Norm CongruenceAmong Tour Boat Passengers
to Glacier Bay National Park
ROBERT MANNING
Schoolof Natural Resources
University of Vermont
Burlington. Vermont. USA
DARRYLL JOHNSON
MARKVANDEKAMP
National Biological Survey
CooperativePark StudiesUnit
University of Washington
Seattle.Washington.USA
Personaland social nomLfof visitors are receivingincreasedanention as a meansof
setting standardsof quality in parks and recreation areas.However,if visitors' evaluations and behavior are not congruent with nann-basedstanddrds,then this approach may lack validity. This.studytestsnann congruenceamongtour boat passengers to Glacier Bay National Park. A sampleof tour boat passengerswassurveyedto
detennine (a) personal nomLffor the number of watercraft and aircraft seen, (b)
numberof watercraft and aircraft seen,and (c) the effect of watercraft and aircraft
seenon enjoyment.Findings reveal the extentto which evaluationsof seeingwatercraft and aircraft are congruentwith data on personal nomLf.Severaltheoreticaland
methodologicalissuesthat heipinterpret studyfindings are discussed.
Keywords nonns, nomlative standards,standardsof quality, carrying capacity,
nonn congruence,national parks,Glacier Bay National Park.
Carrying capacityis an increasinglypertinentissuefor park planningandmanagementIn
its most genericform. carrying capacityrefers to the amountand type of visitor usethat
can be appropria,telyaccommodatedin a park or related area. Contemporarycarrying
capacity frameworksrely on indicators and standardsof quality to set and managecarrying capacity(Graefe.Koss. & Vaske. 1990; Manning, 1986; Manning. Lime. Hof. &
Freimund. 1995;National Park Service.1993;Shelby& Heberlein. 1986;Stankeyet al.,.
1985).
Indicatorsof quality are specific.measurablevariablesthat help to define the level of
resourceprotection and the type of visitor experienceto be provided and maintained.
Received3 October 1994; accepted29 October 1995.
This researchwassponsoredby the National Biological Surveyand the National Park.Service,
throughthe CooperativePark StudiesUnit, Collegeof ForestResources,University of Washington,
CooperativeAgreementNo. CA-9000-8-0007.Subagreements
No. S and No.2.
Addresscorrespondenceto Robert Manning, George Aiken Center, School of Natural Resources,University of Vermont, Burlington. VT 05405-0088,USA.
125
Leisure Scimcu. 18:12S'-141,1996
Copyright C 1996 Tayklr.t. Francia
0149-04r0'96 $12.00 + .00
126
R. MaMing et al.
Indicator variablesmay include elementsof the physical,social, and managerialenvironmentthat areimportantin determiningthe quality of naturalandcultural resourcesandthe
quality of the visitor experience.Standardsof quality defmethe quantitativecondition of
indicator variables.According to the frameworksnotedabove,carrying capacityis managedby monitoring indicator variables.When standardsof quality have been reachedor
exceeded,so too has carrying capacity.
Not surprisingly,one of the most problematicissuesin this contemporaryapproach
to carrying capacity has beensetting standardsof quality. Such standardsmay be based
on a variety of sources,including legal and administrative mandates.agencypolicy.
historic precedent,expertjudgment,interestgroup politics, andpublic opinion, especially
that derivedfrom currentvisitors.This latter sourcehasspecialappealbecauseit involves
thosemost directly interestedin and affectedby carrying capacity decisionsand related
managementactions.
~h
on visitor-basedstandardsof quality has increasinglyfocusedon personal
and social norms.Can visitors-individually and collectively-express judgmentsabout
appropriatestandardsfor relevant indicator variables?An emerging componentof this
questionconcernsthe degreeto which visitors' evaluationsand behavior are congruent
with their nonnative standards.If visitors' evaluationsand behavior are not congruent
with suchstandards,then the normativeapproachto settingstandardsof quality may lack
validity. The issueof norm congruenceis the focus of this study.
Norms and Nonn Congruence
Developedin the fields of sociology and social psychology,norms have attractedconsiderableaaentionas an organizing conceptin ~on
researchand managemenLIn
particular,asnotedabove,nonnativetheoryhasspecialapplicationto settingstandardsof
quality for the recreationexperience.If park visitors havenonnativestandardsconcerning
relevantaspectsof recreationexperiences,dlen suchnorms can be studiedand usedas a
basis for fonnulating standardsof quality. In dlis way, carrying capacity ~ be determined and managedmore effectively.
While nonns representan appealingsocial construct,thereare somesubstantiveand
methodologicaluncertaintiesconcerningtheir definition and application. As originally
developedin sociology,nonnausually refer to social rules or standardsof behavior.Early
sOcialtheoristsused terms such as customs,mores, and folkways as precursorsto the
contemporaryconceptof norms (Cooley, 1914;Sumner,1940;ToDDies,1961, 1971).In
keepingwith the theoreticalbaseof sociology, nonns are generally interpretedas being
externally applied through social obligationsand sanctionson individual behavior.
Recentreviewsof socialnonnsappliedin the recreationcontext(Noe, 1992;Roggenbuck. Williams, Bange,&. Dean, 1991)have identified severaldistinguishingfeaturesof
norms. First, actions guided by norms are obligatory and are enfo~
by sanctions
(Homans, 1950; Rossi &. Berk, 1985). Second,norms are action-orientedin that they
guide behavior (Blake &. Davis, 1964; Cancian, 1975; Bi<k1le~1986). Third, nonns are
sharedby social groups(Rossi&. Bert. 1985).Basedon thesereviews,it is suggestedthat
recreationresearchersmay be studying personalnonns or preferencesrather than social
norms.For example,crowding standardsof recreationists(e.g., numberof river encounters) may not be enfo~ by any type of social sanction,may oot involve modifications
of personalbehavior,and may not be widely shared.
