■ THE CHOICE PROCESS 



A- CHARACTERISTICS (STATE) 

 OF THE INDIVIDUAL 

 RECREATIONAL DECISION- 

 MAKER,! (1) PRODUCE 

 OBJECTIVES FOR RECREATIOM, WHICH 

 THE PERSON SEEKS TO SATISFY! 



r 



Sourc 



es of 



Information 



^ 1 f 



> 



o 



at' Q. 



















(71 identify key 

 cfiaracteristics 

 (8) satisfactory ? 

 (91 new as 



as old 7 



Lead 

 Time 



Relative 

 Location 



(of decision- 



mke to 



alternative 



locationsi 





Ctioose 



— > 



1 



D- ALTERNATIVE 



LOCATIONS, 



(31 WITH VARYING 



CONDITIONS 



I Familiar 



i knoivn ■; 

 orations 







\ 1 



^1 Unfamiliar, '\ 



I new ^-"^ I 



• locations i 



C- INFLUENCES ON THE LOCATION CHOICE 



Figure 3— The relationship among the components of recreational location choice behavior 

 (Numbered components and relationships correspond to description of the theory in the text.) 



data indicated almost two-thirds of the visitors were day 

 users; therefore, an unweighted sample would likely 

 yield less detail about campers than seemed desirable. 

 Data from day users were weighted (by 2) to counteract 

 this overrepresentation of campers. 



The resulting sample list was 611 names (271 in 

 1 974 and 340 in 1 975). Questionnaires were mailed to 

 all 611, and 29 were returned by the Postal Service as 

 undeliverable, leaving a sample list of 582 names and 

 current addresses. Questionnaires were mailed 

 throughout the summer and fall usually about a month 

 after the visitor's trip. After 3 weeks, a second question- 

 naire was mailed to nonrespondents. Each year was 

 treated as a separate sample. 



Because the sampling frame was visits, it was pos- 

 sible for a person to be sampled more than once a year. 

 An alphabetized mailing file made it possible to detect 

 resampling of the same people. A special cover letter, 

 used when a person was sampled a second time, 

 explained that visits were sampled and that because 

 each trip was different and attitudes can change, a 

 second response was important. This occurred rarely, 

 affecting less than 5 percent of the sample. Persons 

 sampled three or more times, however, were excused 

 after being contacted twice. This may have caused a 

 small, probably insignificant bias, but consideration for 

 visitors seemed to require this procedure. 



The questionnaire requested information concern- 

 ing a basic description of the trip, prior experience in the 

 area, possession of the brochure, where and when it 

 was obtained, factors influencing the choice of trail- 

 head, the role of the brochure in influencing choice of 

 trailhead, perceived usefulness of the brochure infor- 



mation, and suggestions for its improvement. 



Although none of the questions appeared personal 

 or sensitive, respondents' anonymity and confidential- 

 ity were protected. Questionnaires were identified only 

 with numbers, and, at the close of each season, all cards 

 in the address files were destroyed. 



Analysis and Underlying Theory 



Analysis consisted of comparing tabulations, using 

 chi-square or gamma to test differences and associa- 

 tions. I developed a general theoretical model of recrea- 

 tional location choice behavior to derive a series of 

 hypotheses about the response of visitors to the bro- 

 chure. Four major elements in the model are: (1) the 

 characteristics of the person choosing the location; (2) 

 the choice process; (3) influences on the choice; and (4) 

 alternative potential locations with varying characteris- 

 tics (fig. 3). 



The proposed theory consists of the following basic 

 assumptions and postulates about the relationships 

 between components of these four elements. 

 Assumptions: 



1 . Visitors seek recreational experiences that satis- 

 fy their objectives. 



2. The conditions contributing to a satisfactory ex- 

 perience vary among different visitors based (a) on 

 personal preferences, and (b) usually also on prefer- 

 ences of companions, family, and other social pres- 

 sures. 



3. Locations vary in the combination of recreational 

 characteristics they possess, and thus in their desir- 

 ability for different visitors. 



4. Visitors choose locations with incomplete know- 



5 



