Discussion

(H l) That R E P dom ain importance scores will differ fo r visitors to different Setting Types and f o r different Activity Types.

A series of ANOVAs were used to test for the significance of difference in the mean scores for each of the REP domains across five Setting Types and 21 Activity Types. There was a significant difference in REP domain scores, according to Setting Type, in all instances except for the domain of ‘Family Togetherness’. Similarly there was significant difference in all REP domain scores except for ‘Heterosexual Contact’ according to Activity Type. Therefore the hypothesis can be accepted.

From the observation that the REP domain scores differ for both visits to different settings and for different activities, it can be concluded that the experiences derived from outdoor recreation will be dependent on both the type of setting visited and the type of activity undertaken. This means that if specific experiences are to be provided for, then the provision of those experiences can be achieved through regulation of the types of activities undertaken and by the manipulation of setting attribute condition.

The results show that the different Setting Types are associated with respondents placing particularly high or low importances on certain REP domains. Such associations are also evident between activities with particularly high or low importance scores for the REP domains.

The interaction of the influence of both setting and activity on experience is such that it is not possible to determine the extent of influence of each, in combination with the other, on the experience derived. There is some association between Setting Type and Activity Type but the extent of association is too limited to serve as a guide to the compatibility or desirability between settings and activities. Similar associations also occurred in cross-tabulation of Experience Type by Activity Type, and Experience Type by Setting Type.

Though the results to this point do little to explain the intricacies of how to provide for particular experiences, or the true nature of the association between activity, setting and experience, they do confirm that it is possible to measure and distinguish between the experiences attainable from different activities and from visiting

different settings.

(H2) There will he different relative values fo r setting attributes fo r different Experience Types, fo r visitors to different Setting Types and fo r p eople undertaking different Activity Types.

The existence of associations between Experience Types, Setting Types and Activity Types indicated a potential to explain the nature and the intricacies of the

associations. To do this it was necessary to consider the importance of individual attributes of settings as they contribute to choices to visit different Setting Types. This was achieved through considering the relative values of a series of 44 attributes to the choice of a setting to visit for different Experience Types, Setting Types and Activity Types.

For 27 of the 44 attributes, significant differences in relative values between Experience Types were found. Interestingly, Experience Type 4 (The Sensationalists), which consistently placed greatest importance on the REP

domains, also consistently placed higher relative values on the setting attributes than did the other Experience Types. This trend of Experience Type 4 placing higher relative values on setting attributes continues when the relative values are also considered for individual Setting Types. Similarly, as there is considerable variation in which Experience Types rated each REP domain as least important, there was considerable variation in which Experience Type held the lowest relative value for setting attributes.

While 27 attributes varied significantly in relative value scores between Experience Types across all Setting Types there were only 21 that varied between Experience Types at Setting Type A (Informal Non-Urban Picnic Areas), one at Setting Type C (Forest Picnic Areas), 25 at Setting Type F (Large Developed U rban Parks) and three at Setting Type 9 (Unmodified Large Natural Settings). The Setting Types where the greatest number of attributes varied significantly (A and F) were those with the greatest number of people, the most facility development and were closest to residential development.

The implications of this are that the different Experience Types visiting Setting Types A and F do so because of different setting attributes. It should be noted that the REP domain scores for visitors to Setting Types A and F were consistently lower than for Setting Types C, I and N. The REP domains where this is not evidenced were for ‘Family Togetherness’, ‘Social Contact’, ‘Meeting/Observing New People’ ‘Physical Rest’ and ‘Heterosexual Contact’. These are predominately the REP domains concerned with interactions with other people, rather than those which

necessitate specific physical conditions such as relationships with nature or isolation. Of the 44 setting attribute relative values, 32 varied significantly according to

Activity Type. Activity will therefore influence the setting attribute relative values, and thereby the nature of the association between setting attribute values, the Experience Type and Setting Type visited.

The relative values of setting attributes varied according to Setting Type visited for 38 of the 44 attributes considered, that is, the setting attributes are valued

differently by people who visited different Setting Types. Simply, this confirms that people visit different types of settings because of the different attributes and the different values they place on those attributes. For example, people would visit Setting Type A because of being ‘Away from traffic’, ‘Nature walks’ and ‘Open space’, the attributes valued most highly.

The number of significant differences between the setting attribute relative values and Experience Type, Setting Type and Activity Type leads to acceptance of this hypothesis.

(H3) Different Experience Types will show a preference fo r different hypothetical ideal settings.

The previous discussion is based around the relative values of setting attributes given the existing supply of opportunities, that is, the current composition of setting attribute conditions at the Setting Types sampled. The study also considered the way in which the composition of setting attributes at each of the Setting Types would be modified by respondents to make the setting more ideal. Of the 32 attributes considered for change, five varied significantly between Experience Types at Setting Type A, two at Setting Type C, one at Setting Type F and three at Setting Type I. This means that there are few attributes where the difference in the changes preferred at each Setting Type vary significantly according to Experience Type. On the basis of the limited difference between hypothetical ideal setting conditions between Experience Types at each Setting Type the hypothesis must be rejected. However, this does not infer that the settings are already in an ideal condition but only means that the changes to ideal did not differ according to Experience Type. The results show that the Experience Types that visit each Setting Type are generally in agreement on the types of changes that would make the setting more ideal, only disagreeing in the instances where a significant difference was found between Experience Types. '

(H4) Group size, group composition and life cycle stage will be associated with Activity Type, Setting Type visited and Experience Type.

Results show that there is limited association between group size, group composition and life cycle stage and Activity Type, Setting Type visited and Experience Type. Generally the significance of this association could be tested using the chi-square statistic. However, in a number of instances this statistic

needed to be treated with caution because greater than 20% of the cells in the cross­ tabulations contained less than five observations. Still, in those instances, it is possible to interpret from the cross-tabulations that associations do exist and therefore that the hypothesis should be accepted.

The importance of the acceptance of this hypothesis is that it suggests that research that considers any interaction between activity, setting and experience needs to be aware of the effects of these additional influences, particularly on the potential empirical significance of the associations.

(H5) There will be different satispers and dissatisfiers to the recreational experience fo r different Experience Types.

As discussed, there was no association between the Experience Types and attributes that either added to satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This indicates that there was no association between the attributes that either cause satisfaction or dissatisfaction and the experiences sought from outdoor recreation. This leads to the conclusion that using the relative values of setting attributes will prove to be a far more efficient technique of seeking setting dependency than measures of satisfaction. Whereas no association was observed between satisfaction and dissatisfaction and experiences, the relative values of setting attributes were shown to be associated with experiences. Therefore, the information on relative values could support planning for recreation experiences whereas measures of satisfaction could not.