Other recreation researchersencouragea more expansiveinterpretation of sQCial
norms.Vaske,Graefe,Shelby,andHeberlein(1986),for example.define normsas "stan-
Norm CongruenceAmong Tour Boal Passengers
127
dards that individuals use for evaluating activities or environments as good or bad. better
or worse" (p. 139). Similarly, Donnelly, Vaske, and Shelby (1992) derIDe recreationrelated nonos as "evaluative standards which define the important aspects of a particular
recreation experience" (p. 143). Finally, Shelby and Vaske (1991) suggest that (a) rec.
reation often involves emerging nOmlS for which strong sanctions and a sense of obligation have yet to fully evolve, (b) recreation-related nonos can apply to social and resource
conditions as well as behavior because such conditions are often a function of individual
behavior, (c) recreation-related norms often regulate collective rather than individual
behavior, and (d) recreation research bas documented some degree of consensusregarding
a number of recreation-related nonos.
There are also potentially important methodological issues involved in the social
norm concept. Questions designed to measure nonos might be phrased in several ways,
including the extent to which certain behaviors or conditions are either appropriate or
preferred. The fonner may be more in keeping with the traditional meaning of social
norms while the latter may ~ closerto a personalnormor preference.
It is clear that there are both definitional and methodological issues sunounding
nonnative theory and its application to outdoor recreation. Recreation researchers probably have not been measuring social norms as this concept traditionally has been defined
in sociology and social psychology. Personal nonns or preferences may be the ~
operative concept. Nevertheless, the notion that individuals may have standards about
relevant conditions of a recreation experience, and that there may be consensusabout such
standards, appears promising as a means to address some of the more difficult. evaluative
aspects of carrying capacity and related recreation management issues. We use the term
noma in this study recognizing the limitations described above, but also acknowledging
that this terminology has achieved some standing in the recreation literature. Norm-related
research can and should proceed as a means of exploring and resolving conceptual and
measurement issues.
Application of norms to standards of quality in recreation began in the 1970s and is
most fully described by Shelby and Heberlein (1986) and Vaske et al. (1986). These
applications have relied heavily upon the work of Ja.:kson (1965), who developed a
relatively simple and straightforward methodology-return potential curves-to measure
norms. Using these methods, the personal norms of individuals can be aggregated to test
for the existence of social nonos or the degree to which norms are shared across groups.
Normative research in recreation bas focused largely on issues of use density or crowding
(e.g., Heberlein, Alfano, &. Ervin, 1986; Patterson &. Hammitt, 1990; Shelby, 1981; Vaske
et al., 1986; Whittaker &. Shelby, 1988; Williams, Roggenbuck, &. Bange, 1991), but has
also been expanded to include other potential indicators of quality, including ecological
impacts at wilderness campsites (Shelby, Vaske, &. Harris, 1988), wildlife management
practices (Vaske &. Donnelly, 1988), and minimum stream flows (Shelby &. Whittaker,
1990).
As research on nonnative standards in recreation has matured, attention recently has
been focused on norm congruence. This issue is sometimes referred to as "norm-impKt
compatibility" (Shelby &. Vaske, 1991). The purpose of this type ofresean:h is to explore
the extent to which respondents evaluate relevant aspects of their recreation experience in
keeping with their normative standards. If visitor norms are to be used in establishing
standards of quality, then norm congruence research is important to test the "validity" of
visitor norms.
Research findings on norm congruence have been mixed. An initial test on three types
of river users was supportive of norm congruence (Vaske et al., 1986). Fishennen, cano-
128
R.Manning el al.
ers, and tubers who reported more river encounters dian their personal and social n~
also reported significantly higher levels of perceived crowding. However, a more recent
study (Patterson & Hammitt, 1990) cast some doubt on norm congruence. In this study,
83% of backpackers encountered more parties than dieir personal norms at one or more
of d1reelocations (trailhead, along die trail, campsite), but only 34% of diem reported diat
the number of encounters deb'aCtedfrom the solitude aspect of their b~kcountry experience. In other words, 61 % of respondents whose personal encounter norms were violated
did not express a negative reaction to the number of other hikers encountered. The most
recent study of norm congruence suggests considerable support for die validity of normative standards (Williams et al., 1991). The personal norms of river floaters for encounters with others were measured, and the more die number of actual encounters reported
exceeded personal norms, the more respondents reported: (a) experiencing a different type
of trip than expected. (b) seeing too many people, (c) feeling disturbed by the number of
people they saw, and (d) taking some action to avoid encounters with other people.
Study Methods
This study was conducted at Glacier Bay National Park. Alaska. in the summer of 1989.
The principal visitor atb'action in d1e park is the Grand Pacific Glacier, which is usually
viewed by visitors during a tour boat cruise conducted daily. On randomly selected days,
a field worker rode d1etour boat and, near d1econclusion of d1etrip, introduced the study
to visitors and requested their participation. Less than 1% of the sample refused to
participate. Visitors who agreed to participate and who were over 18 years of age completed a brief on-site questionnaire. A mailback questionnaire was then sent to this sample.
Using duee follow-up mailings, a response rate of 84% was attained, yielding 722 completed questionnaires.
Three variables derived from the questionnaire are relevant to d1is study: (a) a ~sure of personal nonns for selected hypothetical numbers of watercraft (four ~s)
and
aircraft seen, (b) number of watercraft (four types) and aircraft seen. and (c) die effect of
watercraft (four types) and aircraft seen on enjoyment The measure of personal norms for
watercraft and aircraft was derived by asking respondents how d1ey would feel about
seeing selected numbers of four types of watercraft and propeller-driven aircraft while
viewing Grand Pacific Glacier (i.e., it asked respondents to evaluate hypodletical numbers
of encounters). The four types of watercraft included cruise ships. tour boats, pleasure
boats, and kayaks/canoes. For each of d1e five types of watercraft and aircraft, a random
number was presented that varied from 0 to 3 for cruise ships and tour boats and from 0
to 9 for pleasure boats, kayaks/canoes, and aircraft A S-point Likert response scale was
used that ranged from "very unpleasant" to "very pleasant" For the purposes of this
study, this variable can be considered a measure of personal norms because it is an
indication of an evaluative standard held by individual respondents. Because the question
presented a single randomized number of watercraft/aircraft. a definitive personal norm
for each respondent cannot necessarily be detennined. However, d1is measure indicates
whether a respondent's personal norm is above, below, or directly at the random number
of watercraft/aircraft presented. Moreover, study data can be aggregated to calculate a
social norm as has been done in the outdoor recreation literature.
