited considerably from American experience and especially the early pioneering efforts of the US Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, which carried out a great deal of survey and analytical work and produced nearly 30 reports in the early 1960~.~

Following this lead, as participation in outdoor recreation and tourism in Britain grew, official and academic interest heightened, with the result that research studies, and not least on-site questionnaire surveys, proliferated. Some early studies in Britain which set standards and the pattern for later work included those by Burton,6.7 the British Tourist Authority, 8 the Central Council of Physical Recreation9 Devon County Planning Department,‘O the Greater London Council,” Hammond,l? Mutch,13 Straw,lJ and Wager.“.16 In particular, the approach and methology adopted by Burton at Box Hill (Surrey and Windsor Great Park were especially influential.

The widespread adoption of this investigative technique has meant that it has been prominent in the development of recreation and tourism research and, subsequently, in leisure planning. Elson”

36 0143-2516/81/010036-13 $02.00 0 1981 IPC Business Press

8. British Travel Association, General Report of the Peak District National Park Survey, Summer 1963 (London, BTA, 1965). 9. Central Council of Physical Recreation, A Preliminary Analysis of the Non-ResidentiaI Use of the &ystal Palace National Recieation Ceatre (London, CCPR, 1965). 10. Devon County Planning Depart- ment, A Social Survey of Holiday- makers in Devon (Exeter, Devon County Council, 1960). 11. Greater London Council Planning Department, Surveys of the Use of Open Space - 1, Research Paper No 2 (London, GLC, 1968). 12. E.C. Hammond, “Survey of visitors to Wye and Crundale National Nature Reserve”, unpublished naner (London. Nature Conse&ncy; 1965). 13. W.E.S. Mutch, Public Recrea- tion in National Forests : A Factual Survey Forestry Commission Booklet No 21 (London, HMSO, 1968). 14. F.I. Straw, Lindsey Countryside Recreation Survey : A Survey of the Public Use of the Lincolnshire Welds and Adjacent Areas (Lincoln, Lindsey County Council and University of Nottingham, 1967), 15. J.F. Wager, “The public use of Ashridge”, unpublished report, 1964. 16. J.F. Wager, “Outdoor recreation on common land”, Journal of the Royal Town Plannin

5 Institute,

1967, 53(g), pages 3 8403. 17. M. Elson, A Review and Evaluation of Countryside Recreation Site Surveys, Countryside Commission Working Paper (Chel- tenham, Countryside Commission, 1977). 18. Ibid. 19. T.L. Burton, op tit reference 1. 20. T.L. Burton, op tit reference 6. 21. Hampshire County Council, The Use of County Open Spaces, report on surveys conducted in 1966 (Winchester. Hamnshire Countv Council, undated).’ 22. Greater London Council. on tit reference 11.

, I

23. J.R. Duffel1 and G.R. Goodall, “Worcestershire and Staffordshire recreational survey 1966”, Journal of Royal Town Planning Institute, 1969, 5.5, pages 16-23. 24. F.I. Straw, op tit reference 14. 25. J.R. Duffel1 and G.R. Goodall. op tit reference 23. 26. Wales Tourist Board. survevs of visitors to tourist attractions in 1973, various reports eg The Welsh Mountain Zoo, Colwyn Bay (Report 1), LIechwedd Slate Caverns, Blaenau Ffestiniog (Report 2), Caernarfon Castle (Report 3) (Cardiff, WTB, 1974).

On-site questionnaire surveys

demonstrated the importance of site questionnaire surveys by analysing the Countryside Commission Research Registers of 1972, 1974, and 1976. This analysis showed that approximately 20% of all entries used site-based questionnaire surveys.

Further, Elson estimated that in England and Wales during the last decade some 500-7.50 recreation sites have been the subject of questionnaire surveys. The wide variety of contexts and the different methods and purposes of execution make generalisations and cate- gorisation difficult. Elson describes four main types.‘*

single site studies which are essentially descriptive, involving monitoring exercises and the consideration of management issues; planning studies encompassing area studies, the investigation of countryside designations, and the interaction between recreation and tourism and other land uses; predictive and modelling studies considering demand forecasting, benefits, and the recreation value of sites; and research studies designated to develop and test hypotheses and to establish and investigate the theoretical framework governing recreation and leisure behaviour.

