Abstract—Factor analysis identified three major underlying dimensions characterizing indicators of experience quality: careless or disrespectful resource impacts, solitude, and resource impact / development. Certain indicators of experience quality were found to be more important than others, depending upon user group. For example, experiencing solitude was much more important for boaters who used the full river or river and lake sections of the waterway, versus boaters who only used lake sections. Emotional/symbolic and functional place attachment were measured for different user groups.
Lake users reported higher levels of agreement to emotional/symbolic and functional place attachment than river users. Compared to lake users with a relatively low emotional/symbolic attachment, lake users with high attachment levels indicated a stronger desire for solitude and experiencing an undeveloped area with lightly impacted campsites. Indicators of experience quality involving careless or disrespectful resource impacts was important regardless of type of user group, and it did not matter whether users had high or low levels of agreement to place attachment statements.
Minnesota and Ontario (SCIWC 1998). It is listed as one of
Maine’s Twenty Outstanding Rivers, and it is officially recognized as the St. Croix Waterway Recreation Area by the Province of New Brunswick (fig. 1). Most significantly, the St. Croix was included in the Canadian National Heritage river system in 1991, the first such designation in Atlantic
Canada.
Because the waterway is an international boundary, recreation and resource management is conducted by several agencies, including the International Joint Commission, the
Bureau of Parks and Lands and the State Forest Service in
Maine, and the Department of Natural Resources and Energy in New Brunswick. In 1986, a Memorandum of Understanding between Maine and New Brunswick created the St.
Croix International Waterway Commission, an advisory agency, which has since taken the lead in studying waterway-related issues and coordinating planning for future waterway management needs. In a 1993 report, the St. Croix
International Waterway Commission noted, “distinct land and water management policies are applied without integration on opposite sides of the waterway, leaving it vulnerable to incompatible uses and potential quality loss” (SCIWC
The St. Croix International Waterway is a complex of lakes and river segments stretching approximately 115 miles (185 km) along the border of eastern Maine and New
Brunswick. The waterway is comprised of three major geographic zones: (1) a headwater lakes and river section characterized by mostly undeveloped shoreline, (2) a lower river section of developed and industrialized river, and (3) a tidal estuary and bay system. This study is concerned exclusively with the headwater lakes and upper river section. This region is the longest stretch of undeveloped international waterway east of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area of
John J. Daigle is Assistant Professor and Program Leader of the Parks,
Recreation and Tourism Program, Department of Forest Management, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, U.S.A. Phone: 207-581-2850, E-mail: john_daigle@umenfa.maine.edu. Jamie Hannon is a Graduate Student in the
Parks, Recreation and Tourism Program. Cynthia Stacey is Associate Professor, Recreation and Leisure Studies Program, University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada.
In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2003. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Seventh World Wilderness Congress symposium; 2001 November 2–8; Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Proc.
RMRS-P-27. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Figure 1—Originally intended to recognize multiple uses of the 32,000 miles of rivers and streams, the Maine Rivers Act (MRA) states the need for balance among various uses. The MRA specifically recognizes the need to protect outstanding rivers that provide unparalleled natural and recreational values, including unique recreational activities and solace from an industrialized society. Here, overnight canoeists travel the lower river section of the St. Croix International Waterway.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003 133

Daigle, Hannon, and Stacey Factors Influencing Experience Quality: Comparing User Groups and Place Attachment…
1993). One of the key goals developed by the commission was to protect and provide for the continuation of quality recreational experiences, especially traditional backcountry canoe trips.
Providing quality recreational experiences while preserving the natural character of the St. Croix International
Waterway poses some significant challenges (fig. 2). Primary among these is the unique combination of natural setting and accessibility, and nearness to major population centers in the United States and Canada. The waterway is within a day’s drive of 32 million people, and is well known regionally as an excellent canoe trip with summer water and easy, enjoyable whitewater. No agency currently places any kind of entry fee or use regulation on visits to the waterway, and recreational use is essentially unmanaged.
Key to protecting backcountry experiences of the St. Croix
International Waterway is an understanding of the different aspects of the visitor experience and recognizing which of these are important to visitors. These indicators of experience quality are measurable variables that help define the quality of the recreation experience and standards of quality that define the minimum acceptable conditions (Manning
1999). Good indicators are practical to measure quantitatively, sensitive to the type and amount of use, and potentially responsive to management control (Lucas and Stankey
1985; Watson and others 1998). They are used in managerial planning cycles such as Limits of Acceptable Change (Stankey and others 1985) or Visitor Impact Management (Graefe and others 1990) along with standards to guide the implementation of management strategies and monitoring efforts.