The number of watercraft and aircraft seen was measured by asking respondents to
report, to the best of their recollection, how many of ~h of the five types of watercraft!
aircraft were seen while viewing Grand Pacific Glacier. The effect of watercraft/aircraft
seen on enjoyment was measured by asking resI>ondentsthe extent to which the numbor~
Norm CongruenceAmong Tour Boal Passengers
129
of each of dte five types of watercraft/aireraft seen added to or detracted from the
enjoyment of dte experience of viewing Grand Pacific Glacier. A S-point L~rt response
scale was used. which ranged from "substantially add" to "substantially detract."
To test norm congruence, dte effects on enjoyment of seeing various numbers of
watercraft/aircraft were compared widt dte data on personal nonns. To make dtis comparison, visitor responseswere classified according to two dimensions: (a) the number of
watercraft/aircraft seen versus the hypothetical number of watercraft/aircraft presented in
dte questionnaire, and (b) dte evaluation of the number of watercraft/aircraft seen versus
the evaluation of dte hypothetical number of watercraft/aircraft presented in me question~.
These dimensions were dten cross-tabulated to detennine the extent of norm congruence.
Data on personal norms rather than social nonns were used for the test of norm
congruence. Norm congruence is uJtimately concerned widt the validity or internal consistency of data on normative standards. As noted earlier, the operative issue is the extent
to which respondents evaluate relevant aspects of their recreation experience in keeping
widt dte data they provide on normative standards. The most appropriate and powerful test
of dtis issue is conducted at tile level of dte individual respondent. This view is consistent
widt other tests of norm congruence as described earlier. Moreover, if data at dte personal
level are found to be generally valid or internally consistent, then dtis enhances the
confidence widt which personal nonns can be aggregated to determine social nonns.
Study Findings
Study data on personalnorD1S
for the number of watercraft/aircraftseenare shown in
Table 1. F'mdingsfor four of the five watercraft/aircraftstudied foUowedthe expected
pattern,with the mean"pleasantness"rating declining consistentlywith increasingnumbers of watercraft/aircraft The exceptionwas kayaks/canoes,for which "pleasanmcss"
ratings increasedor remainedrelatively constant with increasing numbersof kayaks/
canoes.Watchingthis type of watercraftapparentlyaddsto the enjoymentof mostvisitors
viewing the Grand Pacific GIlM:ier.These findings suggestthat, with the exceptionof
kayaks/canoes,seeing watercraft/aircraftwhile viewing Grand Pacific Glacier should
detractfrom enjoymentof the visitor experience.
An issueassociatedwith nonnativedataconcernsthe degreeof consensusamongthe
sampleabout such norms.This issueis often referredto as crystallizationand is usually
measuredby calculatingthe standarddeviationssurroundingthe meansof the normative
data. Thesestandarddeviationsare shown in Table 1. However, inte~on
of these
standarddeviationsis problematicfor two reasons.F'trst,there are no generalguidelines
regardingwhat constitutesan acceptablylow standarddeviation so as to concludethat
thereis a sufficient degreeof consensus.Second,the normativedatareportedin this study
are basedon a seriesof pointsalonga standardizedevaluativeresponsescale.Most of the
otherencounternorm datareportedin the literature arebasedon respondentreportsof the
maximum acceptablenumber of encounters.Thus, the means and standarddeviations
reportedin this study are not directly comparableto other studies.However,mostof the
standarddeviationsreportedin Table 1 are lessthan 1.0, indicating that mostrespondents
are clustered in one portion of the rating scale for most of the range of encounters
presented.Simpleinspectionof the distribution of responsepercentagesreportedin Table
I affirms a considerabledegreeof consensusamong the sample.
The meansreportedin Table I have beengraphedin Figures I and 2 to constructa
series of social norD1Sfor each type of watercraft/aircraft Generally, the standardof
R. Manning et al.
]JO
Table 1
Evaluationof hypotheticalnumbersof watercraft/ain:raft
Evaluation
Hypothetical
number
Cruise ships
0
2
3
Tour boats
0
2
3
Very
Very
Standard
unpleasant Unpleasant Neutral Pleasant pleasant
Mean deviation
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
S,.
13"
32,.
40%
3,.,
21..
33..
36,.,
36~
4S~
24~
18~
22%
15%
8~
65%
34~
K
3~
1~
3.77
2.82
2.18
1.90
1.08
1.041.07
0.92
1%
4~
1~
27%
6%
.13%
29%
37%
44%
55%
49%
29%
2OCIJ
22,.,
~
4%
29%
6%
3%
3%
3.70
3.13
2.05
2.17
0.99
0.8S
0.87
0.97
4%
9%
2.5%
38%
8%
28%
33C1.
35%
41%
48%
32%
22%
2S~
15~
8~
3~
22%
0%
2%
2%
3.53
2.69
2.28
1.95
1.03
0.84
0.99
0.97
8%
2%
3%
3%
16%
3%
~
12%
~S%
14%
4~
~
36%
7%
13%
13%
12%
2.97
3.70
3.43
3.40
0.9'
0.8
0.91
0.93
8%
32%
SOIII
66%
21"
33111
24%
1,5%
33-.
1-.
.-.
.-.
3.67
2.00
1.80
1.58
1.19
O.9S
0.94
0.91
Pleasure boats
0
3
6
9
Kayaks/canoes
0
3
6
9
Aircraft
0
3
6
9
4%
33111
4~'JI
39%
34%
25..
23%
16%
4"
2"
2"
quality basedon thesesocial nonns would be considereddie number of encountersat
which the plotted lines crossdte neutralpoint or threshold~m "pleasant" to "unpleasant." Two other prOpertiesof thesesocial norm curves are potentially meaningful.The
rangeof tolerableencountersrepresentsthe numberof encountersabovedte neutralpoinL
With the exceptionof kayaks/canoes,
the rangeof tolerableencountersshownin Figures
I and2 is quite narrow.Norm intensityor saliencerefersto how stronglyrespondents
feel
aboutalternativenumbersof encountersand is indicatedby die distancefrom the neutral
point to each point along the norm curve. The intensity or salienceof the social norms
shownin FiguresI and2 variesacrossthe five typesof watercraft/aircraft,but is generally
not high.
