Duration: 10/01/2008 to 09/30/2012

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

The need, as indicated by stakeholders Managers, policy-makers, and communities need science-based strategies to address societal trends that affect outdoor recreation. This multi-state project proposal puts forth a comprehensive research agenda focused on balancing natural resource recreation management, human well-being, and community resilience. The goal of this multi-state project is to enhance the capacity of outdoor recreation researchers by promoting collaboration and striving to provide science-based knowledge that leads to sustainable outdoor environments, recreation experiences, and healthier communities. The objectives of this multi-state project meet research needs identified by stakeholders by paralleling the Outdoor Recreation Research and Education Strategic Plan. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) led a national planning process to develop a five year strategic plan for outdoor recreation research and education. Titled, "Outdoor Recreation Research and Education (ORRE) for the 21st Century: Defining National Direction and Building Capacity," this planning process convened a diverse set of professional stakeholders with expertise in outdoor recreation research and education. A national steering committee comprised of leading university educators/scientists, agency researchers, and outdoor recreation managers, was convened in May 2007 to provide national guidance in developing the ORRE Strategic Plan. In addition, other professional networks were engaged in the planning process through roundtable discussions held at several 2007 conferences including the Northeast Recreation Research Symposium in April, the International Symposium on Society and Resource Management in June, and the Society of American Foresters conference in October. At each roundtable, participants identified strategic issues, concerns, and opportunities to be incorporated into the ORRE Strategic Plan. This project meets other stakeholder needs, as well, by either reflecting needs identified within other stakeholder-built research agendas, strategic plans, or research goals. It compliments the McIntire-Stennis Strategic Plan by managing the forest lands for outdoor recreation. It also contributes to the USDA-CSREES Strategic Goal 3, Support Increased Economic Opportunities and Improved Quality of Life in Rural America; and Goal 6, Protect and Enhance the Nation's Natural Resource Base and Environment. The objectives also complement the needs of the USDA Forest Service Research & Development Strategic Program Area research portfolios, and the USDA Forest Service Social Science Research Agenda in outdoor recreation. The importance of the work, and what the consequences are if it is not done There are significant societal trends that prompt the need for enhanced outdoor recreation research through a multi-state mechanism. According to the latest results from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (Outdoor Recreation for 21st Century America, K. Cordell, Venture Publishing, Inc., 2004,) outdoor recreation participation has increased. Depending on the situation, this leads to increased impacts on the physical environment. Outdoor recreation continues to make a major contribution to local and regional economies. According to the Outdoor Industry Foundation (2006), active outdoor recreation pursuits accounted for $730 billion of consumer expenditures nationally in 2005. Nationwide, communities are looking for alternative enterprises to diversify their economy, either by capturing the increasing interest and opportunities related to outdoor recreation or harnessing it in ways that contribute to community well-being and resilience. Scientific studies suggest that quality outdoor recreation experiences can lead to healthier, active lifestyles for people of all ages. With the national obesity epidemic, outdoor recreation is beginning to be recognized as a means to reconnect our nation's youth with nature and contribute to healthy, active lifestyles. This is in response to decreasing unstructured connection and contact with nature for adults and youth. Disconnect with nature may lead to adverse long-term effects on conservation effort. Another concern is that there is declining environmental literacy, especially among youth. For instance, Richard Louv and his Last Child in the Woods book (2006) has been a lightning rod for this collective realization that kids spend too much time inside. Pergams and Zaradic (2008) corroborate this national intuition using time series data to illustrate there has been a steady global decline in nature-based recreation, such as national park visits, over the past 20 years. There are increased public health concerns from inactive lifestyles, including obesity . Increasing rates of childhood obesity and a decline in environmental literacy have spawned a national grassroots movement to reconnect children with active, outdoor pursuits. Nevertheless, with demographic change such as baby-boomer in-migration to amenity-rich counties (Recreation, Tourism, and Rural Well-being, R. Reeder and D. Brown, USDA-Economic Research Service, ERR-7, 2006) and participation increasing and diversifying, there is a growing challenge to provide and manage sustainable outdoor environments for recreation experiences. Demographic changes affect recreation participants, non-participants, public land managers, and private landowners. New outdoor participants with increasing demand for different recreation facilities and services create challenges for outdoor recreation resource management. The U.S. population continues to grow and aging, urban baby-boomers are moving to rural regions rich in amenity resources such as mountains, lakes, forests, and oceans. This exurbanization trend (Egan and Luloff, 2000) is changing rural landscapes and leading to growing resource conflicts between traditional and emerging outdoor recreation pursuits. Some recreationresource proximate communities face a changing quality of life and livability. There is also an increased need to diversify rural community economies. Community leaders and resource managers are challenged to cope with increasing recreation