Several studies examining indicators of quality have revealed some variables to be more important than others
(Manning 1999). For example, litter and other signs of visitor use impacts appear to be more important to recreation users compared to management-related impacts such as signs and presence of rangers. Social indicators of quality, especially those dealing with behaviors or types of other user groups at secluded campsite locations, are more important
Figure 2—Better access, light and durable canoes, and growing popularity of other self-propelled watercraft such as kayaks are a few reasons for the increased diversity of use and user groups. Here a day user runs the rapids at Little Falls on the upper river section of the
St. Croix International Waterway.
than ecological indicators. Visitors to more primitive areas or sites may be generally more sensitive to a variety of potential indicators of quality than visitors to more highly used and developed areas or sites. On the St. Croix International Waterway, users have unrestricted access to both primitive and developed sites and a wide range of wateroriented opportunities. The situation suggests the need to understand the diverse recreation experiences and indicators of quality.
Matching the experiences visitors seek with opportunity settings best suited to providing those experiences is one of the major challenges to the outdoor recreation manager
(Clark and Stankey 1979). On one hand, a user allocates personal resources (primarily time and money) to produce a desired recreational experience (Jubenville 1986). Users engage in a leisure activity with the expectation that it will fulfill selected needs, motivations, or other desired states
(Schreyer 1986). Daigle and others (2002) report that choice of a particular leisure activity may not only be closely related to the specific benefits people derive, or believe they derive, but also tied to the perceived likelihood that the benefits will be produced. On the other hand, a manager provides a site by combining various managerial inputs (physical development, regulation, resource management) with the specific environmental setting (Jubenville 1986). Identifying the consequences of management actions is extremely important because those actions can attract or deter a given clientele group to a particular setting (Clark and Stankey
1979). For example, while some users may approve of management actions (for example, easier access), others may disapprove and be forced to adjust expectations (for example, seeing more users). Increasing access may change the type or number of visitors, and that in turn may influence the likelihood of fulfilling certain user desires (for example, secluded travel and camping). In this scenario, a certain clientele group may be displaced because the setting is not likely to meet their needs. Understanding these dynamics may be especially important in terms of a “home range” for assessing relative availability of, and demand for, different types of place-related opportunities for activities and experiences sought within a particular region (Daigle and others 1994).
A number of studies have examined place attachment as a construct for understanding the relationship visitors have to particular settings and as a tool for resource planning
(Moore and Graefe 1994; Warzecha and others 2000; Watson and others 1991, 1992; Williams and others 1992). Warzecha and others (2000) found that users of the Green and Colorado
Rivers had different levels of agreement with emotional/ symbolic and functional place attachment to each setting, as well as between settings. Place attachment is embedded in feelings for a specific place in contrast to specific attributes of a place necessary for a particular activity (Schreyer and others 1981). Users’ opinions regarding place attachment to rivers appeared to be related to the levels of importance they attached to motives for taking the trip. In addition, users with high levels of agreement to place attachment with their respective rivers attached different levels of importance to motives. There was a stronger desire for wild land experiences and management actions that provide opportunities for those types of experiences at one particular setting. The authors conclude that in order to optimize the likelihood of
134 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003

Daigle, Hannon, and Stacey Factors Influencing Experience Quality: Comparing User Groups and Place Attachment… meeting visitors’ needs at that particular site, it is appropriate to consider several different management strategies intended to provide a diversity of experience opportunities.
The purpose of this article is to examine experience quality domains and the relationship of these domains to different user groups and their place attachment to the St. Croix
International Waterway. First, we answer the question,
“Which indicators are important in defining the experience quality of St. Croix International Waterway visitors?” Second, we identify users’ relationship to resource in terms of emotional/symbolic and functional place attachment for different groups. Rather than examining differing levels of agreement of place attachment for overall users to a specific place or compared to other places, we focus on the diverse users of the St. Croix International Waterway.
In response to the Waterway Commission’s strong desire, among others, to protect opportunities for secluded backcountry canoe travel and camping, we employed a similar visitor survey approach conducted by Watson and others
(1992). A random sampling scheme was utilized, and a modified Dillman (1983) mailing approach was implemented.
The survey methodology has been described in detail elsewhere (Stacey and Daigle 2000). Approximately 404 useable questionnaires were returned, for an overall response rate of
62 percent. This extensive, self-administered, mail-back questionnaire was designed to provide information on a variety of variables related to use and user characteristics on the waterway.
Based on a literature review and feedback from resource specialists familiar with the St. Croix Waterway, we developed 22 items to assess social, resource, and management conditions that may affect the quality of visitor experiences.
Respondents rated the significance of items defining the quality of experience on the waterway on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “I care about the item ‘not at all’ to
‘extremely’.” The responses were subjected to factor analysis with varimax rotation, using principal-components extraction (SPSS 1999). The number of factors was determined by evaluating eigenvalues created from the factor analysis
(Kaiser 1960) and examining “scree” or the break in the plotted line of eigenvalues (Kass and Tinsley 1979). The internal consistency of each experience dimension scale was assessed using reliability analysis (Cronbach 1951).