Findingson the numberof watercraft/aircraftseenand the extentto which they added
to or detractedfrom visitor enjoymentare shownin Tables2 and 3. (It will be notedthat
sample size drops substantiallyfrom Table 2 to Table 3. Many respondentsreported
seeingnoneof someof the five types of watercraft/aircraft.When askedto evaluatedte
~
Norm CongruenceAmong Tour Boat Passengers
VERY
PlEASANT
1J1.
5
4
3
2
VERY
UNPLEASANT 1
0
1
2
3
NUMBER OF ENCOUNTERS
Figure 1. Normative standardsfor numbersof cruise ships and tour boats seen.
effect of seeing watercraft/aircraft,some of these respondentsskipped this question,
apparentlythinking it did not apply.) Many respondentsreportedseeingnone of the five
types of watercraft/aircraft;however,somerespondentsreportedseeingup to 5 or more
of eachtypeof watercraft/aircraft.Respondentevaluationsof seeingwatercraft/aircraftare
generallyconsistentwith thesenumbersas large ~rcentagesof respondentsreportedthat
the numberof watercraft/aircraftseen(often 0) had no effect on their enjoyment.However, substantialpercentagesof respondentsreportedthat. to somedegree,the numberof
watercraft/aircraftseenaddedto or detractedfrom their enjoyment.
As describedearlier, the test of norm congruencefocused on comparing data on
personalnormswith the effect of seeingwatercraft/aircrafton enjoyment.This required
a three-stepprocess.First, visitors were classified on the basis of number of actual
encounterswith watercraft/aircraftversusthe hypothetical number of encounterswith
watercraft/aircraftpresentedin the questionnaire.Resultsare shown in Table 4. For the
VERY
PlEASANT
5
... Kayaks/Canoes
... Propeller Aircraft
* Pleasure Boats
4
3
2
VERY
UNPlEASANT 1
0
9
3
6
NUMBER OF ENCOUNTERS
Figure 2. Normative standardsfor numberof pleasureboats.aircraft. and kayaks/canoesseen.
R. Manning et aI.
132
Table 2
Frequenciesof reportedencounterswith watercraft/ai~
0
527 {78.8,*,>
2
3
4
5 or more
118 (17.6,*,>
17 (2.5~)
3 (O.4,*,)
2 (O.3~)
3 (O.4~)
376 (S6.5~)
117 (17.6111)
89 (13.4~)
38 (S.7~)
17 (2.6~)
29 (4.5111)
sake of simplicity, only data for cruise ships are shown in this table. The cells in diis table
were classified into three categories according to the relationship between actual and
hypothetical number of cruise ships. Cells in the lower left-hand portion of the table
represent respondents who saw fewer cruise ships than the hypothetical number with
which they were presented in the questionnaire. Cells in the upper right-hand portion of
the table represent respondents who saw more cruise ships than the hypothetical number
with which they were presented in the questionnaire. Cells in the center diagonal of the
table represent respondents who saw the ~
number of cruise ships with which they
were presented in the questionnaire.
In step two, visitors were classified on die basis of their evaluation of the number of
watercraft/aircraft actually encountered versus their evaluation of the hypothetical number
of encounters with watercraft/aircraft presented in the questionnaire. Results are shown in
Table 5. Again, for the sake of simplicity, only data for cruise ships are shown in this
table. As above, the cells in diis table were classified into three categories according to the
relationships between evaluation of actual and hypodtetical number of cruise ships~Cells
in the lower left-hand portion of the table represent respondents who rated the actual
number of cruise ships seen as less favorable than the hypothetical number of cruise ships
with which they were presented in the questionnaire. Cells in the upper right-hand portion
of the table represent respondents who rated the actual number of cruise ships seen as
more favorable than the hypothetical number of cruise ships with which they were presented in the questionnaire. Cells in the center diagonal of the table represent respondents
who rated the actual number of cruise ships seen the same as they rated the hypothetical
number of cruise ships with which they were presented in die questionnaire.
Table 3
Evaluation of encounters with waten:raft/8ircratt
Substantiallyadd
Somewhatadd
Neither add nor
detract
312(62-"')
Somewhatdetract .59(II.a.,)
Substantially
detract
29 (S.8~)
12(3.6")
18('.4")
59 (14.4~)
130(31.7~)
12 (3.0..)
37 (93'J1.)
S (1.6.-.)
11 (3.5CJJ)
27.5(82.8~) 214 (.52.2~) 317 {79.4~) 241 {76.3")
21 (6.3%)
6 (I..5~)
27 (6.8%)
36 (11.4")
6 (1.8'1,)
(0.2")
6 (1.5")
23 (7.3111)
Norm CongruenceAmong Tour Boat Passengers
lJJ
Table 4
Actual Ys. hypothetical number of cruise ships encountered (frequencies)
Actual encounters
0
5276b
56b
55b
2
3
.7~
7~
70b
7Sb
24C
13c
1~
26b
4C
Ic
3c
0*
oc
Ie
OC
OC
-actual equal to hypothetical
bactuallower than hypothetical
cactualhigher than hypothetical
In step three. these two classificationsof visitors were cross-tabulatedto form a
nine..celltable as shown in Table 6. This cross-tabulationtests for norm congruenceas
indicatedin the following cell descriptions.The upper-left.middle-left. middle-right.and
lower-right cells representrespondentswhoseevaluationsof the number of watercraft/
aircraft seenareincongruemwith their normativestandards.Respondentsin the remaining
five ceUsarecongruentin their evaluationof the numberof watercraft/aircraftseenwhen
comparedwith data on their personalnorms.
Table 6 showsthe numberand percentageof aUrespondentswho fall into eachdata
cell for four of the five types of watercraft/aircraftstudied. Data for kayaks/canoesare
shown in Table 7. It will be rememberedfrom Figure 2 that data on personalnorms for
this type of watercraftshowedthat visitor enjoymenttendedto increaseor remain relatively constantwith increasingnumbersof kayaks/canoes.Thus. in dlis casethe lowerleft. middle-left. middle-right, and upper-right cells of Table 7 representrespondents
whoseevaluationsof the numberof kayaks/canoes
seenare incongruentwith dataon their
personalnorms.
