Surveys

Surveys using questionnaires can study population distributions of attitudes, opinions, and behaviours, and can be used to form and test hypotheses about the relationships between such variables (Brewer & Hunter 1989). Questionnaires have the strength of being flexible and cost-effective for studying large populations and may provide interpretive insights (McGuirk & O’Neil 2005). A questionnaire with both open-ended and closed questions was adopted. The latter were constructed a priori with a range of possible answers. The major benefit of closed questions is that their responses are easily coded and analysed. This is especially important for my study, which employs a long questionnaire and a large number of respondents. To allow for some flexibility in

response items, the item ‘other (please specify)’ was included for many of the questions. Open-ended questions were also included. Respondents could offer responses outside the range of the closed alternatives, so a more valid picture of their views could be obtained (Schuman & Presser 1981, p.81). This is especially important for exploring a complex concept like sense of place.

Ch4 - Methodology

The questionnaire design was based on the research model established in Section 4.2. The questionnaire was divided into six sections in response to the variables in the research model. In each section, questions were grouped in a general way from most to least salient, as question salience is a major influence on response rates (Dillman 2007). The questions were proposed, reviewed, and edited by four researchers, including two supervisors, another PhD student and myself. Given the limited timeline of my research, the survey was not trialled. The details of each section are described as follows. Copies of the questionnaires for the two study areas are in Appendix 4.

In survey Sections 1, 2 and the first part of 3, mixed measurements were adopted to explore sense of place (see Section 4.4.4 for details). The questions in Sections 3, 4, and 6 emphasised recreation use characteristics and background characteristics of

respondents, and comprised five parts: socio-economic background, connection with the place, familiarity with the place, interaction with the place and interests in the place.

Connection with the place items addressed property ownership in the place, length of property ownership, birthplace, residence, and place where respondents had lived the longest. Familiarity with the place was assessed by asking awareness of the place, visitation, total frequency of visitation, total length of visitation, and frequency of visitation in the past year. Interactions with the place were identified by asking about activities undertaken during visit/s, purpose of visit/s, number of companions, time of visit/s, and duration of each visit. The responses to the questions in section 3 were based on my observations during the field trips and supported by the interviews.

Section 5 addressed attitudes to tourism developments and perceptions of tourism impacts in the study sites (Table 4-3). Attitudes to tourism developments were also identified by asking respondents to designate places which they consider suitable for such developments and places from which such developments should be excluded. Respondents were asked to stick dots on a map enclosed with the questionnaire to show up to six places where development would be acceptable, as well as another six places which should not have development.

Ch4 - Methodology

Table 4-3 –Close-ended survey questions-Section 5

Attitudes

Current tourism developments

How would you describe the current level of tourism development in the place?

Potential tourism

expansions What kind of new tourism operation, if any, do you think is appropriate in the Bay/on private land near to the Park?

Proposed new tourism operations

Are you for or against the eco-lodge in the Bay/the Three Capes Track proposal in the Park? (For details of these developments, see Section 5.2.4 and 5.3.4).

Perceptions

Current tourism impacts

Over the time you have visited the place, have you noticed any change? Have these changes influenced the atmosphere of the place

Have these changes made the Bay/the Park a less desirable place to visit, more desirable place to visit or about the same?

Potential tourism impacts

Do you think the eco-lodge proposal/ Three Capes Track proposal would change the atmosphere of the place?

Future visitation plans What do you plan to do in the future?

Multiple methods are suggested as being necessary to effectively explore sense of place (Section 3.2). Any single scale may not be sufficient to express a multi-faceted sense of place. The use of multiple measurements is also consistent with my definition of sense of place as an overarching concept that subsumes the relevant terms articulating people- place relationships (Section 3.5). The first method I deployed was a scale with fourteen statements for revealing the social perspective of sense of place. These items were taken from several Type Three studies by other researchers that have shown good internal consistency (Section 3.2). My adaptation of these studies was based on their discovery of a nuanced variation in sense of place and their emphasis on outdoor recreational settings. My scale contained four items for each of the concepts associated with sense of place: place attachment, place identity, and place dependence (see Table 4-4 for item descriptions). Two items were also chosen to respond to the social perspective of sense of place that addresses the human relations and interactions among individuals. The process of generating the items was to formulate an item pool from Type Three studies. These items were then reviewed and modified to suit the conditions of my study sites and interspersed in a random order. Items were presented in a five-point format from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5) with a neutral point “neither disagree not agree” (3) (Likert 1932). A “not sure” alternative was available to account for uncertain responses that might otherwise reduce the reliability and validity of measurement (Schuman & Presser 1981).