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were computed for each set of items comprising each experience dimension.
Although the procedure maximizes the differences between selected factors while minimizing the differences within them, it does not express the magnitude to which respondents relate to a given factor. Based on variables defining each dimension, a mean scale score was developed as a “strength-of-importance” measure to compare the magnitude of importance of each dimension across user groups.
As an example, we computed a mean scale score for the dimension we labeled “careless or disrespectful resource impacts” by first adding the scale scores for the variables that loaded for this factor [var1 (amount of litter I see on the riverbanks) + var2 (amount of litter I see around the campsite)
+ var3 (number of trees at campsites that have been damaged by people)] and then dividing the total score by 3, the number of variables in this particular dimension. Mean scale scores for the 3 dimensions were developed for the combined user groups, as well as for defined user subgroups.
In a previous publication based on data from this survey
(Hannon and others 2002), we provided evidence for unique user subgroups of the St. Croix Waterway. The groups are distinguished by demographic and visit characteristics, mode of travel, and prior experience in the waterway area. They utilize distinct, sometimes overlapping zones within the waterway, each of which is defined by geographic features and accessibility. The first regional group is that which utilized the upper lakes, a diverse group of motorized and human-propelled visitors, about half of whom were overnight visitors. The next is that which utilized the lower lakes, primarily day-use fishers. The third is that which utilized only the upper river, a section typified by quick water and numerous, easy rapids. The fourth is that which utilized the full 40-mile (64-km) river section, combining the quick water of the upper river with a more remote and placid lower section. The final user group traveled on both a lake and the 40-mile river section and stayed out for 2 or more nights.
We used one-way analysis of variance to compare mean scale scores of the importance of experience quality for each factor across respondents in user subgroups. The comparison yielded insight on the variation of importance for certain experience dimensions among user groups. Tukey post hoc tests of pair-wise differences in means were used to identify significant differences in average degree of importance for the dimensions between user groups. Differences were reported at the p < 0.05 level of significance.
The factor analysis of the 22 items related to the importance of items that influence the quality of respondent’s experience on the St. Croix International Waterway suggests that they could be grouped into four dimensions.
Kaiser’s criterion of retaining factor eigenvalues
≥
1 and
Cattell’s methods of retaining the number of factors above the break, or scree, were used to assist in identifying the four dimensions. Considering variables with factor loading
≥
0.5, we labeled the four dimensions as (1) careless or disrespectful resource impacts, (2) management activities, (3) solitude, and (4) resource impact/development. For the four factors, total variance was 59.37 percent. The management activities factor, containing variables such as “water level for boating conditions” and “availability of a toilet, picnic table and firepit at campsite,” was not retained for the other analyses because of a low Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of items making up the factor. The item correlations were of an acceptable magnitude for the other factors (Alpha = 0.91,
0.85, and 0.78, for solitude, careless or disrespectful resource impacts, and resource impact/development, respectively).
The items for each of these remaining factors were therefore averaged to form mean scale scores.
We compared mean scale scores for each factor on a user group basis (table 1). The dimension of careless or disrespectful
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003 135

Daigle, Hannon, and Stacey Factors Influencing Experience Quality: Comparing User Groups and Place Attachment… resource impact had the overall highest mean scale score
(4.21) for the combined user groups. Statistically significant differences in levels of importance were demonstrated among
Extended Trippers (4.50) and Lower Lakes (4.00) user groups.
The importance of this factor as compared to the other factors for all user groups is consistent with other authors’ findings that litter is the most highly ranked influence on experience quality (for example, Roggenbuck and others
1993; Whittaker 1992).
In contrast to the careless or disrespectful behavior factor, the importance of things that influence the quality of respondent’s experience associated with solitude was more variable among user groups. Statistically significant differences in levels of importance were found between Full River
(3.85), Extended Tripper (3.77) users groups, and Upper
Lakes (3.01), Upper River (2.98), and Lower Lakes (2.46) user groups. In addition, statistically significant differences in levels of importance were found between Upper Lakes,
Upper River user groups and the Lower Lakes user group.
The mean scale score for the combined user groups was 3.15.
The top three items in the solitude factor (“amount of noise associated with human activities on the waterway,” “amount of noise associated with human activities away from the waterway,” and “number of other groups that camp in sight or sound of my site”) all rated more than moderately important. These top items are not related to numbers of encounters (“number of large groups that I see along the waterway,”
“number of boats I see along the waterway,” and “the percent of time other people are in sight while I am boating”), but are indicative of types of visitor behavior, especially intrusive noise. This finding is consistent with that of several studies reported in Manning (1999), and that solitude or seclusion evaluations involve more than just the number of people met during a trip (Watson 1995).