Fmdingsfrom Tables6 and 7 suggestthat the vast majority of respondentsacrossall
five typesof watercraft/aircraftdemonstratenorm congruence.The percentageof respondentswho demonstratenorm incongruenceis relatively consistentacrossthe five typesof
watercraft/aircraftand rangesfrom 14.2%for aircraft to 19.9% for both tour boats and
Table 5
Evaluation of actual versus hypothetical number of cruise ships encountered
Actual encounters
Hypothetical
encounters
Very unpleasant
Unpleasant
Neutral
Pleasant
Very pleasant
Substantially
detracts1712b
Sb
8actualequal hypothetical
bactualiower than hypothetical
cactuaihigher than hypothetical
Somewhat Neither adds Somewhat Substantially
detracts nor detractsC addsc
addsc
151912b
2b
9b
5OC
~
1133gb
,24b
4C
)C
14c
21C
258
68
6c
4c
2&
5&
R. Manning et aI.
134
Table 6
Cross-tabulation' for cruise ships, tour boats, pleasure boats, and aircraft
Evaluation of actual vs. hypothetical
Actual vs.
Type
Actual <
hypothetical
Cruise ships
Tour boats
Pleasureboats
Aircraft
16 (3.5%)
25 (8.6%)
24 (6.9%)
9 (3.3%)
Cruise ships
Tour boats
PleaSureboats
Aircraft
33 (7.3%)
21 (7.2%)
10 (2.9%)
22 (8.0%)
hypothetical
encounters
Actual <
hypothetical
Actual =
hypothetical
Actual >
hypothetical
=
Actual
hypothetical
Actual >
hypothetical
821(18.2%)
. 831(28.5%)
941(26.9%)
771(28.'0%)
601(13.3%)
301(10.3%)
181(5.1%)
131(4.7III)
531[II. 8111)
20~[6.9%)
41 ~[11.7%)
141[5.1%)
133
(29.5111)
78(26.8~)
.
125(35.7%)
113(41.1%)
16 (3.5%)
7 (2.4%)
7 (2.0%)
6 (2.2%)
Cruise ships
43 (9.5%)
15 (3.3%)
Tour boats
22 (7.6%)
5 (1.7%)
Pleasureboats
21 (6.0%)
10 (2.9%)
Aircraft
19 (6.9%)
2 (0.7%)
Note.Boldfacedentries= incongruentcells (incongruentcells fall into the following four typesof
respondents:(1) saw fewer than hypothetical,but rated number seenas less favorablethan hypothetical,(2) saw sameas hypothetical,but rated numberas less favorablethan hypothetical,(3) saw
sameashypothetical,but ratedactualnumberas morefavorablethan hypothetical,and(4) sawmore
than hypothetical,but rated actualnumberas more favorablethan hypothetical).
kayaks/canoes.An averageof 17.3%of respondentsacrossall five types of watercraft/
aircraft demonstratenonn incongruence.
However,it is prudentto note that the data representedin Tables6 and 7 might also
be interpretedas three somewhatdifferent testsof nonn congruence.A ftrSt type of test
representsrespondentswho saw fewer watercraft/aircraftthan the hypotheticalnumber
presentedin the questionnaire.Nonn incongruenceis quite low in this situation,ranging
from 4.5 to 19.4% and averaging 10.8% acrossall five types of watercraft/aircraft.A
second type of test representsrespondentswho saw more watercraft/aircraftthan the
hypothetical numberpresentedin the questionnaire.Again. nonn incongruenceis quite
Table 7
Cross-tabulationfor kayaks/canoes
Evaluation of actual vs. hypothetical
Actual vs.
hypothetical
encounters
Actual <
hypothetical
hypothetical
Actual >
hypothetical
Actual < hypothetical
Actual = hypothetical
Actual> hypothetical
S2 (14.3,.)
6 (1.7")
14 (3.9")
135(372%)
28 (7.7%)
38 (10.5%)
45 (124~)
7 (1.9~)
38 (10.5%)
Note. Boldfacedentries
=incongruentcells.
Actual =
1~
Nonn CongruenceAmong Tour Boat Passengers
Table 8
Breakdownof cross-tabulationfor cruise ships- -Actual encounters < hypothetical
Effect of
hypothetical
encounters
Effect of actual encounters
Substantially
detracts
14
Very unpleasant
Unpleasant
Neutral
Pleasant
Very pleasant
1
0
0
Note. Boldfacedentries
Somewhat Neither adds Somewhat Substantially
adds
detracts nor detracts
adds
14
9
2
0
0
41
61
3S
10
3
3
S
3
10
9
8
2
=incongruentcells.
low, ranging from 5.7 to 15.5% and averaging 11.8%. A third type of'test represents
respondents who saw the same number of watercraft/aircraft presented in the questionnaire. This might be interpreted as the strictest test of norm congruence. In this situation,
norm incongruence is considerably higher, ranging from 31.7 to 68.3% and averaging
48.4%.
A more detailed examination of the data in Tables 6 and 7 provides additional insight
into norm incongruence. Each of the three rows in these tables can be broken down into
more detail to assessthe degree of incongruence. This analysis is presented in Tables 8
through 10. Table 8 represents respondents in row 1 of Table 6 and, by definition, includes
all respondents who actually encountered fewer watercraft/aircraft than the hypothetical
number with which they were presented in the questionnaire. For the sake of simplicity,
only data for cruise ships are presented in this analysis.
Respondents found in the lower left-hand portion of Table 8 corre~pond with the
respondents in the upper-left cells of Table 6. (Fifteen respondents are found in these
positions based on the cruise ship data.) It is important to note from Table 8 that none of
the respondents represent instances of "extreme" incongruity. That is, in no case where
respondents actually encountered fewer cruise ships than the ,hypothetical number presented in the questionnaire did these respondents rate the actual encounters as negative
while rating the hypothetical number as positive. In all cases in Table 8, norm incongruence resulted from a contrast between a neutral and either a positive or a negative
evaluation. Data for the other four types of watercraft/aircraft show similar patterns.
Table 9
Breakdownof cross-tabulationfor cruise ships-ActUal encounters hypothetical
=
Effect of
hypothetical
encounters
Effect of actual encounters
Substantially
detracts
Very unplea,sant
Unpleasant
Neutral
Pleasant
Very pleasant
Note. Boldfaced entries
1
0
1
Somewhat Neither adds Somewhat Substantially
detracts nor detracts
adds
adds
7
6
0
1
= incongruentcells.
