A Practical Application of Statistical Gap Analysis in National Park Management in Costa Rica

              Vol. 7 Nº2 págs. 141-161. 2009
www.pasosonline.org
© PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. ISSN 1695-7121
A Practical Application of Statistical Gap Analysis in National Park
Management in Costa Rica
Juan Antonio Aguirre González ii
Universidad Interamericana de Costa Rica (Costa Rica)
Resumen: Si el crecimiento de turismo que se ha predicho se lleva ha cabo en Costa Rica las áreas protegidas verían
los aumentos mayores de sus historia en la próxima década. Un estudio realizado en los parques nacionales Volcán
Poas y Volcán Turrialba dos de los parques volcánicos mas importante del país con el fin de hacer disponible a los
administradores de los parques nacionales y directores de áreas protegidas, un procedimiento, que permitiese identi-ficar
las áreas de interés de los visitantes, utilizando una forma adaptada de la teoría de las expectativas y la discon-firmacion
de las expectativas de satisfacción de visitantes a los parques nacionales, y evaluar si los resultados podr-ían
ser utilizados para establecer las áreas de la infraestructura del parque, los servicios y las opciones recreativas
que necesitan mejora y una administración eficaz para aumentar la satisfacción de visitante. La muestra incluyó
1414 encuestas entre visitantes locales y extranjeros en los dos parques. Las conclusiones indican que el procedi-miento
se adaptó a los objetivos del trabajo y fue útil en: a) desarrollando la información para ayudar "a enfocar”, las
decisiones de la administración en el corto y mediano plazo y para el desarrollo de los Planes de la Administración
del Turismo en los 2 sitios, b) indicando al directores de los parques un mejor proceso de asignación del recurso,
bajo las condiciones de la escasez de recursos común en países en desarrollo, c) facilitando, con una metodología
sencilla y rápida que puede ser utilizada para "día al día" las decisiones de manejo y el análisis estadístico ,d) identi-ficando
las áreas en que la administración de las áreas protegidas necesitan el análisis adicional y e) contribuir así
al desarrollo de los programas de investigación socioeconómicas a largo plazo en parques nacionales, y f) la impor-tancia
"verdadera" del las actividades de la información y educación en parques nacionales, combinación de activi-dades
que parece ser crítica para aumentar la satisfacción entre los visitantes a parques nacionales y especialmente
para la comprensión de si las necesidades de los visitantes y sus esperanzas concuerdan con la que se esta haciendo.
Palabras clave: Análisis gap; Modelo de expectativas-disconfirmacion; Administración del turismo; Parques Na-cionales;
Costa Rica.
Abstract: If the tourism growth predicted materialized as tourism for Costa Rica protected areas would see major
increases. A study conducted in Volcan Poas National Park and Volcan Turrialba National Park two of Costa Rica
leading volcanic crater parks was undertaken to make available to national parks and protected areas managers, a
procedure, that could be use: to measure using an adapted form of the expectations disconfirmation theory the satis-faction
of visitors to Costa Rica national parks, and to evaluate if the results could be used for establishing the areas
of the park infrastructure, services and recreational options that needed improvement and management decisions to
enhance visitor's satisfaction. The sample included 1414 surveys The findings indicates that the procedure adapted
base on the expectations-disconfirmation model was proven helpful in: a) getting the information to help “zero in”,
the management decisions in the short and medium term and for the development of the Tourist Management Plans
that is to say being developed in the 2 sites, b) guiding park managers in the resource allocation process, under the
conditions of scarcity that are so common in developing countries, c) facilitating regular monitoring of the condi-tions,
with a simple and quick methodology that can be used for “day to day” decisions and more sophisticated
statistical analysis d) identifying the areas in the management of protected areas that need further analysis and in that
way is contributing to the development of the long term socio-economic research programs in national parks, e) the
“real” importance of the information and education activities in national parks, combination of activities that seems
to be critical to enhance “consumer satisfaction” among the visitors to national parks everywhere and particularly as
a means of understanding whether visitors needs and expectations are met, whether they receive what they should
and as a context for analysis of human use on the country national parks.
Keywords: Gap analysis; Expectations-disconfirmation model; Tourism management; National Parks; Costa Rica.
ii • Juan Antonio Aguirre PhD. Chair. Catedra de Emprendeduria. Escuela de Administracion de Negocios. Universi-dad
Interamericana de Costa Rica. Laureate International Universities E-mail: picoaguirre@gmail.com
142 A practical application of statistical gap analysis in national park management...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
Introduction
In 2003/2005, Central America as a re-gion,
according to the World Commission
on Protected Areas had 667 protected areas
with 14,3 millions hectares of which 96
were national parks with 3,4 million hec-tares.
The regional distribution is as fo-llows:
El Salvador.,25811, Costa Rica
1,750,857.,Honduras 2,605,818.,Nicaragua
.,Belice 1,080,832., Guatemala,
2,565,171.,Nicaragua, 2,940,568., and Pa-namá
3,279,521. The World Tourist Organ-ization
is forecasting that by 2010, the Cen-tral
American countries will be receiving
between eight and 10 millions, of the fore-casted
growth almost 60% will come in the
area of nature base tourism (UNEP, 2005).
If the tourism growth predicted materia-lized
tourism in protected areas would see
major increases, therefore it is important
that protected areas managers improved
the management of visitors, in order to
increase their levels of satisfaction expe-rience
during the visit to the sites. The
purpose of this paper is to make available
to national parks and protected areas man-agers,
a theoretical framework base in the
expectations-disconfirmation theory of con-sumer
satisfaction measurement and test
its practical application for national park
management.