demand and growing conflicts over unmanaged recreation such as ATVs. Inadequate resource and tourism planning in communities hampers efforts for sustainable recreation and tourism development. Woven across all of these situations is the lack of science-based strategies to achieve sustainable outdoor environments connecting people and nature through recreation, leading to healthier people, resources, and communities. Without this multi-state research project, it will be more difficult to reach societal conditions where: " Outdoor recreation contributes to active lifestyles, " Managed recreation areas have adopted and implemented sustainable recreation management techniques, " Physical impacts are maintained within management parameters, " Recreation opportunities are inclusive and tailored for a diverse public, " People possess an increased attachment with the natural environment and a sense of place, " Public attains knowledge in environmental stewardship, " Sustainable and accessible outdoor recreation environments lead to resilient communities and high quality of life, " Outdoor recreation enterprises contribute to improved economic stability in rural communities, and " Scientific capacity to address contemporary problems by applying and revising state-of-the-art-knowledge. The technical feasibility of the research Social science, economic, and ecology research methods are well developed, making this research technically feasible. Existing and innovative research methods will allow the provision of additional theory development within the field. Internal capacity is strong with a network of researchers across universities and agencies. Capacity to work immediately at a multi-state level is manageable, as many of these researchers have already established professional working relationships and often attend common conferences throughout the year. Success is partially dependent on external factors, including the need for funding to conduct the research, especially cooperation from federal, state, and private funding sources as leverage to the multi-state project. Furthermore, society--from economic conditions to social values--is not in a steady state. Therefore, research will need to adapt to changing conditions over time. The advantages for doing the work as a multi-state effort There are several advantages for doing this work from a multi-state perspective. Multi-state projects provide an effective forum for building collaboration among multidisciplinary researchers and educators. With resources dwindling at every level, instead of reinventing wheels, multi-state collaborative efforts are likely to find better solutions than single investigators or single state approaches. It may also help strengthen research proposals for pursuing external grants. In particular, there is a need within the outdoor recreation research discipline to pursue research that is more diverse in spatial and temporal dimensions than currently employed. Collaboration will promote research projects replicated across the diverse social, economic, and ecological landscapes of the United States. The multi-state effort may also lend support to longitudinal studies in order to better understand the long-term effects of resource management and societal issues. Except for a limited few nationwide research projects, current research efforts are often short-term conducted only on a single-site or single-region scale. Without a multi-state research approach, research in this area will be hindered. What the likely impacts will be from successfully completing the work The outcomes or likely impacts of this multi-state research during the short- and medium-time frames are divided into knowledge and action (See also Figure 1): Knowledge Outcomes (Short-term):
1) Public aware of active recreation opportunities and relationship to personal health
2a) Rec. providers aware of trends in participation
2b) Understand conflict management tools among competing user groups
3a) Recreation providers aware of relationships among use, impact & management parameters
3b) Public aware of the impact of personal behaviors and responsibility to limit impact
4) Recreation providers aware of demographic trends and long & short term responses
5) Public aware of ease of access to nature based recreation resources
6) Public/youth aware of environmental & ecosystem processes
7) Public & recreation provider awareness of QOL issues related to proximate nature based recreation resources
8) Public & recreation provider awareness of effective tourism or recreation planning tools and relevant-available information
9a) Local community leaders and entrepreneurs awareness of nature-based tourism business development opportunities
9b) Understand the dynamic interactions between rec. & community development
10a) Researchers & recreation providers aware of contemporary scientific tools & methods
10b) Science program leaders aware/appreciate capabilities of outdoor recreation research & education Action Outcomes (Medium-term):
1) Public participation in active outdoor recreation increases
2a) Planning & infrastructure respond to projected variation in demand
2b) Adopt conflict management tools
3a) Providers establish impact parameters, monitor impacts, and respond to areas near or beyond limits of acceptability
3b) Public modifies behavior to reduce resource impacts
4) Providers modify planning documents and on-site management to accommodate needs of diverse populations
5) Increased public engagement with natural resources
6a) Public seeks environmental education opportunities
6b) Increased adoptive management practices
7a) Sustain or increase length of residence in community; sustain or increase positive image of community & resource managers
7b) Public engages proximate nature-based recreation opportunities
8a) Public engages in community, resource, and tourism planning processes
8b) Community planners respond to public needs and adopt a coordinated & systems approach in rec. & tourism planning
9) Creation of outdoor recreation enterprises, infrastructures, & other service facilities.
10a) Researchers & educators adopt new methods
10b) National science programs expand funding levels targeting expertise of outdoor recreation research & education.