2
7
38
14
10
0
2
3
0
0
2
2
3
R. Manning et al.
136
Data for row 3 of Table 6 (cruise ships only) are shown in Table 10. Once again, tbe~
are few examples of incongruent responses,and only three of those incongruent responses
resulted from a conb'ast between positive and negative evaluations. Data for d1cother four
types of watercraft/aircraft show similar patterns.
Table 9, which ~prescnts the data for row 2 in Table 6 (cruise ships only), also shows
few instances of incongruent ~sponses resulting from a conb'ast between positive and
negative evaluations. Data for the other four types of watercraft/aircraft show similar
patterns. However, as p~viously noted. when respondents were asked to evaluate a
hypothetical number of cruise ships that was the same as the number they actually
encounte~d, the percentage of incongruence is higher than in other conditions. Inspection
of the data ~veals that a high proportion of the incongruent ~sponscs in Table 9 ~sults
when respondents who bad seen 0 cruise ships were asked hypothetically how they would
~spond to seeing 0 cruise ships (what we will refer to as the 0/0 condition). Of the 49
incongruent ~sponscs in Table 9, 15 result from the 0/0 condition (for the 0/0 condition
15 of 18 are incongruent). Thus, when the 00 condition is dropped from the analysis, total
incongruence for cruise ships drops from 44.9 to 37.3%. This pattern also holds true for
other watercraft/ain:raft in row 2 of Table 6. When the 00 condition is dropped. total
incongruence across all watercraft/aircraft in row 2 of Table 6 drops from .50.2 to 37.7%.
Discussion
Like the literature on nonn congruencedescribedearlier, fmdings from this study are
somewhatmixed.Examiningthe sampleasa whole,findings suggestthat only a relatively
small percentageof respondentsevaluatedthe numberof watercraft/aircraftseenin a way
that was incongruentwith data on their personalnonns for seeing watercraft/aircraft.
Thesefindings were generallyconsistentover the five typesof watercraft/aircraftstudied.
However,a subsampleof respondentswho saw the samenumberof watercraft/aircraftas
the hypotheticalnumberpresentedin the questionnairepresentan especiallystrict test of
norm congruence.In this situation.norm incongruenceis considerablyhigher, averaging
nearly half of this subsample.Severaltheoreticaland empirical issuesmay help to interpret thesefindings.
First, the subsampleof respondentswho saw the samenumberof watercraft/aircraft
as the hypotheticalnumberpresentedin the questionnaireconstitutesan especiallystrict
test, indeed.By definition, this test requires respondentsto correctly ~ct
how they
would evaluatea singlespecificnumberof encounterswith any of five typesof watercraft/
Table 10
Breakdownof cross-tabulationfor cruise ships-Actual encounters> hypodletical
Effect of
hypOthetical
encounters
Very unpleasant
Unpleasant
Neutral
Pleasant
V cry pleasant
Effect of actual encounters
Substantially
deb'acts
Somewhat Neither adds Somewhat Substantially
detracts nor detracts
adds
adds
3
7
4
2.
8
Note. Boldfacedentries =incongrtient cells.
3
0
37
13
9
1
2
8
7
2
0
0
1
2
Nonn CongruenceAmong Tour Boat Passengers
137.
aircraft. This may be unreasonablefor severalreasonsdiscussedbelow. Other testsof
nonn congruenceallow for somelatitude aroundthe personalnonn to accountfor sOme
of the uncertaintiesassociatedwith nonn evaluation.Williams et al. (1991),for example,
createdthreecategoriesof resppndentsto test for nonn congruence,thosewhosenomlS
were met, those whose nomlSwere moderatelyexcee~ and those whosenorms were
highly exceeded.
Second.the rangeof watercraft/aircraftexploredin this study also suggestsa rather
strict test of norm congruence.The rangeof watercraft/aircraftdealt within this studywas
very narrow. For example,the hypotheticalnumberof cruise ships presentedto respondentsrangedfrom 0 to 3. Moreover,the vast majority of respondentsactually saw fewer
than 3 cruiseships.Thus, the differencebetweenthe actualand the hypotheticalnumbers
of cruise shipswas quite small for nearly all respondents.Many respondentscould have
beenjudged incongruentwith their normativestandardsbasedon actualand hypothetical
differencesof only 1 or 2 cruiseships.This issuecuts acrossall five types of watercraft/
aircraft studied.
Third, as noted earlier, therewas little or no "extreme" incongruence.Nearly all of
the incongruenceresulted from a contrast between a neutral and either a positive or
negativeevaluation.In a typical exampleof incongruence,a visitor might have actually
encountered2 ships and indicated that they "neither added nor detracted" from their
experience,but may have indi~atedthat an encounterwith 1 ship would have an .'unpleasant" effect.
Fourth, a methodologicalissue may have contributed to nonn incongruence.As
describedearlier, normativestandardsweredeterminedby asking respondentsto evaluate
the "pleasantness"of seeingalternativenumbersof watercraft/aircraft.For respondents
who were presenteda hypotheticalnumberof 0 watercraft/aircraft,the interpretationof
this question,and thus the responsegiven, is somewhatproblematic.Somerespondents
may havefelt that if therewereno watercraft/aircraftpresent,then the absenceof sightings
could haveneithera pleasantnor an unpleasantimpacton their experience.Studyfindings
showe4a bimodal distribution in ratingsof seeing0 watercraft/aircraft(with peaksat the
neutral and pleasantscale points), supportingthis hypothesis.Likewise, evaluatingthe
effect of encounterswith watercraft/aircrafton visitor experiencemay have beenproblematic for respondentswhen they had had no such encounters.Given the equivocal
interpretationof the survey questionsdealing with 0 encounters,the relatively high incongruenceratesobservedfor respondentswho actuallysaw0 watercraft/aircraftandwho
were also presentedwith a hypothetical number of 0 watercraft/aircraft may not be
incongruentin the sensewe originally intended.Instead,they may have resultedfrom
differing interpretationsof the tWosimilar questions.This issuecuts acrossall five types
of watercratt/aircraftstudied.