The importance of experiencing an undeveloped area, lightly impacted campsite, factor was compared across the five user groups. Variables making up this factor included
“forestry operations visible from the river,” “the visibility of lights originating outside the waterway,” “the visibility of camps and homes along the shore,” “the amount of vegetation loss and bare ground around a campsite,” and “number of makeshift camps created by visitors.” Statistically significant differences in levels of importance for this factor were demonstrated between Extended Tripper (3.51), Full River
(3.51) user groups, and the Upper Lakes (3.03), Lower
Lakes (2.75) user groups. In addition, the Upper River
(3.22) user group was found to be significantly different than the Lower Lakes user group. The three user groups that utilized the river for all or part of their trip placed much higher emphasis on the importance of campsite conditions in influencing the quality of their visit. Cameron and Stacey
(2001) report that the campsites associated with the river are more heavily impacted by use than are the campsites on the lakes. Also, it is not surprising that the Lower Lakes user group placed little importance on the condition of campsites because only 24 percent reported an overnight stay.
We would like to note certain things that were important to all user groups but did not load into a distinct factor or there was poor inter-item reliability of variables making up the management factor. For example, “water level for boating conditions” and “the availability of a toilet, picnic table, and fire pit at a campsite location” were rated moderately to very important for all user groups. The Extended Trippers and Full River user groups had the most concern for solitude and naturalness conditions; however, similar to the other user groups, they thought these management activities were important things influencing experience quality. Finally, “bank erosion at campsites,” which did not load into any factor was rated moderately to very important for all user groups.
Table 1—A user group comparison of mean scale scores related to importance of experience quality from a 1998 survey of St.
Croix International Waterway visitors.
Importance of experience quality N
User group
Mean
scale score a
Factor 1: Careless or disrespectful impact
36
106
56
38
378
Extended Trippers
Upper River
Full River
142 Upper Lakes
Lower Lakes
Overall mean
Factor 2: Solitude 56
34
Full River
Extended Trippers
138 Upper Lakes
104 Upper River
36 Lower Lakes
368 Overall mean
Factor 3: Resource impact/development
35
55
37
362
Extended Trippers
Full River
104 Upper River
131 Upper Lakes
Lower Lakes
Overall mean
3.51
b,g
3.51
c,e
3.22
i
3.03
e,g
2.75
b,c,i
3.17
a Means identified with the same letter are significant at the p < 0.05 level.
4.50
b
4.35
4.29
4.06
4.00
b
4.21
3.85
c,d,e
3.77
b,f,g
3.01
e,g,h
2.98
d,f,i
2.46
b,c,h,i
3.15
To measure emotional/symbolic and functional place attachment, our study used place attachment statements from previous research by Watson and others (1992) and similar to recent research by Warzecha and others (2000). Five statements measured emotional/symbolic attachment:
• This place means a lot to me.
• I feel no commitment to this place.
• I feel like this place is a part of me.
• I am very attached to this place.
• I identify strongly with this place.
Seven statements measured functional attachment:
• I would not substitute any other area for doing the types of things I did here.
• I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place than from visiting any other recreation place.
136 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003

Daigle, Hannon, and Stacey Factors Influencing Experience Quality: Comparing User Groups and Place Attachment…
• I enjoy doing the types of things I did here in the area more than in any other place.
• This area is the best place for the things I like to do.
• The time I spent here could have just as easily been spent somewhere else.
• No other place can compare to this area.
• This place makes me feel like no other place can.
Respondents rated the place attachment statements for the St. Croix International Waterway on a 5-point Likert scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” A numerical value was assigned after respondents answered the statements to reflect the following scale responses (+2 = strongly agree, +1 = agree, 0 = neutral, –1 = disagree, and –2 strongly disagree). For each user group (Upper Lake, Lower Lake,
Upper River, Full River, Extended Tripper), grand mean scores were calculated for emotional/symbolic attachment and functional attachment to determine the strength of respondents’ agreement with the place attachment statements. (For analytical purposes, the 5-point scale was reversed for the statements “I feel no commitment to this place” and “The time I spent here could have just as easily been spent somewhere else” so it could be compared to the other emotional/symbolic statements and functional statements, respectively.)
We used 1-way analysis of variance to compare mean scale scores of the level of agreement for each place attachment between user groups. The internal consistency for the five statements measuring emotional/symbolic attachment and the seven statements measuring functional attachment was assessed using reliability analysis (Cronbach 1951).
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were computed for each set of items comprising place attachment scales.
Similar to the Warzecha and others (2000) investigation, we sought to determine whether there was a relationship between high and low levels of agreement with place attachment statements and respondents’ importance with certain experience domains. We compared the highest and lowest 25 percent of the mean scores for each type of place attachment for the Upper Lakes and Upper River user groups. (For analytical purposes, the other user groups were not part of this analysis because of the low sample sizes.) Utilizing the upper and lower limits allows us to examine both ends of the agreement spectrum. As Warzecha and others (2000) point out, the upper and lower limits do not represent the majority of the user groups, but they may serve as an important barometer in evaluating attitudes about resource management issues.