The earlier site surveys, especially those concerned with recreation rather than tourism, in the main fall into the first category. For example, the studies undertaken in the mid 1960s by Buxton,‘g*20 Hampshire County Council, 2’ the Greater London Council,22 Duffel1 and Goodall, and Straw,24 sought information regarding the points of origin of visitors, method of travel, composition of visiting parties, length of stay, intended/actual pursuits, frequency of visits, and visitor preferences, in particular, for additional facilities. In some cases, however, there was analysis, albeit of a rudimentary nature, conce,med with the development and testing of hypotheses in respect of visitor types, activities pursued, and preferences (eg see the work undertaken in Worcestershire and Staffordshire in 1966 by Duffel1 and Goodallz5). Although studies of this type have continued,26 an increasing number of surveys have been linked td exercises outlined in the latter two of Elson’s categories (eg Smith and Kavanagh,27 Colenutt and Sidaway,2* Countryside Com- mission,2g,30 Burton ,3’ Tourism and Recreation Research Unit32). Nevertheless, such studies are still very much in the minority and there is a need for further work in this area.

A further development regarding site surveys is also detectable. There is a tendency for the recent studies to have more specific aims and objectives, and their execution appears to have been more precise. This trend may be linked with the fact that policy formulation, investigation, and implementation elements have been intro- duced into many studies. Moreover, it seems likely that these moves have been stimulated by changes in the British local government system generally and the planning framework in particular during the early 1970s. In terms of aims and execution there is, however, as Elson points out, 33 further room for improvement: Greater efforts are needed to frame study objectives which address important policy questions; this will be best achieved by making studies more selective and the data collected more focussed in nature. Improvements in this direction may also lead to methodological advances, greater adherence to the scientific principles of social investigation, and therefore more statistically acceptable results.

International Journal of Tourism Management March 1981 37


Recent trends

During the last six or seven years there has also been some movement towards the increased integration of data collection methods (perhaps best exemplified by Figure 1, devised by the Tourism and Recreation Research UniP4). Informal data gathering techniques such as vehicle and visitor counting have long been

Objectives

A ASSESSMENT OF

CURRENT OEMANO

Information Required

7. volume of flovs into are* 2. Season* variar.ion.3 in chrse flows 3. Volumes of flows within area 4. Patterns 0: Ilows within area 5. Origins and dcsrinarmm Of tourists 6. Socio-economic pro:iles 7. hrpose of visit 8. Levels of s*‘.isfaction 9. Expenditure

10. Accommodation used (touris=&) 7i. Frequency of visit

2. Daily lemure actinty patterns 3. Daily non-leisure activity patterns 1, RE-SIDENTS ~~~

7. Seasonal variations in ILows 8. Patterrz Of flO"S vittlul area

cI ASSESSMENT OF

- FUTURE DEMAND 1

TOURISTS (STAYING YISITCIFS)

-1x- -1

P.ESIIENTS

1 1 L

c ASSESSMENT OF THE SUPPLY OF

LEISURE FACILITIES AND RESOURCE

I

1. Projected pc?ulation changes. including a consideratmn of such i*ctom a.5 income, vehxle owner- ship, etc., outside the reWn.

2. Projected comunicarion changes within ed outside tkc area

3. Projected changes in supply within md ostside the wea

4. Expected changes-in holiday habits of (a) O.K. residents (5) lorei~n visitors

5. ktent deamd

S

0 ASSESSMENT

OF IMPACT

1. Direct md indirect incone from tourists

3. cost Of rouri*ts to local *Uthbrity in terns Of services and lesure facilities

4. Direct kid indirect elpio)??.en: sustained by to"rlsts

5. Cmtributior. of tourists to economic ri*b~lit:r of (a) privately owned leisure lacili:ies (5) publicly ovntd leisure facilities and public

I

Figure 1. Schema for deriving tourism and recreation strategies.

Source: Travel and Recreation Research Unit

38 International Journal of Tourism Management March 1981

27. R.J. Smith and N.J. Kavanagh, “The measurement of benefits Of trout fishing : preliminary results of a study at Grafham Water”, Journal of 4~t~2Research, 1969, I(4), pages

28. R.J. Colenutt and R.M. Sidaway, Forest of Dean Visitor Survev : An Analvsis of the Demand for Day Visitor Facifiiies, Forestry Commission Bulletin No 46 (London. HMSO, 1973). 29. Countryside Commission, Planning for Informal Recreation at the Local Scale : Sherwood Forest, Countryside Commission Paper .69 \y7;T, Countryside Commasron,

