MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555855048

The Role of Tour Operators in Visitor Management Planning: The Case Study of Algonquin Provincial Park

2012· article· en· W2555855048 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lauren J. King

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisitor patternGeographyEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementArchaeologyEnvironmental protectionComputer scienceEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first State of Ontario’s Protected Areas Report (2011) identified visitor impacts as one of the known threats to the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity in Ontario’s provincial parks. Algonquin Provincial Park (APP) sustains the impacts of nearly million visitors per year (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2010), more than any other provincial park in Ontario. To mitigate these visitor impacts, APP has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with The Friends of Algonquin Park and the Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists to be the first provincial park in Ontario to officially adopt and deliver the Leave No Trace (LNT) program in Spring 2011. Due to limited funding, staff, and time, tour operators operating in APP may also be potentially important delivery-agents of the LNT program. Research shows that interpretation, through personal contact, is an effective visitor management tactic that can be used to encourage visitors to adopt an enhanced conservation ethic and modify their behaviour, such as LNT principles, in order to reduce their ecological impacts on the protected area. This case study used three methods to examine the type of interpretation currently delivered by a tour operator offering guided canoe trips in APP: (1) literature and documentation review; (2) focused interviews to determine the general manager’s, guides, and clients knowledge and use of LNT principles; and (3) participant observation to identify the actual LNT messages delivered and behaviour modelled by guides. The findings of this study reveal that guides are somewhat familiar with the LNT program and are practicing at least one of the seven LNT principles while canoe trip guiding. While litter and campfire-related impacts are identified as the most commonly observed visitor-related impacts by the guides, guides are more apt to properly dispose of waste, but still rely solely on campfires to cook all the meals at the campsite as well as having a nightly pleasure fire, despite having to collect appropriate firewood along portage trails or around the perimeter of the lake, due to barren campsites. These findings show that tour operators can play a much greater role in delivering the LNT program; however, guides require additional LNT training, in order to strengthen their role as delivery-agents of the LNT program in APP. Enhancing tour operators role in delivering LNT program will require greater involvement in VMP through collaborative planning, the establishment of a tour operators association to represent the collective interests of tour operators, and the use of a business licence scheme to ensure tour operators are incorporating the LNT program into guided canoe trips.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYork University Digital Library (York University)Same topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207