The Recreational Trail of the El Caminito del Rey Natural Tourist Attraction, Spain: Determination of Hikers’ Flow
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area and Path
2.2. Design and Participants
2.3. Measurements and Procedures
2.3.1. Study 1 Instruments
Measurements
- -
- Area of interest selected within the image (AI)
- -
- Duration of the gaze on the AI in milliseconds (DG) and its percentage (%DG) related to the total exposure time of the image (fixations + saccades)
- -
- Percentage of hikers who have observed the AI (PH)
- -
- Percentage of hikers who visually revisited the AI (PHR); a re-visitor is defined as a visitor who comes back a second time or more to the AI
- -
- Mean number of fixations of all of the participants who have observed the AI (NF)
- -
- Thermal map/heat map coded with colors to determine the areas recorded with greater or lesser intensity during the eye tracking activity
2.3.2. Study 2 Instruments
Measurements
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Study 1
3.2. Study 2: General Description of the Hikers’ Frequency of Entry and Passage, and Speeds Utilized to Hike the El Caminito del Rey Path
3.2.1. Study 2: Walking Speeds Recorded when Hiking the El Caminito del Rey Trail as a Function of the Type of Visit
3.2.2. Study 2: Simulation of the Distribution of the Users According to Trail Zones
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lynn, N.A.; Brown, R.D. Effects of recreational use impacts on hiking experiences in natural areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 64, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ritchie, B.; Adair, D. The growing recognition of sport tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2002, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lera, I.; Pérez, T.; Guerrero, C.; Eguíluz, V.M.; Juiz, C. Analysing human mobility patterns of hiking activities through complex network theory. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0177712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pickering, C.; Rossi, S.D.; Hernando, A.; Barros, A. Current knowledge and future research directions for the monitoring and management of visitors in recreational and protected areas. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2018, 21, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hill, E.; Goldenberg, M.; Freidt, B. Benefits of hiking: A means-end approach on the Appalachian Trail. J. Unconv. Parks Tour. Recreat. Res. 2009, 2, 19–27. [Google Scholar]
- Krzesiwo, K.; Ziółkowska-Weiss, K.; Żemła, M. The attractiveness of selected Central European countries for winter sports and mountain hiking. Tourism 2018, 28, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pickering, C.M.; Hill, W.; Newsome, D.; Leung, Y.F. Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse-riding impacts on vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 551–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, J.R.; Shafer, C. Mode of experience on a recreational trail: An examination of how hikers and mountain bikers focus their attention. JPRA 2011, 29, 21–38. [Google Scholar]
- Collins-Kreiner, N.; Kliot, N. Particularism vs. universalism in hiking tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016, 56, 128–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohd-Taher, S.H.; Jamal, S.A.; Surmajan, N.; Aminudin, N. Examining the structural relations among hikers’ assessment of pull-factors, satisfaction and revisit intentions: The case of mountain tourism in Malaysia. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2015, 12, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aiba, M.; Shibata, R.; Orugo, M.; Nakashizuha, T. The seasonal and scale-dependent associations between vegetation quality and hiking activities as a recreation service. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, S.; Tyräinen, L.; Sievänen, T.; Pröbstl, U.; Simpson, M. Outdoor recreation and nature tourism: A European perspective. Living Reviews in Landscape Research. Living Rev. Landsc. Res. 2007, 1, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barros, C.; Moya-Gómez, B.; Gutiérrez, J. Using geotagged photographs and GPS tracks from social networks to analyse visitor behaviour in national parks. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1291–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boller, F.; Hunziker, M.; Conedera, M.; Elsasser, H.; Krebs, P. Fascinating remoteness: The dilemma of hiking tourism development in peripheral mountain areas. Results of a case study in Southern Switzerland. Mt. Res. Dev. 2010, 30, 320–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chhetri, P.; Arrowsmith, C.; Jackson, M.S. Determining hiking experience in nature-based tourist destinations. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Törn, A.; Tolvanen, A.; Norokorpi, Y.; Tervo, R.; Siikamäki, P. Comparing the impacts of hiking, skiing and horse riding on trail and vegetation in different types of forest. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1427–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beeco, J.A.; Hallo, J.C.; Brownlee, M.T.J. GPS visitor tracking and recreation suitability mapping: Tools for understanding and managing visitor use. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 127, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Antonio, A.; Monz, C. The influence of visitor use levels on visitor spatial behavior in off-trail areas of dispersed recreation use. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 170, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Theobald, D.M.; Norman, J.B.; Newman, P. Estimating visitor use of protected areas by modeling accessibility: A case study in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. J. Conserv. Plan. 2010, 6, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Li, W.; Ge, X.; Liu, C. Hiking trails and tourism impact assessment in protected area: Jiuzhaigou Biosphere Reserve, China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2005, 108, 279–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Orellana, D.; Bregt, A.K.; Ligtenberg, A.; Wachowicz, M. Exploring visitor movement patterns in natural recreational areas. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 672–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pingel, T.J. Modeling Slope as a Contributor to Route Selection in Mountainous Areas. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2010, 37, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wolf, D.; Wohlfart, T. Walking, hiking and running in parks: A multidisciplinary assessment of health and well-being benefits. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 130, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godtman, K.; Fredman, P.; Wall-Reinius, S. Trails for tourism and outdoor recreation: A systematic literature review. Tourism 2017, 65, 488–508. [Google Scholar]
- Tomczyk, A.M.; Ewertowski, M.W. Recreational trails in the Poprad Landscape Park, Poland: The spatial pattern of trail impacts and use-related, environmental, and managerial factors. J. Maps 2015, 12, 1227–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wolf, D.; Hagenloh, G.; Croft, D. Visitor monitoring along roads and hiking trails: How to determine usage levels in tourist sites. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 16–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michailidis, A.; Samathrakis, V.; Mamalis, S.; Theodosiou, G. Understanding participation constraints of potential skiers. Tour. Econ. 2006, 12, 421–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarjakoski, L.T.; Kettunen, P.; Fllink, H.M.; Laakso, M.; Rönneberg, M.; Sarjakoski, T. Analysis of verbal route descriptions and landmarks for hiking. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2012, 16, 1001–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meijles, E.W.; de Bakker, M.; Groote, P.D.; Barske, R. Analysing hiker movement patterns using GPS data: Implications for park management. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2014, 47, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hardiman, N.; Burgin, S. Canyoning adventure recreation in the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (Australia): The canyoners and canyoning trends over the last decade. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1324–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ndoh, M.; Seung, L. Mountain adventure tourism: Effect of personal value over constraint for its growth: Case of Kangwon-do. J. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 3, 45–59. [Google Scholar]
- Magyari-Sásk, Z.; Dombay, S. Determining minimum hiking time using DEM. Geogr. Napoc. 2012, 6, 124–129. [Google Scholar]