We used SPSS to run 2-tailed t-tests to determine whether there were statistically significant differences between respondents with high and low levels of agreement with emotional/symbolic and functional attachment statements and how they responded to statements of importance for experience domains. We examined differences in responses
within the Upper Lakes and within the Upper River user groups, as well as between the Upper Lakes and Upper River user groups, for respondents demonstrating high and low levels of agreement with the place attachment statements.
Levels of emotional/symbolic attachment (rated on a
5-point scale, +2 to –2) were compared for the five user groups (table 2). Statistically significant differences in levels of agreement with emotional/symbolic place attachment statements were found between the Upper Lakes (1.01) and
Full River (0.56) user groups. Inter-item reliability for the five statements, as reflected by the Alpha scores, ranged from (0.80 to 0.92).
Levels of functional attachment were compared across user groups (table 3). Statistically significant differences in levels of agreement were evident among the user groups.
Mean scores were highest for the Upper Lakes (0.67) and lowest for the Full River (0.00) user groups. In addition, statistically significant differences in levels of agreement with functional place attachment statements were found between the Lower Lakes (0.54) and the Full River user groups. Overall, the inter-item reliability of seven statements for functional place attachment was slightly higher than the reliability of emotional/symbolic statements (0.87
to 0.92).
For both types of place attachment, respondents in the
Upper Lakes and Upper River user groups with high and low levels of agreement indicated differences in the importance of items defining the quality of experience on the waterway (rated on a 5-point scale, 1 to 5). These differences were apparent both within the Upper Lakes and Upper
Table 2—Levels of emotional/symbolic place attachment for five user groups.
User group
Upper Lakes
Lower Lakes
Upper River
Full River
N
147
39
104
54
Extended trippers 36
Mean a
1.01
a
.87
.81
.56
a
.76
SD
0.83
.83
.83
.57
.64
Alpha
0.92
.89
.92
.80
.86
a
Means identified with the same letter are significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Table 3—Levels of functional place attachment for five user groups.
User group
Upper Lakes
Lower Lakes
Upper River
Full River
Extended Trippers
N
145
38
102
54
35
Mean
0.67
a
.54
b
.38
.00
a,b
.20
a
S D
0.89
.88
.84
.67
.79
Alpha
0.92
.92
.92
.87
.91
a Means identified with the same letter are significant at the p < 0.05 level.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003 137

Daigle, Hannon, and Stacey
River user groups and between the Upper Lakes and Upper
River user groups. For example, for both user groups the importance of experiencing solitude was rated higher for respondents with high levels of agreement with emotional/ symbolic statements than for respondents with low levels of agreement (table 4). For functional attachment, however, no significant differences were detected between respondents with high and low levels of agreement for either the Upper
Lakes or the Upper River user groups.
Strength of agreement also was associated with statistically significant differences in respondents’ ratings of the importance of experiencing an undeveloped area and lightly impacted campsite (table 5). For the Upper Lakes user group, respondents with high emotional/symbolic agreement rated this factor higher than respondents with low agreement (3.17 and 2.67, respectively). Evaluation of functional attachment, as associated with this factor, revealed significant differences between respondents with high and low levels of agreement in the Upper River user group (3.46
and 2.88, respectively). In addition, experiencing an undeveloped, lightly impacted campsite was more important for the Upper River respondents with high levels of functional attachment (3.46) than for respondents in the Upper Lakes with high levels of agreement (2.90).
For both types of place attachment, respondents in the
Upper Lakes and Upper River user groups with high and low levels of agreement did not differ significantly in the importance of careless or disrespectful behavior related to the quality of experience on the waterway (table 6). For example, not seeing litter or damaged trees at a campsite was rated similarly important for respondents in the Upper
Factors Influencing Experience Quality: Comparing User Groups and Place Attachment…
Table 6—Importance of careless or disrespectful impacts for respondents with high and low place attachment on Upper
Lakes and Upper River sections of the St. Croix International
Waterway.
Low
High
Emotional/symbolic attachment
Upper
Lakes
Upper
River
3.75
4.11
4.12
4.44
Functional attachment
Upper
Lakes
4.03
3.96
Upper
River
4.19
4.40
Means identified with the same letter are significant at the p < 0.05 level.
River group with low levels of agreement to functional place attachment (4.19), as compared to respondents in the Upper
River group with high levels of agreement to functional place attachment (4.40). For both types of place attachment, respondents with the same high and low levels of agreement to statements did not differ significantly in the importance of the careless or disrespectful behavior factor. For example, not seeing litter or damaged trees at campsites was rated similarly important in the Upper River group with high levels of agreement to emotional attachment statements
(4.11) as with the Upper Lakes group with high levels of agreement to emotional attachment statements (4.44).