Related, Current and Previous Work

A search conducted in the National Information Management and Support System (NIMSS) database reveals that a few multi-state research groups are addressing issues that may be related to outdoor recreation. For example, (1) NE1029, objective 4, developing a better understanding of the role of amenities in rural development and the impact of economic and social changes on the quality of life in rural communities; (2) W2001, objective 3, investigate how changes in the size and composition of the rural population affect changes in land use and the linkages between demographic change and emerging land use conflicts in different regional and local contexts; and (3) W2133, objective 3, quantify the economic benefits of ecosystem services and evaluate mechanisms for their provision. None integrates the dynamics of outdoor recreation on resource management, human well-being, and community vitality. Furthermore, an external review of the CSREES Knowledge Area (KA 134) for Outdoor Recreation, completed in January of 2006, concluded that the scope of knowledge defined by the KA 134 Knowledge Area was too narrow and does not presently capture the impact that outdoor recreation plays in contributing to sustainable communities, healthy, active lifestyles, and ecosystem services. This proposed multi-state research project will specifically focus on recreation-induced issues. While considerable scholarly work has examined the contribution of tourism and outdoor recreation to sustainable rural communities and ecosystems, the impact of this collective work has been limited by a number of factors including: the dominance of descriptive, case study research, the lack of funding available for longitudinal studies, the multitude of single investigator projects with a narrow disciplinary focus, and the lack of careful integration and coordination between research, policy, and community and regional planning processes. A brief summary of this collective work follows. A synthesis of scholarly work on tourism and amenity-based development in rural communities is provided by Krannich and Petrzelka (2003). Howe, McMahon, and Probst (1997) have provided perhaps the most often cited work on gateway communities in their "Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway Communities" text. In the book, the authors describe the significant out-migration of baby-boomers from the suburbs to small towns surrounded by America's public land estate--it's national and state parks, public forests, wildlife refuges, historic sites, and wilderness areas. These popularly termed "gateway communities" have become a magnet for Americans seeking to escape the congestion and fast-pace of the suburbs and cities. The text goes on to document through case profiles a number of high profile gateway communities such as Jackson Hole, Wyoming and provided a number of practical strategies for communities trying to balance economic growth, environmental protection, and small town values. The Conservation Fund has continued the work described in this text and provides training and technical assistance to gateway communities around the United States. Other economists and demographers have examined the economic benefits and costs associated with rapid growth in gateway communities and heavy dependence on a tourism-based economy (Che, 2003; English, Marcouiller, and Cordell, 2000; Johnson and Beale, 2002). Results of these studies have been mixed with some concluding that a heavy emphasis on rural tourism and amenity-based development has led to improved socioeconomic well-being, higher employment rates, higher personal income levels, lower poverty rates, and higher educational attainment and health measures (Johnson and Beale, 2002). However, other researchers have found that heavy reliance on rural tourism has led to higher property values, displacing long-time local residents, lower wage, service sector employment, and seasonal fluctuation in economic activity (Keith, Fawson, and Chang, 1996. Most of these economic analyses of gateway communities conclude that a strong, diversified economy is most important rather than over reliance on one economic sector (Krannich and Petrzelka, 2003). Finally, the rapid growth of gateway communities has been addressed by social scientists in natural resource management fields. Popularly grouped under the banner of the "wildland-urban interface," this work has examined a number of integrated topics related to the impact of this rapid growth on forest ecosystems (Dwyer and McCaffrey, 2004). These topics center on the human impact of wildfires but have also focused on forest fragmentation, ecosystem health and restoration, and adaptive local and regional partnerships needed to address these challenges (Selin and McGill, 2005). Clearly, it will take a coordinated program of research and engagement, composed of social, physical, and ecological sciences, to address the complex issues faced by forest-based communities in this wildland-urban zone. Effectively addressing issues will require coordinated work being conducted at multiple scales. Previous work has largely focused at the organizational and community levels. Increasingly, though, effective forest policy solutions will depend heavily on integrated research being conducted at a regional or landscape level (Dwyer and McCaffrey, 2004). Many of these research objectives can be met through the efforts of the proposed multi-state research project.