Ch4 - Methodology

Table 4-4 – Items of my place attachment scale

Item label Item description

Place attachment

A1 I am very attached to Recherche Bay (RB)/Tasman National Park (TNP). A2 I enjoy visiting RB/TNP more than other places.

A3 I have little, if any, emotional attachment to RB/TNP. A4 I feel a strong sense of belonging to RB/TNP.

Place identity

I1 I identify strongly with RB/TNP. I2 I feel RB/TNP is a part of me.

I3 Visiting RB/TNP says a lot about who I am. I4 RB/TNP means a lot to me.

Place dependence

D1 For the recreation activities that I enjoy most, RB/TNP is the best place. D2 For what I like to do, I could not imagine anything better than RB/TNP. D3 I prefer RB/TNP over other places for the recreational activities that I enjoy. D4 Many of my friends / family prefer RB/TNP over other sites.

Social place S1 My friends /family would be disappointed if I were to start visiting other places. _{S2 If I were to stop visiting RB/TNP, I would lose contact with a number of friends.}

A further method deployed was a spatial identification of place-based meanings using a map on which respondents were asked to designate their special places. People were asked to stick dots on an enclosed map to show up to six places that are special to them. This method was based on that used by Brown (2005, 2006). This method can

systematically integrate local values and perceptions with biophysical landscape

information (Brown & Raymond 2007; Raymond & Brown 2006). Another advantage is its ability to specify place-based meanings for specific locations within the study areas.

The questionnaire was implemented as a self-administered survey. This decision was made considering the large number of potential respondents, the length and complexity of the questionnaire, and the sensitive issues being addressed. This approach also places less time pressure on people, allowing them to comprehend and complete the questions at their own pace. Self-administered surveys need to be totally self-explanatory, and are constrained by questionnaire length and turn-around time (Leeuw 2008). Although the response rates can be reduced because potential respondents can see the questions before deciding whether to proceed, evidence shows a strong preference by respondents for self-administered formats (Dillman 2007).

The survey package included a cover letter, a questionnaire booklet (Appendices 4 and 5), and a return (post paid) envelope. In order to obtain responses from as wide range of stakeholders as possible, my field work was conducted for more than a year (December 2007 to March 2009). Given the diversity of stakeholders, a variety of means were used to approach the potential respondents identified in Section 4.3.2. Survey packages were mailed or handed by the researcher to potential respondents as well as distributed by other agents. For local communities, the packages were mailed to willing businesses.

Ch4 - Methodology

to mail the survey packages to their members. I also approached people in community shopping centres and called at holiday houses asking if people were willing to

participate in my research. For owners who were absent, the survey package was left by their front door.

The environmental organisations and the Tasmanian Government management agencies responsible for the two study sites were approached by email or phone calls, asking if they were willing to send the survey packages to their members and staff. Management agencies involved included Forestry Tasmania, TPWS, Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority, and the Tasmanian Land Conservancy. Other organisations were Hobart Walking Club, Peninsula Environmental Network, Tasmanian

Conservation Trust, and Tasmanian National Parks Association. The number of the survey packages sent to varied and was based on the number of members or staff.

For non-local visitors, fieldwork was conducted during week days and weekends across all four seasons, as well as on Christmas, New Year, Easter and school holidays, from December 2007 to March 2009. This strategy enabled responses spread across different visitors. Two stages of fieldwork were involved. This decision was made due to the time frame of my research and the importance of capturing views from visitors who visited the study areas at different times. Stage one was from Christmas 2007 to June 2008 before the questionnaire was ready. I went to the main camping ground in each study area and asked if people were willing to participate. Their names and addresses were then recorded. I also left a brochure with a reply paid envelope on visitors’ cars in the parking lots for potential participants to volunteer to give their names and addresses. In June 2008 when the questionnaires were ready, survey packages were sent to these potential participants. A thankyou and reminder postcard was sent two weeks after the mailout. This expressed gratitude for those who had already responded and urged those who had not to please do so as soon as possible. Four weeks after mailout, a

replacement questionnaire was sent to non-respondents, urging completion and mail back. Stage two of the field work was undertaken from July 2008 to March 2009. I visited the campsites and asked if people were willing to participate. With their consent, I then gave them the survey package and respondents were asked to send it back after completion. I also left a survey package on visitors’ cars in every parking lot within my study sites for potential participants to volunteer their responses.

Ch4 - Methodology