- Niedermeier, M.; Grafetstätter, C.; Koop, M.; Huber, D.; Mayr, M.; Pichler, C.; Hartl, A. The Role of Anthropogenic Elements in the Environment for Affective States and Cortisol Concentration in Mountain Hiking—A Crossover Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Beeco, J.A.; Hallo, J.C.; English, W.R.; Giumetti, G.W. The importance of spatial nested data in understanding the relationship between visitor use and landscape impacts. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 45, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Soto, J.; González-Santos, L. Affective psychological restoration through mediated exposure to the environment. PsyEcology 2020, 11, 289–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ried, A.; Ayala, C.; Carmody, S.; Le Bon, A.; Santos, R.; Smart, I. Leisure experience in protected areas as a source of sense of place: What do visitors say? Psyecology 2019, 10, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stack, K.; Shultis, J. Implications of attention restoration theory for leisure planners and managers. Leisure 2013, 37, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romanillos, G.; Gutiérrez, J. Cyclists do better. Analyzing urban cycling operating speeds and accessibility. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2019, 14, 448–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taczanowska, K.; González, L.M.; Garcia-Massó, X.; Muhar, A.; Brandenburg, B.; Toca-Herrera, J.L. Evaluating the structure and use of hiking trails in recreational areas using a mixed GPS tracking and graph theory approach. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 55, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cetin, M.; Sevik, H. Evaluating the recreation potential of Ilgaz Mountain National Park in Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hageman, N.; Schorer, J.; Cañal-Bruland, R.; Lotz, S.; Strauss, B. Visual percepcion in fencing: Do the eyes movements of fencers represent their information pickup? Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 2010, 72, 2204–2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kredel, R.; Vater, C.; Klostermann, A.; Hossner, E.-J. Eye-Tracking Technology and the Dynamics of Natural Gaze Behavior in Sports: A Systematic Review of 40 Years of Research. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bansal-Travers, M.; Adkison, S.E.; O’Connor, R.J.; Thrasher, J.F. Attention and Recall of Point-of-sale Tobacco Marketing: A Mobile Eye-Tracking Pilot Study. AIMS Public Health 2016, 3, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, B.C.; Murray, N.; Warner, S. Understanding website usability: An eye-tracking study of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games website. Int. J. Sport Manag. Mark. 2011, 10, 257–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muñoz-Leiva, F.; Hernández-Méndez, J.; Gómez-Carmona, D. Measuring advertising effectiveness in Travel 2.0 websites through eye-tracking technology. Physiol. Behav. 2018, 200, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van der Laan, L.N.; Hooge, I.T.C.; De Ridder, D.T.D.; Viergever, M.A.; Smeets, P.A.M. Do you like what you see? The role of first fixation and total fixation duration in consumer choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, N.; Zhang, R.; Le, D.; Moyle, B. A review of eye-tracking research in tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2017, 22, 1244–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ooms, K.; Coltekin, A.; Maeyer, P.; Dupont, L.; Fabrikant, S.; Incoul, A.; Kuhn, M.; Slabbinck, H.; Vansteenkiste, P.; Van der Haegen, L. Combining user logging with eye tracking for interactive and dynamic applications. Behav. Res. Methods 2015, 47, 977–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013, 310, 2191–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bahos, A.; Molano, R.; Miramá, V.F.; Hernández, C. Sistema de posicionamiento vehicular respaldado por sensores inerciales. In Proceedings of the VIII Congreso Internacional de Computación y Telecomunicaciones, Lima, Perú, 21–23 September 2016; pp. 195–201. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenthal, R. Effect sizes: Pearson’s correlation, its display via the BESD and alternative indices. Am. Psychol. 1991, 46, 1086–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenhard, W.; Lenhard, A. Calculation of Effect Sizes; Psychometrica: Dettelbach, Germany, 2016; Available online: https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html (accessed on 17 July 2020).
- Tomczak, M.; Tomcak, E. The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends Sport Sci. 2014, 1, 19–25. [Google Scholar]