Table 4—Importance of solitude for respondents with high and low place attachment on upper lakes and upper river sections of the St. Croix International Waterway.
Low
High
Emotional/symbolic attachment
Upper
Lakes
Upper
River
2.46
3.32
a a
2.57
3.32
b b
Functional attachment
Upper
Lakes
2.77
3.23
Upper
River
2.73
3.24
Means identified with the same letter are significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Table 5—Importance of experiencing an undeveloped area, lightly impacted campsite for respondents with high and low place attachment on Upper Lakes and Upper River sections of the St. Croix International Waterway.
Low
High
Emotional/symbolic attachment
Upper
Lakes
Upper
River
2.67
a
3.17
a
3.03
3.53
Functional attachment
Upper
Lakes
2.81
2.90
b
Upper
River
2.88
a
3.46
a,b
Means identified with the same letter are significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Providing high quality, backcountry recreational opportunities on the St. Croix International Waterway has become more challenging over time as ease of access has increased and nearby population centers in the Northeastern United States and Atlantic Canada have grown. In this region, the majority of backcountry experiences occur on private or State-owned lands, most of which lack specific, codified guidance as to the type of settings or activities that managers should maintain. Also, the broad diversity of users at the St. Croix Waterway suggests that experiencing a remote or backcountry setting may not be a priority for all or even a majority of users. In these conditions, the risk of creeping product shift is great. The task of managing agencies becomes more complex as they try to provide for a spectrum of recreational opportunities while still maintaining high quality backcountry experiences. For example, recently, many campsites on the St. Croix International
Waterway have been hardened and enlarged, with singlecell sites split into multiple adjacent cells (Cameron and
Stacey 2001) (fig. 3). These steps were taken to meet a perceived need for durable camping spots, but the possible impact on traditional backcountry values was not considered. Understanding the users and their multiple definitions of a quality experience provides key information for meeting these seemingly conflicting goals.
The results of the factor analysis can provide guidance for managing agencies of the St. Croix International Waterway. The analysis suggests that for some dimensions of
138 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003

Daigle, Hannon, and Stacey Factors Influencing Experience Quality: Comparing User Groups and Place Attachment…
Figure 3—User groups of the St. Croix International Waterway were not as concerned with the number of others camped nearby as they were with specific behaviors. Multi-cell campsites recently established to accommodate more users at popular locations increase the likelihood of users experiencing disruptive behavior, such as noise from other campers.
Figure 4—Approximately 95 percent of the land in the State of Maine is privately owned. Consequently, most undeveloped recreation opportunities take place on these private lands. The undeveloped character of private lands, especially those located near water, is threatened by development pressure for second homes.
experience quality there is substantial agreement between all user groups about levels of importance. For example, the importance of careless and disrespectful impacts (litter, tree damage) were only significantly different between the Lower
Lakes and Extended Trip user groups, and all user groups rated the items in this factor very or extremely important.
This finding is consistent with that reported in other studies
(for example, Manning 1999). Management-related activities (campsite amenities, water level management, interpretive sites, and programs) were also similarly ranked by all five groups, with a high importance placed on campsite amenities and on water level management, and a low importance placed on interpretive signs and programming.
Differences also emerge from the factor analysis, particularly regarding the opportunities to experience solitude and opportunities to experience lightly impacted campsites and a primarily undeveloped natural setting. The two groups of canoeists whose activities are most dependent on an undeveloped backcountry setting (Full River, Extended Trip) placed higher importance on the opportunity to experience solitude than did the other three user groups, and this aspect of the experience was significantly less important for the
Lower Lakes user group than for all the other groups. The
Upper River group was also different than the two other river-oriented user groups. This Upper River group contains a higher proportion of day users, and day use has been shown to be associated with lower importance for solitude (Cole
2001).
The importance placed on the opportunity to experience an undeveloped viewshed and lightly impacted campsites also differed between several of the user groups (fig. 4).
Again, the two river-oriented, multinight groups of canoeists placed the greatest importance on experiencing natural conditions, and they are joined in this regard by the Upper
River user group. All three of these river groups rate higher on this dimension than the two lake groups. This is not surprising because the two lake groups have a much higher proportion of day users (41 percent in Upper Lakes, 76 percent for Lower Lakes). Also, recent studies of campsite conditions in the waterway (Cameron and Stacey 2001) indicate that campsites on the upper river segment are in substantially poorer condition than in other waterway regions. Hendee and others (1990) report that visitors are usually less concerned with campsite conditions and other resource impacts, instead focusing on various social conditions. Watson and others (1998) have reported similarity in the rankings of social and resource indicators by wilderness boaters, even though users were found to have diverse motivations or experience preferences. Our findings suggest that on the St. Croix International Waterway, while differences do occur, all groups except the Lower Lakes users placed moderate to high importance on this experience dimension. Generally, most visitors are very concerned about certain kinds of resource impacts, and may be willing to tolerate more heavy-handed management to ensure the availability of high quality campsites.