30. Countryside Commission, Study of Informal Recreation in South East England - Site Studies and Summary Report (Cheltenham, Countryside Commission, 1977). 3 1. R.C.J. Burton, The Recreational Carrying Capacity of the Countryside, Keele University Library Occasional Publication No 11 (Keele, Keele University, 1974). 32. Tourism and Recreation Research Unit, Tourism and Recrea- tion in the Chichester Area (Edinburgh, TRRU, 1977). 33. M. Elson, op tit reference 17. 34. Tourism and Recreation Research Unit, op tit reference.32. 35. Clwyd County Council Planning Department, Countryside Recreation Site Survey, volume 1 (Mold, Clwyd Countv Council, 1976). 36. T.L. Burton, op tit reference 6. 37. T.L. Burton. OD tit reference 7. 38. J.F. Wager,‘oi tit reference 16. 39. J.R. Duffel1 and G.R. Goodall, op tit reference 23. 40. Clwyd County Council Planning Department, op tit reference 35. 41. Countryside Commission, op tit reference 29. 42. Based upon S. Law, “Introducing demand studies”, in Countryside Commission, The Demand for Outdoor Recreation in the Countryside, report of a seminar (London, Countryside Commission, 1970); and S. Williams, “Tourism in inland Wales”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wales, Lampeter, 1976. 43. J. Davidson, op tit reference 2.


employed, although not always to the greatest effect. Such techniques have not always complemented questionnaire methods properly, but in recent years observational methods have become more widely used and sophisticated in nature. More importantly, these techniques have been used in conjunction with questionnaire surveys (see for example, the work undertaken by the Tourism and Recreation Research Unit at Edinburgh University and Clwyd County Planning Department3S).

As experience of carrying out site surveys has developed, their technical proficiency has also increased. The definition of the survey population and sample selection have been given greater thought, resulting in relatively sophisticated survey procedures. This advancement is very apparent when comparing early surveys such as those by Burton,36,37 Wager, 38 and Duffel1 and Goodall with later studies by Clwyd County Planning Department40 and the Country- side Commission.41 There remains, however, as noted earlier, a need for further methodological development.

Use of surveys of recrea?ion and tourism

The uses to which site surveys have been put are many and varied, thus making generalisations difficult. Elson’s classification, given above, is useful in this respect and shows that, in the main, surveys have been used to investigate demand, supply, and behaviour.

From the schematic diagrama (Figure 2) it can be seen that site surveys operate at the ‘output’ stage of the process (the return journey and recollection stages of the leisure experience are re- cognised but have been omitted to aid clarity). Thus the processes shown in Figure 2 are analysed in reverse, in order to investigate causal and influential factors. The questions commonly asked in site surveys therefore attempt to determine behaviour and activities on site, the journey characteristics (route, mode, and cost), factors of supply affecting decision making (choice of activities and site - which in turn might include visitor perceptions and preferences), and visitor profile characteristics affecting the propensity to consume (demand). Thus in recreational terms, such surveys have frequently been used for marketing as well as traditional planning purposes.

In some circumstances site surveys have been considered a panacea or an ‘easy option’ to investigate the leisure field as a whole (both demand and supply) and to address more difficult problems and concepts such as carrying capacity and recreation and tourism potential. Since the technique is, at least superficially, easily under- stood, flexible, and operates at the end of the recreation experience, it is not difficult to understand why such approaches have been adopted. However, studies of this nature which rely solely upon site surveys are invariably fraught with difficulties. The applicability of on-site questionnaire surveys to particular situations, and the problems likely to be created if the technique is ‘over stretched’ are perhaps best illustrated by considering in some detail first, its merits and attributes, and second, its problems and shortcomings.

The merits of on-site questionnaire surveys In broad terms, site surveys have been undertaken in order to obtain data to facilitate planning and/or management. Writing after the initial surge of on-site surveys in the mid and late 196Os, Davidson emphasised the need for such data:43


On-sire questionnaire surveys

l ------- PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING THE PROPENSITY TO CONSUME up+

LEISURE TIME

I

Education =--I

.

DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS

I 7 Social Status

Age and Sex

Marital Status

I v CONSUMER

PROPENSITY SOCIO - ECONOMIC

l ry<

(HOUSEHOLD TO CONSUME /

CHARACTERISTICS

~~L~~8,tit”tTq INDz,,UAL)

I I income after 1 J

tax

Disposable

income for

Lei*urc

spending

MOBILITY c 1 Urbanisation 1

Figure 2. A schematic diagram of processes leading to the consumption of recreation and tourism

Evidence suggests that recreation research is consuming increasing amounts of finance and manpower, and yet a reliable statistical basis for recreational planning - for long accepted as essential in planning fields such as housing and transport - is still lacking.