Fifth, theliteraturesuggeststhat not all encountersareevaluateduniformly (Manning,
1985).That is, there may be somethingabout an encounter,such as the behaviorof the
entity encounteredor the timing of the encounter,that causesit to be evaluatedmore
positively or negativelythan anticipated.This situationmay causeinstancesin which the
actualnumberof encountersareevaluatedmorepositively or negativelythana normative
standardmay suggest.Such instancesare basedon reasonableand valid criteria, yet are
classified as incongruentin this study. This suggeststhat it is probably unreasonableto
expect universalnorm congruence.
Sixth, a relatively global measure-effect on enjoyment-was used to evaluatethe
numberof watercraft/aircraftseen.The literature suggeststhat such global measuresare
not as closely tied to normativestandardsfor encountersas are more specific measures,
138
R. Manning et al.
such as perceived crowding (Shelby & Vaske, 1991). Because one might expect a closer
and more consistent relationship between normative standards for encounters and a more
specific evaluative measure such as perceived crowding, a more specific evaluative measure may have reduced the amount of norm incongruence found in this study.
Seventh, nonnative standards have been found to be more fully developed and more
strongly held by more specialized and experienced visitors (Hammitt, McDonald. & Noe,
1984; Manning. 1986; Shelby & Vaske, 1991; Williams et al., 1991). The sample of
visitors employed in this study consisted of nearly all first-time visitors to the study area
who were participating in a nonspecialized activity. This suggests that a more experienced
and specialized visitor group may have reduced the amount of nonn incongruence found
in the study.
Eighth, an additional methodological issue that may affect study findings concerns
the cross-sectional nature of this survey. Respondents were asked to report data regarding
their personal norms for seeing watercraft/aircraft and their evaluation of seeing varying
numbers of watercraft/aircraft in the same survey instrument To the extent that respondents might have recognized the potential linkage between these questions and constructed or modified their responses accordingly, study findings might overestimate the
degree of nonn congruence. However, care was taken in the design of the questionnaire
to first ask for evaluations of the actual number of the watercraft/aircraft seen and to
separate the evaluation and normative standards questions by two pages. Nevertheless, a
potentially stronger research strategy would involve a pretest-posttest design.
Finally, there may be a relationship between nonn congruence and norm salience. As
described earlier, norm salience refers to how strongly respondents feel about the variable
under study or how important it is in detennining the quality of the recreation experience.
Several studies have indicated a relationship between norm salience and nonn crystallization (Shelby, 1981; Shelby & Vaske, 1991; Vaske et al., 1986). It seems reasonable to
expect less consensus regarding normative standards for variables that are less important
to respondents. Similarly, it may be reasonable to expect less congruence regarding
normative standards for variables that are not highly important to respondents. It was
reported earlier that the social norms derived from study data were generally not high in
intensity or salience. This may help to explain the levels of norm incongruence found in
this study. This is suggested even more strongly by the varying levels of nonn salience
found among the five types of watercraft/aircraft included in this study. Norm salience
was highest for encounters with aircraft and, for the sample as a whole, norm incongruence was lowest for this type of craft. Similarly, norm salience was lowest for kayaks!
canoes and norm incongruence was highest for this type of craft.
A final issue raised in this study concerns the conceptualization and measurement of
norms. As noted earlier, application of normative theory to recreation research has raised
a number of issues, including the definition of norms, the differences between personal
and social norms, and how norms might best be measured. The data presented in this study
probably do not represent norms as traditionally defined in sociology and social psychology. In terms of face validity, the Glacier Bay study data might be interpreted most
accurately as personal preferences for encounter levels. This can be contrasted to the face
validity of measures used in other studies that might be best interpreted as "acceptance"
or "tolerance" of encounters.
These issues, however, do not diminish the potential practical importance or relevance of the study findings. The extent to which th~re is consensus among visitors
concerning preferences about indicators and standards of the quality of the visitor experience helps to resolve traditionally problematic evaluative issues in outdoor recreation
Norm CongruenceAmong Tour Boal Passengers
139
areamanagementThe extentto which thereis internal consistencyor congruencewithin
such data is a vitally important part of such applications.However, the ways in which
consensus-related
issuesare conceptualizedand measuredmay influencetestsof internal
consistencyor congruence.This issueconstitUtesan important researchpriority.
Conclusion
This studypresentsdataon the extentof nonn congruenceamongtour boat passengers
to
Glacier Bay National Park. Data on personal nonns for seeing watercraft/aircraftare
comparedto evaluationsof seeingwatercraft/aircraftto determinethe intefnal consistency
of visitor reports. The study adds to the growing literature on nonnative standardsin
outdoor recreationby testing nonn congruencein a frontcountry setting, by examining
nonns for five ~
of watercraft/aircraft,and by including a nonnative standardwid) a
generallypositive slope.
The study usesdata collection and analysistechniquesthat are somewhatdifferent
from other studiesthat have examinedthe issue of nonn congruence.The study questio~aire did not ask respondentsto report their personalnonns directly. Instead,respondentswere askedto makejudgmentsaboutrandomizednumbersof contactswith watercraft/aircraft. Thesejudgments provide data that are indicative of personalnonns. In
effect, respondentswere askedto predict how they would react to varying numbersof
watercraft/aircraftand werethenplacedin the position of making similar judgmentsabout
the actualnumberof watercraft/aircraftexperiencedon site. In this way, nonn congruence
is testedby examining the internal consistencyof the predictive and actualjudgments.
Study datacan also be aggregatedto constructa seriesof social nonns.Thereappearsto
be a generallyhigh degreeof consensusabout thesesocial nonns.
Study findings for the sample as a whole suggestrelatively high levels of nonn
congruence,and these[IDdingsare generallyconsistentwith two other studiesof nonn
congruence(Vaske et al., 1986; Williams et al., 1991). However, a subpopulationof
respondentsconstitutinga stricter .testof nonn congruencesuggestssubstantiallyhigher
levels of incongruence,andthese[IDdingsaremore consistentwith thoseof Pattersonand
Hammitt (1990).
A numberof theoreticaland methodologicalissuesare identified that add insightsto
study findings and suggestdirection for additional research.Severalof theseissuessuggestways in which nonn congruencemay be over- or underestimatedin this study.Other
issuesconcernhow nonnsareconceptualizedand measuredand how this might influence
tests of nonn congruence.Future researchshould be designedto further explore the
implicationsof theseissues.Nonn congruenceremainsan important issuein determining
the extent to which nonnative standardsmight be used to resolve evaluativeissuesin
outdoor recreation.