Objectives

1. Improve understanding related to creating sustainable and accessible outdoor recreation environments
   
2. Investigate connections between outdoor recreation, human health and well-being and
   
3. Understand the role and the dynamics of outdoor recreation for resilient and vibrant communities.
   

Methods

Initial work on this project will involve building a national group of researchers working toward and implementing joint, collaborative multi-state projects. This will be achieved through annual meetings, an e-mail list serv, and periodic conference calls. Participants in the project will have the opportunity to meet and recruit additional participants at the National Recreation and Park Administration Leisure Research Symposium, International Symposium on Society & Resource Management, International Union of Forest Research Organizations meetings, and Society of American Foresters Convention. We will also engage community-based stakeholders in order to identify representative forest-based communities, dispersed nationwide, that can serve as research site communities over the lifespan of this project. A key intent of this proposed project is to build a strong set of lateral, strategic partnerships with traditional stakeholders as well as corporate, foundation, governmental, and nonprofit partners to further refine program objectives, expand the public and private support for the multi-state outdoor recreation research, and ensure that project outputs and outcomes are widely disseminated and inform policy-makers. Through our joint planning and coordination, we will develop an integrated and common set of baseline operational measures of outdoor recreation variables, amenity-based resources and criteria, economic performance and diversification, social capital, and ecological health and build longitudinal studies to monitor these economic, community and ecological variables that contribute to community resilience over time. Relationships will be built among participants to enable the sharing of equipment, graduate students, and other resources. Opportunities beyond research (extension and education) will also be encouraged. For instance, a team taught graduate level "Research Methods in Human Dimensions of Natural Resources" could be possible. When common data collection methods and instruments are used, participants will be encouraged to pool their data and prepare outputs that consider the multistate context of the research. The methodological approaches to the three project objectives can vary depending on the context, specific research questions, expertise of the participant, etc. Potential qualitative methods include, but not limited to: focus groups, interviews, participant observation, and content analysis. Study participants for qualitative approaches within this multi-state project will be selected based on the objective of gathering information from a spectrum of perspectives and geographic locations. Guides will be prepared that ask study participants a variety of relevant questions depending on the objective and stakeholder needs. Qualitative research provides findings that are based on themes, patterns and relationships (Dey, 1999). Data analysis of qualitative data is often an iterative process that focuses on the goals of identifying relevant themes, patterns and relationships concerning benefits. Data analysis procedures will largely follow the recommendations of Creswell (1998). A team of researchers will corroborate coding and interpretations to ensure confirmability. Several strategies to increase trustworthiness of the findings, such as negative case analysis (i.e., continuously identifying cases that confirm and challenge interpretations) will be employed (Marshall & Rossman, 1998). Using qualitative research data, past literature, and peer input, quantitative research will also be pursued. Possible quantitative techniques include, but are not limited to: mail surveys, on-site surveys, internet surveys, and visitor counts. On-site or mail surveys will be distributed to participants selected from case study populations. In instances where survey methods are used, a modification of Dillman's (2000) "Tailored Design Method" will be used to encourage a high response rate, including attention to questionnaire design, correspondence design, and multiple survey waves and reminders. Non-response bias will be checked through appropriate techniques. Non-response survey questions will include only a few key demographic variables (age, gender, income, etc.), and the most important questions from the questionnaire. If non-respondents are found to be statistically significant from respondents, this will be noted when research results are reported. Data analysis of quantitative data will include, among other analyses, descriptive statistics, scatterplots, correlations, least-squares regression and other curve fits (e.g. polynomial ANOVA contrasts if appropriate), factor analysis, and structural equation modeling. Scale development, and related analysis techniques, will be greatly enhanced by a multi-state effort as researchers can test scale items in multiple situations. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of ecotourism and wildland recreation, it is expected that bio-physical research will be needed, in addition to the social science research described above. Depending on the expertise of the project participant, social science researchers may research out to others in associated disciplines (e.g., conservation biology, ecology, wildlife management) to participate and collaborate in appropriate studies. The specific methods for investigating bio-physical or ecological issues will depend upon the objectives of the study; however, general nature-based recreation monitoring procedures have been devised (Hammitt and Cole, 1998), and this project will use and improve those procedures. For example, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a new and essential tool in all land management and will play an important part of ecosystem research in this project (Hicks and Hammond, 2005). Research will integrate GIS into many of the studies associated with this project. Also systematic monitoring protocols have been developed by researchers working with the U.S. Forest Service and will be employed in this research to identify recreation impacts and evaluate existing management (Hammitt and Cole, 1998).