Moreover, since the development of reliable forecasting techniques has been slow and is still in its infancy, these data are important in establishing the pattern of use at existing sites, thereby facilitating the estimation of future needs and further leisure opportunities.

40 International Journal of Tourism Management March 198 1


+ FACTORS OF SUPPLY AFFECTING DECISION MAKING dy VISIT/w -+

-b

I I

I Time available 8 Time spent Time spent

+ I z- -_j at set. I for trip I on lourney

*ctir,ty outttt I I L I

Knowledge/

---j experiknce of

forms of activity

> CONSIDERATION I 1

AND CHOICE OF I

1

--a: r

DECISION

TO CONSUME /

POSSIBLE - ,

I SITE/ACTIVITY ACTIVITIES I .

I OUTLET VISITED OR I

.

LE

ENGAGE IN

ISURE ACTIVITY

t

I ) JOURNEY + PLEASURE TRIP TAKEN I

CONSIDERATION I I ACTIVITIES ON SITE

AND CHOICE OF I POSSIBLE

- ,

w SITE/ACTIVITY

I !

OUTLET I

f

I I Chosen Mode Money Costs

I ’ I

Figure 2. (continued) Davidson also believes that: “the management of all such areas

(existing and future) will require the kind of information that can only be gained in site surveys”. As already noted, some workers have also found the technique valuable in that the data produced have assisted in the evaluation of carrying capacities, the definition of standards and activity requirements, the measurement of social and economic benefits derived from recreation and tourism, and in the development and testing of hypotheses and models.



44. D. T&ohs, “The concept of carrying capacity of forest recreation areas”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Waies, Bangor, 1979. 45. &C.J. Burton, op clt reference

46. J.Y. Coppock and B.S. Dufield, Recreation in the Countryside - A Spatial Analysis (London, Macmillan, 1975). 47. B.H. Archer, The Importance of Domestic Tourism as a Development Factor for the Developed and Developing Countries, Tourist Research Paper No 8 (Bangor, Institute of Economic Research, University College of North Wales, 1975), 48. B.H. Archer, “The impact of tourism on local economies”, in Northumbria Tourist Board, Planning for Tourism, conference proceedings (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NTB, 1980). 49. Tourism and Recreation Research Unit, op tit reference 32. 50. Leisure Studies Association, Tourism : A Tool for Regional Development, conference proceedings (Edinburgh, Tourism and Recreation Research Unit, 1977). 5 1. B. Wheeler and G. Richards, Tourism in Cardiganshire : An

Economic Study (Cardiff, Wales Tourist Board, 1974). 52. D. Trakolis and D.M. Harding, “Visitor satisfaction and attitudes to management at forest recreation areas in North Wales”, Quarterly Journal of Forestry, forthcoming. 53. N. Boaden and R. Walker, “Sample surveys and public oarticioation”, in Department of the Bnvirdnment, ~StructGe Planning, Interim Research Reoort No 10 (London, DOE, 1976).

The usefulness of questionnaire data in the calculation of carrying capacities is debatable, particularly where it is not supported by other information such as visitor observation, or geomorphological and ecological evidence.41; However, many site surveys include questions on perception of crowding and have undoubtedly con- tributed to a greater understanding of perceptual capacity. For example, the work carried out on Cannock Chase by Rosemary Burton has been especially significant.4s The question of provision/ facility standards and activity requirements has long been a thorny issue. Information concerning activity requirements is rudimentary and in most cases represents a ‘best estimate’, whilst for some activities it is nonexistent. Indeed, Coppock and Dufield state:46 Current prescriptions of the resource requirements are at best basedpn the cumulative experience of practitioners and instructors and at worst little more than inspired guesses.

Questionnaire data on space and facility requirements together with visitor observation data could well improve this situation and, in addition, enable a potentially interesting comparative analysis between perceived requirements and accepted conditions.

The measurement of benefits derived from recreation has received relatively scant consideration by researchers, although tourism studies in this area are better developed (see, eg Archer,47+48 Tourism and Recreation Research Unit,j9 Leisure Studies Association,so and Wheeler and Richards5’). However, the level of investigation and understanding could be further advanced by making greater use of site questionnaire surveys. The subjective nature ofthis area of study together with the strong influence of personal characteristics and the particular qualities of recreation sites indicates that questionnaire methods of research could make an especially valuable contribution.