References
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recentdevelopmentsin role theory.Annual Reviewof Sociology.12.67.,.92.
Blake, J., & Davis, K. (1964). Nonns, yalues,and sanctions.In R.E.L. Faris (Ed.), Handbookof
modem sociology.Chicago:Rand McNally.
Cancian,F. M. (1975). Whatare norms?A studyof beliefsand actions in a Maya community.New
York.: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Cooley, C. H. (1914). Sociol organization.New York: CharlesScribner's Sons.
Donnelly, M. P., Vaske, J., & Shelby, B. (1992). Establishing managementstandards:Selected
/40
R. Manning el aJ.
examplesof die normaIiveapproach.In B. Shelby,G. Stankey,&;.B. ShilXfJer(Eds.),Defining
wildernessquality: The role of standardsin wildernessnulnagemenr-A workshopproceedings. (GeneralTecbnjcalReport PNW-305). Portland,OR: USDA ForestService.
Graefe, A. R., Kill$, F. R., &;.Vaske, J. J. (1990). V"uiror impact nulnagelJWnt:The planning
framework. Wuhinston, DC: National Parks and ConservationAssociation.
Hammitt, W. E., McDonald. C. D., & Noe, F. P. (1984). Use level and encounters:Important
variablesof pen:eivedcrowding among nonspecializedrecreationists.Journal of LeLrureResearch. 16(1), 1-8.
Heberlein,T. A., Alfano, G. E., &;.Ervin, L. H. (1986). Using a social carrying capacitymodel to
estimatedie effects of marinadevelopmentat the Apostle IslandsNational Seashore.Leisure
Science.r,8(1),257-274.
Homans,G. C. (19SO).The IuImD1Igrollp. New York: Han:ourt, Brace.
Jackson,J. (1965). Structuralcharacteristicsof nonns. In I. D. Steiner &;.M. F. Fishbein (Eds.)
Current studUsin socioJpsychology.New York: Holt. Rinehart &;.Winston.
Manning, R. E. (1985). Crowdinl nonns in backcounb'ysettings:A review aOOsynthesis.Journal
of Leisure Researdl. 17(2), 75-89.
Manning,R. E. (1986).Studiesin outdoor recreation.Corvallis, OR: OregonStateUniversityPress.
Manning,R. E., Lime, D. W., Hof, M., &;.Freimund.W. A. (l99S). The carryingcapacityof national
parks: Theory aJM1
application.In Proceedingsof tM Conferenceon 1nnovationsand Challengesin the Managementof Visitor Opportunitiesin Parks and ProtectedAreas, University
of Waterloo, Canada.
National Part Service.(1993). VERP: A processfor addressingcanying capacityin the National
Park System.(Working draft). Denver, CO: Author.
Noe, F. P. (1992). Furtherquestionsabout the measurementand conceptualizationof backcountry
encounternorms.Journal of LeLrureResearch.24(1), 86-92.
Pauerson.M. E., &;.Hammit. W. E. (1990). B~kcounb'y encounternorms,~
reportedelK:OUnten, andtheir relationshipto wildernesssolitude.Journal of LeisureResearch.22(3), 259-275.
Roggenbuck.J. W., Williams, D. R., Bange,S. P., &;.Dean,D. J. (1991). River float trip encounter
n<Xms:Questioningthe use of the social norms ~
JOIlmal of Leisllre Research.23,
133-153.
Rossi, P. H., &;. Berk, R. A. (1985). Varieties of normative consensus.American Sociological
Review,50. 333-347.
Shelby, B. (1981). EncOODter
norms in bKkCOUnb'ysettings: Snxlies of ~
rivers. JOIUJIalof
Leisure Research.13, 129-138.
Shelby, B., & Heberlein.T. A. (1986). Carrying capacity in recreation settings.Corvallis, OR:
Orelon State University Preas.
Shelby, B., Vaske.J. J., &;.Harris, R. (1988). User standardsfor ecological impactsat wilderness
campsites.Journal of Leisure Research.2~3), 245-256.
Shelby, B., &;.Vaske,J. (1991). Using normativedata to develop evaluativestandardsin multiple
locations:A ~t
on three recentpapeIS.Journal"ot LeLrureResearch.23. 173-187.
Shelby, B., &;.Whittaker, D. (1990). Recreationvalues and instream.flow needs011tM Dolor~s
River. Paperpresentedat the 3m Conferenceon Society and ResourceManagement,Collele
Station,TX.
Stankey,G. H., Cole, D. N., Lucas, R. C., Petersen.M. E., Frissell. S. S., &;.Washburne,R. F.
(1985). The limiu of acceptablechange (LAC) systemfor wildernessplanning. (General
Technical Report 1NT-176).Ogden,UT: USDA ForestService,IntennountainResearchStation.
Sumner. W. G. (1940). Folkways: A study of tM sociolog;cal importance of II.f(Jge.r,
._n,
customs,mores,and morals. New York.: Ginn.
Tonnies,F. (1961). ClIStom.'An essayon socioJcodes.Chicago: Henry Repery.
Tonnies, F. (1971)..011s«iology: Pure. appl~ and empirical. Chicago: University"of Chicaao
Press.
Vaske,J. J., &;.Donnelly, M. P. (1988).Nomlative evaluationsof wildlife nulnagement:A compar-
Nonn CongruenceAmong Tour Boat Passengers
141
ison of three publics. Paperpresentedat the National Recreationand Park AssociationCongress,Indianapolis,IN.
Vaske, J. J., Graefe,A. R., Shelby, B., & Heberlein, T. (1986). Backcountry encounternorms:
Theory. method,and empirical evidence.Journal of Leisure Research,/8(3), 137-153.
Whittaker, D., & Shelby, B. (1988). Types of norms for recreationimpacts:Extendingthe social
nann concept Journal of LeisureResearch,20(4), 261-273.
Williams, D. R., Roggenbuck,J. W., & Bange,S. P. (1991). The effect of J1Orn1-encounter
compatibility on crowding perceptions.experienceand behavior in river recreationsettings.Journal of Leisure Research,23. 154-172.