- Cárdenas-Ruperti, J.P.; Padilla-Álvarez, L.A.; León-Santillan, O. Improvement of arrival and departure times in a mass public transport system applying a computational model and Monte Carlo Simulation. Ecuad. Sci. J. 2020, 4, 57–61. [Google Scholar]
AIs_SQ | DG (sg) | %DG | PH (%) | PHR (%) | NF | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | IMAGE 1 | 1 | 12.55 | 12.16 | 100 | 80 | 45.00 |
2 | 30.39 | 32.54 | 100 | 80 | 102.25 | ||
3 | 24.43 | 28.31 | 100 | 80 | 95.00 | ||
IMAGE 2 | 1 | 10.54 | 6.11 | 100 | 100 | 34.60 | |
2 | 39.83 | 25.24 | 100 | 100 | 135.20 | ||
3 | 3.85 | 1.89 | 80 | 60 | 13.80 | ||
4 | 70.31 | 39.49 | 100 | 100 | 241.80 | ||
IMAGE 3 | 1 | 10.52 | 25.46 | 100 | 60 | 27.75 | |
2 | 4.59 | 7.83 | 75 | 60 | 15.75 | ||
3 | 8.62 | 17.51 | 100 | 60 | 27.75 | ||
IMAGE 4 | 1 | 6.51 | 5.81 | 100 | 100 | 22.40 | |
2 | 1.70 | 2.98 | 80 | 40 | 6.40 | ||
3 | 3.07 | 6.16 | 80 | 60 | 10.40 | ||
4 | 13.84 | 22.20 | 100 | 100 | 56.40 | ||
IMAGE 5 | 1 | 7.99 | 15.8 | 66.67 | 20 | 26.67 | |
2 | 4.54 | 22.03 | 100 | 40 | 12.67 | ||
3 | 4.93 | 26.65 | 100 | 60 | 18.67 | ||
4 | 4.77 | 14.82 | 100 | 40 | 17.67 |
AIs_SQ | DG (sg) | %DG | PH (%) | PHR (%) | NF | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S2 | IMAGEN | 1 | 2.12 | 11.48 | 66.67 | 60 | 8.17 |
2 | 1.92 | 18.84 | 83.33 | 40 | 7.50 | ||
3 | 9.80 | 31.34 | 66.67 | 60 | 32.50 | ||
IMAGEN | 1 | 4.90 | 13.72 | 75 | 60 | 15.50 | |
2 | 3.57 | 8.77 | 100 | 80 | 12.75 | ||
3 | 12.26 | 25.66 | 100 | 80 | 44.00 | ||
4 | 10.72 | 20.86 | 100 | 80 | 37.75 |
AOIs_SQ | DG (sg) | %DG | PH (%) | PHR (%) | NF | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S3 | IMAGE 8 | 1 | 1.91 | 4.75 | 50 | 40 | 6.50 |
2 | 11.56 | 55.42 | 100 | 60 | 40.00 | ||
3 | 9.74 | 28.69 | 75 | 40 | 32.50 | ||
IMAGE 9 | 1 | 12.44 | 34.04 | 100 | 80 | 42.50 | |
2 | 16.88 | 45.18 | 100 | 80 | 57.00 | ||
IMAGE 10 | 1 | 11.77 | 28.3 | 100 | 80 | 41.75 | |
2 | 10.28 | 21.5 | 100 | 60 | 31.75 | ||
3 | 10.30 | 17.79 | 100 | 60 | 32.75 | ||
4 | 0.32 | 0.86 | 50 | 0 | 0.75 | ||
IMAGE 11 | 1 | 4.04 | 37.47 | 100 | 80 | 15.50 | |
2 | 1.72 | 11.66 | 50 | 40 | 5.00 | ||
3 | 3.14 | 24.67 | 100 | 40 | 12.00 | ||
IMAGE 12 | 1 | 2.29 | 7.94 | 75 | 60 | 6.50 | |
2 | 0.92 | 2.31 | 50 | 40 | 3.75 | ||
3 | 10.69 | 32.32 | 100 | 80 | 35.50 | ||
4 | 6.45 | 22.99 | 100 | 80 | 24.75 | ||
IMAGE 13 | 1 | 10.54 | 17.03 | 100 | 80 | 36.25 | |
2 | 8.23 | 10.68 | 100 | 80 | 29.00 | ||
3 | 30.96 | 38.18 | 100 | 80 | 107.00 | ||
IMAGE 14 | 1 | 12.81 | 10.89 | 75 | 0.6 | 43.25 | |
2 | 10.67 | 7.81 | 75 | 0.4 | 36.50 | ||
3 | 24.57 | 26.36 | 100 | 0.4 | 19.75 | ||
4 | 5.79 | 3.92 | 75 | 0.4 | 19.75 | ||
5 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
Speeds (m/min) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | χ2 | df | p | |
S1 | 31.86 b,c | ±9.38 | 3087.219 | 3 | 0.000 ** |
S2 | 42.31 a,c | ±11.43 | |||
S3 | 22.40 a,b | ±4.70 | |||
General | 31.66 | ±6.60 |
Mean Speed According to Sections (m/min) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Type of Visit | M | SD | χ2 | df | ρ | p | |
S1 | H1 | 31.96 b,c | ±10.49 | 28.756 | 2 | −0.018 | 0.000 ** |
H2 | 32.84 a,c | ±6.20 | |||||
H3 | 28.18 b,c | ±5.94 | |||||
S2 | H1 | 45.50 b,c | ±11.65 | 337.069 | 2 | 0.462 | 0.000 ** |
H2 | 37.49 a,c | ±7.32 | |||||
H3 | 30.01 a,b | ±2.93 | |||||
S3 | H1 | 22.94 b,c | ±4.96 | 30.463 | 2 | 0.14 | 0.000 ** |
H2 | 21.53 | ±3.99 | |||||
H3 | 20.55 a | ±3.38 | |||||
General | H1 | 32.73 b,c | ±7.45 | 168.174 | 2 | −0.286 | 0.000 ** |
H2 | 30.46 a,c | ±2.89 | |||||
H3 | 26.29 a,b | ±2.00 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gea-García, G.M.; Fernández-Vicente, C.; Barón-López, F.J.; Miranda-Páez, J. The Recreational Trail of the El Caminito del Rey Natural Tourist Attraction, Spain: Determination of Hikers’ Flow. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1809. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041809
Gea-García GM, Fernández-Vicente C, Barón-López FJ, Miranda-Páez J. The Recreational Trail of the El Caminito del Rey Natural Tourist Attraction, Spain: Determination of Hikers’ Flow. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(4):1809. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041809
Chicago/Turabian StyleGea-García, Gemma María, Carmelo Fernández-Vicente, Francisco J. Barón-López, and Jesús Miranda-Páez. 2021. "The Recreational Trail of the El Caminito del Rey Natural Tourist Attraction, Spain: Determination of Hikers’ Flow" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 4: 1809. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041809