Site surveys are also useful in enabling the development and testing of hypotheses and models concerning many aspects of recreation and tourism: by helping to establish a closer relationship between theory and practice, they facilitate more effective planning and management. The investigation of the relative importance of causal and influential factors affecting recreational behaviour via questionnaire surveys is of great importance in establishing a reliable framework on which forecasting techniques can be built.

As intimated above, one of the most useful attributes of on-site questionnaire surveys is that they enable the collection of data concerning visitor perceptions, attitudes, preferences, and behaviour. Thus questions can be asked to ascertain the visitors’ knowledge of, and reaction to, site factors and characteristics, preferences for facilities and patterns of activities on site.

Surveys can also be used ‘to seek opinions on planning and management issues and proposals,52 and therefore to facilitate ‘public input’ into the decision making process. Whether or not this process is seen as a form of public participation obviously depends upon how participation is defined and on the design and execution of any particular survey. 53 Although something of a recent innovation in this field, it is clear that site surveys have much to offer.

There are two fundamental and obvious advantages of this technique. First, surveys reach people who would possibly not be reached by other methods and therefore help obtain the opinions of the unaffiliated public or typical visitor. Second, by following the scientifically accepted principles of conducting surveys it is possible



to give a representative picture of the whole population without the need to involve everyone. Thus, as Boaden and Walker put it:j4

penetration and representativeness give survey results a ‘legitimacy’ which is not always present with other forms of participation.

Site surveys offer the opportunity of canvassing visitor opinion in a systematic way. Surveys can, moreover, be used to allow greater involvement in the preliminary stages of decision making - the public can raise and discuss issues rather than simply comment upon final proposals. The contribution to policy formulation could thus be significant since with some public consensus as to what constitutes a desirable leisure environment, supply can, within obvious con- straints, be tailored to demand. Furthermore, the consequence is likely to be greater public endorsement and promotion of the selected strategies.

Other advantages On-site questionnaire surveys also have a number of incidental advantages. They fulfill a useful public relations role for the planning/managing body or organisation. There is evidence to show that visitors to recreation and tourism sites like to feel consulted and appreciate efforts made to allow them to articulate their views (Bardons5). In addition, there are certain educational benefits to be derived from conducting site surveys. Most surveys give respondents some information. Ideally those seeking opinions should attempt to acquaint visitors with pertinent background information and current planning and management issues. The result should be a better quality of response and, perhaps more importantly, greater public understanding and hence protection of the environment.

Reference has already been made to work carried out by Bardon which was designed to examine the value of on-site surveys of

_ visitors in recreation research.56 Many of the advantages of on-site questionnaire surveys were demonstrated in this research work. The study involved interviewing some 2 000 visitors at five inland water sites in South Wales during the summer of 1975. The data produced facilitated a description and analysis of the visitors and sites. In addition, comments on facilities and opportunities, and views on user charges, proved interesting. The data also provided an indication of the standard of the facilities desired, activity requirements, and some interesting insights into the perceptual capacity of sites. Thus the surveys were invaluable in helping to evaluate the recreation potential of the sites and in formulating planning and management guidelines.

As the surveys were financed by the Welsh National Water Development Authority and the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority (the two bodies largely responsible for the sites) the work also served in some ways as a public participation and public relations exercise. Although the data were of undoubted value to the two sponsoring agencies, the benefits to the public were difficult to

54. Ibid. 55. K.S. Bardon, “The recreational

determine. However, if immediate reactions are any guide, the

use of selected inland water sites in conversations between the interviewers and visitors were encourag- South Wales”, unpublished PhD ing and suggested that the respondents had benefited considerably, at thesis, University of Wales, Swansea 1978.

least in terms of the information received, from the exercise.