Comparing these distinct user groups provides insight on potential management challenges and opportunities. While the five groups are unique in demographics, visit characteristics, and motives, their zones of travel often overlap. For example, the Extended Trip group travels through every zone of the waterway. These overlapping use zones are areas with a high potential for conflict. However, the groups that place the highest importance on the qualities traditionally defining a backcountry experience—solitude and natural conditions—also travel for at least a portion of their trip in sections of the waterway that could easily provide those conditions. These groups could benefit from the creation of certain campsites along the waterway specifically reserved for primitive camping and nonmotorized access. Areas of the upper lakes are especially well suited to this strategy because of the large number of islands, stretches of undeveloped shoreline, and numerous isolated coves. The lowest stretch of river might also be well suited for this kind of zoning
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003 139

Daigle, Hannon, and Stacey approach because it is already used primarily by those groups that place a high importance on maintaining backcountry values. Also, campsite restoration projects such as those needed in the upper river zone would benefit all user groups, regardless of trip type or motivation. The Lower
Lakes group, which places the lowest level of importance on all three experience dimensions, utilizes a region that is not frequented by any other user groups. The variability between these five groups suggests most of all that any recreation management scheme for the waterway should be designed with the specific geographic zones and distinct visitor groups in mind. A blanket strategy would not meet the diverse needs and desires of the waterway users.
Warzecha and others (2000) report that levels of emotional/symbolic and functional attachment were significantly different between visitors to developed and backcountry areas. They also report that these differences in levels of attachment were associated with differing levels of support for potential management actions on two Western United
States rivers. Our results only partially concur. Levels of emotional/symbolic and functional attachment varied between the five user groups, with the two backcountry-oriented groups scoring the lowest on the scales of emotional/ symbolic and functional attachment, but there were actually few significant differences. The five groups differ in many ways including primary activity, length of stay, mode of travel, group size, experience use history, and many other variables. They bring to the waterway a desire for a diversity of conditions and experiences. However, these results suggest that while the visitor groups may come to the St. Croix
International Waterway desiring a diversity of conditions and experiences, nearly all users have a moderate to strong feeling of place identity and a moderate to strong belief that no other area can be substituted for this one. The uniformity and strength of feelings and beliefs held by the visitors about the waterway suggest that it is important for managing agencies to incorporate opportunities for public involvement in shaping recreation management goals and strategies for the waterway. Further, it requires that this public involvement be structured in such a way that it includes representation from each user group.
For two groups, we investigated the relationship between levels of attachment and importance of various experience dimensions. The strongest relationship was between high levels of emotional/symbolic attachment and higher importance of opportunities for solitude. A high level of functional attachment was also associated with a high level of importance placed on experiencing a mostly undeveloped setting with lightly impacted campsites. Level of attachment seemed to have no relationship with the importance of careless or disrespectful impacts encountered, suggesting that such impacts are very influential to all users, even those who have formed no attachment to either a specific place or a generalized setting. The two strong relationships suggest a perception by the user that the backcountry values—solitude, natural conditions—available at the St. Croix Waterway are not easily replaced. They also suggest the visitors’ perception that the emotional/symbolic relationship with the St.
Factors Influencing Experience Quality: Comparing User Groups and Place Attachment…
Croix Waterway is a unique one, also not easily replaced.
They further suggest that opportunities for experiencing solitude and natural conditions may be an important part of developing emotional/symbolic relationships with the resource, possibly an important source of satisfaction in itself for some users.
Cameron, S.; Stacey, C. 2001. Campsite assessment along the St.
Croix International Waterway. Unpublished report on file at: St.
Croix International Waterway Commission, St. Stephens, New
Brunswick. 71 p.
Clark, R. N.; Stankey, G. H. 1979. The recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for planning, management, and research.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-98. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 32 p.
Cole, D. N. 2001. Day users in wilderness: how different are they?
Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-31. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 29 p.
Cronbach, L. J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 16: 297–334.
Daigle, J. J.; Hrubes, D.; Ajzen, I. 2002. A comparative study of beliefs, attitudes, and values among hunters, wildlife viewers, and other outdoor recreationists. Human Dimensions of Wildlife.
7(1): 1–19.
Daigle, J. J.; Watson, A. E.; Haas, G. E. 1994. National Forest trail users: planning for recreation opportunities. Res. Pap. NE-685.
Radnor, PA: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 13 p.
Dillman, D. A. 1983. Mail and telephone surveys. New York: John
Wiley and Sons. 325 p.
Graefe, A.; Kuss, F.; Vaske, J. 1990. Visitor impact management: the planning framework. Washington, DC: National Parks and
Conservation Association. 105 p.
Hammitt, W. E.; Cole, D. N. 1998. Wildland recreation: ecology and management. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 361 p.