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• Outputs will originate from our activities of designing and conducting research; publishing scientific articles; developing research methods, procedures and theory; teaching students; conducting non-formal education; developing products, curriculum and resources; and engaging communities and other stakeholders. The outputs from this project will be: new fundamental or applied knowledge; scientific publications; new methods & technology; practical knowledge for policy and decision-makers; information, skills & technology for individuals, communities and programs; participants reached; workshops and programs; students graduated in outdoor recreation; and private/public partnerships.

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• The long-term condition outcomes that we anticipate from our efforts are summarized below. <br> <i>Condition Outcomes (Long-Term):</i> <br>1) Outdoor recreation contributes to active lifestyles. <br>2) Sustainably managed recreation areas that have implemented/ adopted sustainable recreation management techniques <br>3) Physical impacts maintained within management parameters <br>4) Inclusive and tailored recreation opportunities for a diverse public <br>5) Increased attachment with the natural environment and a sense of place <br>6) Public increases knowledge in environmental stewardship <br>7) Sustainable and accessible outdoor recreation environments that lead to resilient communities and high quality of life <br>8) Outdoor recreation enterprises contribute to improved economic stability in rural communities. <br>10) Scientific capacity to address contemporary problems by applying and revising state-of-the-art-knowledge.

Milestones

(2009): <br>Refine project objectives and research methodologies <br>Identify and recruit key co-project investigators and agency partners <br>Identify appropriate funding sources and build relationships

(2010): <br>Apply for competitive funding to support project objectives <br>Continue with Year 1 activities

(2011): <br>Implement different components of planned research for each objective <br>Continue with Year 1-2 activities

(2012): <br>Begin technology transfer activities <br>Begin disseminate of project outcomes to multiple audiences <br>Continue with Year 1-3 activities

(2013): <br>Adjust project objectives and plan subsequent phases of research <br>Continue with Year 1-4 activities

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

Results from research conducted as part of the proposed multi-state research project will be disseminated through a number of coordinated mediums. These include refereed journals such as the Journal of Leisure Research, Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration, Journal of Forestry, Leisure Sciences, Society and Natural Resources, Annals of Tourism Research, and Environmental Management to name a few. In addition, results will be disseminated through no-refereed but peer reviewed outlets such as through conferences and workshops such as the National Recreation and Park Association national conference, the Society of American Foresters annual conference, the Northeastern Recreation Research conference, and the International Symposium for Society and Natural Resources to name a few. In addition, several of the multi-state working group have extension appointments and will disseminate project findings through their state and national-level networks and client groups.

Organization/Governance

We will use the recommended standard governance for multistate research activities that includes a Chair, a Chair-elect, and a Secretary. In the first two years, the Chair will be Dr. Leahy from University of Maine, the chair-elect will be Dr. Pierskalla from West Virginia University, and the secretary will be Dr. Stein from University of Florida. Subsequently, all officers are to be elected at the annual meeting for two-year terms to provide continuity. Administrative guidance will be provided by an assigned Administrative Advisor and a CSREES Representative.

Literature Cited

Che, D. (2003). The new economy and the forest: Rural development in the post-industrial spaces of the rural Alleghenies. Social Science Quarterly, 84, (4), 963-978. English, D.B., Marcouiller, D.W., & Cordell, K. (2000). Tourism dependence in rural America: Estimates and effects. Society and Natural Resources, 13 (3), 185-202. Dwyer, J.F. & McCaffrey, S.M. (2004). The wildland-urban interface. Invited Chapter in Manfredo, M., Vaske, J., Field, D., Brown, P., and Bruyere, B. (Eds.) Society and Natural Resources: A Summary of Knowledge. Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho Printing. Howe, J., McMahon, E., & Probst, L. (1997). Balancing nature and commerce in gateway communities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Johnson, K.M. & Beale, C.L. (2002). Nonmetro recreation counties: Their identification and growth. Rural America, 17 (4), 12-19. Keith, J., Fawson, C., & Chang, T. (1996). Recreation as an economic development strategy. Journal of Leisure Research, 28 (2): 96-107. Krannich, R.S. & Petrzelka, P. (2003). Tourism and natural amenity development. In D.L. Brown & Swanson, L.E. (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century (pp. 190-199). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Selin, S. and McGill, D. (2005). The Heritage Area Movement: Redefining Opportunities for Extension Professionals. Journal of Extension, 43 (2): 1-14.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

AK, FL, ME, MI, MN, NC, NY, OR, TX, UT, WI

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

Auburn University, Indiana University, Oregon State University, University of Georgia, University of Idaho, USDA/ERS