56. Ibid. As far as technical considerations are concerned, on-site inter- 57. M. Shechter, op tit reference 3. viewer administered questionnaire surveys have many attributes.j’



Their major advantage over other research techniques is their flexibility. This is most relevant in the recreation and tourism context where individual sites differ so markedly and in part explains the technique’s popularity and widespread use. The surveys are com- paratively easy to undertake and there is a wealth of literature to assist planning, execution, and analysis. Interviews can be conducted almost anywhere and the actual interviewing technique can be ‘standardised’ depending upon circumstances and the individual situation.58 The ‘standardised’ interview, using a fixed and structured questionnaire has been applied almost exclusively in leisure research, although some evidence suggests that ‘semistandardised’ and even ‘nonstandardised’ interviews can yield valuable information in certain circumstances.59 In addition, the interviewer can make sure the respondent understands the nature of the information sought, prompt answers where appropriate, establish a rapport with the inter- viewee, maintain interest, and encourage participation in the survey. Furthermore, more detailed and complex surveys can be undertaken if a trained interviewer is employed. Cards and lists may be used with the questionnaire to focus the respondent’s attention; or maps, drawings, photographs, or models can be utilised if relevant.

To illustrate these technical merits it is again worth making some detailed reference to work carried out by Bardon. The flexibility of the technique enabled the surveying of five different informal recreation sites. In four of the five cases this involved interviewing along a predetermined route at specified intervals during set time periods. In the other instance, interviewing was conducted from a strategic point, but again at specified intervals during set time periods. Careful selection of the interviewers proved important, not least because they were able to obtain a good response rate and were able to establish a good rapport with the visitors, ensuring a negligible number of spurious replies and, in the vast majority of cases, full answers to all questions. This was especially important with regard to sensitive questions such as those attempting to ascertain the visitor’s willingness to pay for certain facilities. Indeed, the sensitivity of the method adopted made it possible to carry out a questionnaire survey at one particular site where it was previously not thought possible because of the animosity of some visitors caused by previous conflicts with authority and other users of the site.

The rapport established between the interviewer and respondent was often so good as to result in a general conversation concerning the site following the interview. The interviewers were issued with notebooks for such occasions and in many instances this resulted in the collection of much additional\ and useful materiaL6’

Thus on-site surveys can clearly be seen to have great benefit in recreation research, planning, and management since they are extremely flexible, technically uncomplicated, and allow the collection of factual and attitudinal data relevant to day-to-day management and long-term planning. The same points can be made with regard to tourist sites and, indeed, at the informal site level, the

58. M. Stacey, Social Research Methods (Oxford, Pergamon, 1974).

Yecreationist’ and ‘tourist’.populations are often indistinguishable.

59. K.S. Bardon, op tit reference In some cases, such methods have been used successfully in the 55. specific area of tourist surveys, eg by the Wales Tourist Board.62 The

60. Ibid. 61. Ibid. 62. Wales Tourist Board, op tit reference 26.

technique is not, however, without its shortcomings and problems and indeed some workers would argue that these severely restrict the value of site questionnaire surveys.

44 Internatiolral Journal of Tourism Management IMarch 198 1

63. A.N. Oppenheim, Questionnaire Desien and Attitude Measurement (Lonldon, Heinemann, 1966). 64. C.K. Brightbill and H.D. Meyer, Recreation (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1953). 65. J. Davidson, op tit reference 2. 66. R.M. Sidaway and R. Oakes, The Recreation Planning Oficer’s Guide to Recreation Surveys and Monitoring, Recreation News Supple- ment No 10 (London, Countryside Commission, 1973), pages 37-42. ii. &.i4; Burton, op tit reference 1.

69. R.J. Smith, Recreational Surveys : Some Comments and Results, Faculty of Commerce and Social Science Discussion Paper, Series B, No 22 (Birmingham, University of Birmingham, 1970). 70. D.M. Harding and D.J. Parker, “Flood hazard at Shrewsbury, UK”, in G.F. White, ed, Natural Hazards: Local, National, Global (New York, Oxford University Press, 1974), pages 43-52. 71. K.S. Bardon, op tit reference 55.


Problems and shortcomings Many of the criticisms of on-site questionnaire surveys relate to the fact that a large number of such surveys have been poorly planned and conceived and have hence produced results of dubious value.

Oppenheim expressed concern about the planning and methodology of surveys in general and stated that:63

Survey literature abounds with portentous conclusions based upon faulty inferences from insufficient evidence wrongly assembled and misguidedly collected.

Brightbill and Mayeti4 also raised questions concerning the scientific validity of data obtained and state that:64

Unless polls can be made scientifically . . , in keeping with the accepted and tested principles of conducting polls, it is better to forego this method.

Davidson discusses the planning and methodology of surveys:65 At the survey planning stage, work often appears to be done with no clear definition of aims, so that confusion results on what data are needed, and when, where and how much data should be collected; these failures often lead to the collection of established or useless information.