Hannon, J.; Daigle, J. J.; Stacey, C. 2002. User preferences for social conditions on the St. Croix International Waterway. In: Todd, S., comp., ed. Proceedings of the 2001 Northeastern recreation research symposium; 2001 April 1–3; Bolton Landing, NY. Gen.
Tech. Rep. NE-289. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station:
320–325.
Hendee, J.; Stankey, G.; Lucas, R. 1990. Wilderness management.
Golden, CO: North American Press. 546 p.
Jubenville, A. 1986. Recreational use of public lands: the role of the manager. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 4(1):
53–60.
Kaiser, H. F. 1960. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
29: 141–151.
Kass, R. A.; Tinsley, H. A. 1979. Factor analysis. Journal of Leisure
Research. 11(2): 120–138.
Lucas, R. C.; Stankey, G. H. 1985. Role of research in applying the limits of acceptable change system. In: Watson, A. E., ed. Proceedings: southeastern recreation research conference; 1985 February 28–March 1; Myrtle Beach, SC. Statesboro, GA: Georgia
Southern College, Department of Recreation and Leisure Services: 1–16.
Manning, R. E. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for satisfaction. 2d ed. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. 374 p.
Moore, R. L.; Graefe, A. R. 1994. Attachment to recreation settings: the case of rail-trail users. Leisure Sciences. 16(1): 17–31.
Roggenbuck, J.; Williams, D.; Watson, A. 1993. Defining acceptable conditions in wilderness. Environmental Management. 17: 187–97.
140 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003

Daigle, Hannon, and Stacey Factors Influencing Experience Quality: Comparing User Groups and Place Attachment…
Schreyer, R. 1986. Motivation for participation in outdoor recreation and barriers to that participation—a commentary on salient issues. A literature review: the President’s Commission on
Americans Outdoors. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office: M1-M8.
Schreyer, R.; Jacob, G.; White, R. 1981. Environmental meaning as a determinant of spatial behavior in recreation. In: Frazier, J.;
Epstein, B., eds. Proceedings of the applied geography conferences. 4: 294–300.
St. Croix International Waterway Commission. 1993. St. Croix
International Waterway: a heritage—a future. Plan for the longterm cooperative management of the St. Croix International Waterway. St. Stephen, New Brunswick: St. Croix International
Waterway Commission. 60 p.
St. Croix International Waterway Commission. 1998. Resource and recreation management concept: Spednic Lake/Upper River Section of the St. Croix International Waterway. St. Stephen, New
Brunswick: St. Croix International Waterway Commission. 24 p.
SPSS. 1999. Statistical package for the social sciences, Inc. Chicago,
IL. [Online]. Available: http://www.spss.com
Stacey, C.; Daigle, J. J. 2000. Recreational use assessment of the St.
Croix International Waterway: an overview of recreational user characteristics and perspectives. St. Stephen, New Brunswick:
St. Croix International Waterway Commission. 24 p.
Stankey, George H.; Cole, David N.; Lucas, Robert C.; Petersen,
Margaret E.; Frissell, Sidney S. 1985. The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station
[now Rocky Mountain Research Station]. 37 p.
Warzecha, C. A.; Lime, D. W.; Thompson, J. L. 2000. Visitors’ relationship to the resource: comparing place attachment in wildland and developed settings. In: Cole, D. N.; McCool, S. F.; Borrie, W. T.;
O’Loughlin, J., comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 4: wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-
15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 181–184.
Watson, A. E. 1995. Opportunities for solitude in the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Northern Journal of Forestry.
12(1): 12–18.
Watson, A. E.; Hunger, D.; Christensen, N.; Spildie, D.; Becker, K.;
Comstock, J. 1998. Wilderness boaters: protecting unique opportunities in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness,
Idaho, U.S.A. In: Watson, A. E.; Aplet, G. H.; Hendee, J. C., comps.
Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth
World Wilderness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume I; 1997 October; Bangalore, India.
RMRS-P-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 151–158.
Watson, A. E.; Williams, D. R.; Daigle, J. J. 1991. Sources of conflict between hikers and mountain bike riders in the Rattlesnake
NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 9(3): 59–71.
Watson, A. E.; Williams, D. R.; Roggenbuck, J. W.; Daigle, J. J. 1992.
Visitor characteristics and preferences for three National Forest wildernesses in the South. Res. Pap. INT-455. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station [now Rocky Mountain Research Station]. 27 p.
Whittaker, D. 1992. Selecting indicators: which indicators matter more? Defining wilderness quality: The role of standards in wilderness management—a workshop proceedings. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-305. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Experiment Station: 13–22.
Williams, D. R.; Patterson, M. E.; Roggenbuck, J. W.; Watson, A. E.
1992. Beyond the commodity metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences. 14(1): 29–46.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003 141