Davidson summarised in diagrammatic form (Figure 3) the steps which should be followed in the planning and execution of questionnaire surveys and Sidaway and 0ake.P also discuss the research process in relation to the need for surveys of various kinds.

The definition of objectives is particularly important and has caused criticism of many site surveys. Burton states: “Most recent recreation studies in Britain have been limited in objectives and severely restricted in scope”.67

Some surveys have been concerned both with collection of factual data and with attempts to generate material for research purposes: the simultaneous pursuit of two such objectives is often not easy. It must be said, however, that more recently, greater thought has been given to the question of objectives, although it might still be argued that in some instances, the possibilities of using other techniques to achieve such objectives do not seem to have been explored.68

Sampling has frequently been an area ofconcem in site surveys. In this context, surveys of both recreationists and tourists suffer particular problems as a result of the diffuse nature of the population to be sampled, the informal nature of many activities, and the fact that outdoor leisure sites are often ill defined. The problems are greatest with small-scale surveys where the intention is often to use results for decision making and planning involving larger areas, vastly greater numbers of visitors, and even different seasons and visitor settings. In discussing surveys designed to determine rates of participation in various recreation activities, Smith observed: “The principal failing has usually been the attempt to infer too much from what must be considered very small samples”.6g

Rarely can a 100% sample be attempted, although this is frequently possible in other types of surveys in different contexts.‘O The need for trained interviewers, carefully selected and briefed, is clear if sampling is to be satisfactory in many recreational surveys.”

As mentioned earlier, however, much has been learnt about sampling techniques and although concern is still often expressed about small sample sizes and the ‘representativeness’ of the sample, the use of established techniques of sampling can now avoid many of the criticisms that have been made in the past.



Define objectwes

72. J. Davidson, op tit reference 2. 73. J. Davidson, Outdoor Recreation Information - Suggested Standard Classifications for Use in

E uestionnaire Surveys (London, ountryside Commission, 1970).

lnformahon

Estabhsh necessity of survey

I

I 1 f I I Pilot survey I I I I I t I I I 8 : : Amend :

Brief l 1

I, _ _ _ q”eStlO”“alre _ _ -’ interviewers and sample

I I

I decide final

tabulations

G + Review existing Decide : preliminary Examine

8nformation on , l tabulatmns, analysis 4 reso”rces of staff.

topic and area programme and sample time, finance I

4 J Choose

Decide survey Sar.lple method

4 I IAl I

V I J Structure and I Choose data

wording of I I ’

Design 4 processing

questions I

questionnaire <_ _ 1 method

L I t

I I I

Write up report

Figure 3. The stages of a survey

Another problem with on-site questionnaire research is the lack of uniformity in the approach adopted by different research workers and the difficulties which can be encountered in comparing results. Differences in questions, for example, even when they relate to the same area or topic, can make comparability difficult. Although the use of standardised questionnaires such as those produced in the UK, by Davidson and the Countryside Commission, has improved comparability to some extent, 72.73 local circumstances and particular


74. M. Shechter, op tit reference 3. 75. K.S. Bardon, op tit reference 55 76. R.C.J. Burton, op tit reference 31. 77. D. Trakolis, op tit reference 44. 78. Tourism and Recreation Research Unit, TRIP Series No 1 : Survey Description (Edinburgh, TRRU, 1975). 79. Tourism and Recreation Research Unit, STARS Series No 1 : Survey Description (Edinburgh, TRRU, 1974).


objectives of surveys can still produce many difficulties in this area. Many of the problems so far discussed can, of course, be

overcome fairly easily by undertaking large-scale detailed surveys. It is, however, rarely possible to undertake such surveys on a site basis. Cost is considered as a drawback in site surveys, and major spending on site surveys can require considerable justification. In the context of survey methods generally, however, it should be pointed out that Schecter, comparing home-based and on-site survey techniques, cited lower cost as an ,advantage of on-site surveys.74

Some authorities have also suggested that the claims which have been made for on-site surveys as a means of eliciting information on public attitudes have been exaggerated. There are certainly problems in the use of surveys in public participation exercises, particularly in the framing of ‘attitude’ questions, which are notoriously difficult to handle in site surveys. Trained interviewers are essential for such surveys. A further problem in this case is that respondents are required to formulate opinions, often in a relatively short time, on issues which had possibly not been thought out in detail. Some people find it difficult to respond to questions, and yet decision makers often rely heavily on results derived from these surveys. There are, however, now methods and techniques which can be used to overcome problems with surveys designed to provide information on public attitudes and opinions and these are reviewed by Bardon.7S

Finally, the real value of on-site surveys in research and in the further development of concepts and ideas in recreation and tourism is a controversial area. There have undoubtedly been instances where such surveys have been used to provide valuable information relating to such concepts as carrying capacity,76.77 but it could be argued that, despite many surveys on trip patterns and behaviour, knowledge and understanding of the factors involved in leisure participation is relatively poor. The idea of a ‘survey bank’ containing data and information on techniques and their applicability to different circumstances is needed and is still some way off although encouraging developments have occurred in Scotland.78*79 Arguably, therefore, real advances in terms of theory and practice as far as plan formulation and implementation are concerned have been limited, in terms of those developed from site survey research.

The future

Despite the limitations expressed above, it seems certain that on-site questionnaire surveys will continue to be of major importance in recreation and tourism research - primarily because of their flexibility and the ease with which they can be undertaken. If current trends, however, are any guide, the dominance of this technique over other methods of investigation is likely to be reduced. For example, analysis of the Countryside Commission Research Register of 1978 shows that only approximately 10% of entries included some investigation using site-based questionnaire surveys. This decline in both real and proportional terms represents a 50% reduction when compared with Elson’s analysis of the 1972, 1974, and 1976 Registers.

In many respects the future of site questionnaire surveys depends upon improvements in three key areas. First, increased attention should be given to planning, design, and interviewing techniques.



80. C.A. Moser and G. Kalton, Survey Methods and Social Investigation (London, Heinemann, 1971). 81. A.N. Oppenheim, op tit reference 63. \I$ J.&widson, op tit reference 2.

84: Ibid: 85. Tourism and Recreation Research Unit, op tit reference 78. 86. Tourism and Recreation Research Unit, op tit reference 79. 87.. Scottish Tourism and Recreation Planning Studies, Planning for Sport, Outdoor Recrea- tion and Tourism : I. Strategic Issues; 2. A Guide to the Preparation of Initial Regional Strategies (Perth, Dartington Amenity Research Trust, 1975).

This will involve precise definition of objectives; careful consideration of the population to be sampled, the sampling technique to be employed, and the sample likely to be achieved; and skilful questionnaire design ensuring the survey aims are met whilst avoiding bias and facilitating analysis. In essence, this means close adherence to the basic principles of conducting surveys as laid down in social research texts (see eg Moser and Kalton,80 Oppenheim,81 and, specifically concerned with outdoor recreation, Davidsons*). As far as interviewing techniques are concerned, further investigation and experimentation with ‘semistandardised’ and to a lesser extent ‘nonstandardised’ methods should be undertaken in order to ascertain their value compared with the ‘standardised’ approach normally adopted in survey research.

The second major aspect of site surveys which demands attention involves the standardisation of approach and coordination of effort. Much has already been achieved in this field through the efforts ofthe Countryside Commission and in particular following the publication by the Commission of two reports by Davidson.*3+84 Recent work in Scotland has also been influential in this respect.85.8a*E7 The development of the Tourism and Recreation Information Package (TRIP) by the Tourism and Recreation Research Unit at Edinburgh University has been particularly significant. However, there is still considerable scope for further standardisation of approach and greater dissemina- tion of information, especially that of a technical nature relating to methodologies in order to derive some cumulative benefit from individual research projects and to encourage the development of techniques, in addition to a greater understanding of the recreation and tourism process.

Finally, further efforts should be made to integrate questionnaire methods with other surveying techniques. To date, there has been little experimental and analytical work comparing possible site surveying methods. Where this has been attempted, the different surveying techniques have often been seen as alternative rather than complementary research tools. In particular there would seem to be considerable benefits to be obtained from testing the merits of using questionnaire methods to obtain perceptual and attitudinal data in conjunction with mechanical and/or electronic devices to collect ‘hard’ data on, eg visitor numbers and traffic volumes. Both forms of investigation could also be used to examine the relationship between stated and actual preferences and behaviour.

With improvements in these vital areas, on-site surveys for recreation and tourism research would be considerably improved. Moreover, such developments could represent the key to further advancement in leisure planning and management, at least in the short term whilst economic conditions restrict new ventures and any radical improvements in the overall supply of opportunities in recreation and tourism.


on-site questionnaire surveys in uk leisure research

Documents