Objectives.
The research objectives were: To meas-ure
using an adapted form of the GAP
analysis base on the expectations discom-firmation
theory to the satisfaction of visi-tors
to Costa Rica national parks.
The management objectives were: To es-tablish
if the satisfaction measures derived
for infrastructure, services and recreational
options could be used for establishing areas
of the park infrastructure, services and
recreational options that need improve-ment
and management decisions to en-hance
visitor's satisfaction levels.
Hypothesis.
The general hypothesis was: Significant
differences exist between local and foreign
visitors in satisfaction levels and the gap
between the expected and the observed. for
park infrastructure, services and recrea-tional
options.
Literature Review
The World Wildlife Fund reported the
lack of visitor satisfaction consideration in
the management of protected areas and
national parks in 2004, and we quote: “One
depressingly consistent problem is a failure
to manage relations with people. Problems
are evident in terms of both relations with
local communities and indigenous people,
the management of tourists, the provision
of visitor's facilities, and the access to
commercial tourism facilities” (WWF, 2004)
Why measure Satisfaction in National
Park Visitors?
“Satisfaction is the consumer's fulfill-ment
response. It is a judgment that a
product or service feature, or the product of
service itself, provide (or is providing) a
pleasurable level of consumption-based
fulfillment, including levels of under-or
over- fulfillment…The definition proposed
by Oliver, makes an important separation
between consumer and customer, while
consumer uses a product but may not pay
for the product at the same time the cus-tomer
pays for the product and uses the
product. Two additional points are a) the
idea of satisfaction is a feeling and b) the
existence of a threshold in terms of under
and over fulfillment of the feeling of satis-faction
( Bittner and Hubbert, 1994: Oliver
1994: Oliver 1997: Hom, 2000; Chang et all,
2002)
Macro Models of Customer Satisfaction.
The best-known macro model of custom-er
satisfaction links 5 elements, perceived
performance, comparison standards, per-ceived
disconfirmation, feeling of satisfac-tion
and outcome of the satisfaction feeling
and the eventual complaints if the discon-firmation
level was very broad. (Woodruff
and Gardial, 1996). The other important
macro-model would be the linkage of over-all
service satisfaction, encounter, satisfac-tion
and perceived service quality. The
work in this type of modeling highlights the
difference between satisfaction and quality
and develops the idea of a construct of a
Juan Antonio Aguirre González 143
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
“global” level of satisfaction (the overall
service satisfaction) in contrast to the con-struct
of a component level of satisfaction
(the encounter level of satisfaction). ( Bitn-er
and Hubbert, 1994)
Micro-Models of Customer Satisfaction
This section summarized the best-known
satisfaction micro-models: 1) the
expectation disconfirmation models have
consumers using pre-consumption expecta-tions
in a comparison with post-consumption
experiences of a prod-uct/
service to form an attitude of satisfac-tion
or dissatisfaction toward the product
or service. In this model the expectations
develop from a belief about a level of per-formance
that the product/service will pro-vide.,
2) the perceived performance model is
one in which expectations play a less signif-icant
role in satisfaction formation, c)the
norm model is one in which the consumer
compares perceived performance with some
standard performance, d)the multiple
process model is one in which the consumer
uses it more than one standard of compari-son
in forming a ( dis) confirmation judg-ment.
5) the attribution model is one in
which the consumer uses three factors to
determine attribution's effect in satisfac-tion.,
6) the affective models are one that
goes beyond the rational processes to in-clude
emotions, liking and mood influence
and 7 ) the equity models are one that em-phasizes
the attitude about fair treatment
in the consumption process( Erevelles and
Leavitt,1992),(
Hom,20),(Oliver,1997),(Oliver,1999),
(Mackoy and Spreng, 1995) (Parasura-man,
Zeithami and Berry, 1985) and (Para-suraman,
Zeithami and Berry, 1988) Appli-cations
to Park Visitors.
A study in New Zealand concluded that
satisfaction research in protected areas is
minimal and fragmented in that country.
(Latu and Everett, 2000). Reynolds and
Braithwaite, study about wildlife tourism
identifies, what are its essential characte-ristics,
identifies the product, conditions
favoring its development, motivation of the
participants, the type of experience, the
impacts and tradeoffs and concludes that
there is a real need to understand the po-tential
conflicts and problems arising in
park management due to the lack of know-ledge
about visitors needs and desires visit-ing
protected areas (Reynolds and Brath-waite,
2002).
Tian-Cole et all, study confirm two es-sentials
elements, a) improved service qual-ity
and satisfaction can result in improved
visitation and b) raises question as to
which of the two construct-qualities or sa-tisfaction-
is “higher in order”. It remarks
that “while wildlife refugee attributes are
under the control of the managers, benefits
that visitors obtain during the trip are
not….However, to influence visitor's future
decisions, managers can improve the
attributes of the refuges”. (Tian-Cole,
Crompton and Willson, 2002)
The work on compensatory satisfaction
particularly in birding may help explain,
that even though some parts of the main
leisure activities did not met the expecta-tion
of the visitor still by engaging in subs-titutes
activities they end up with a plea-sant
experience. The study indicates that is
essential in order to use the information
managerially to know what are the “sec-ondary”
goals of the birder, therefore being
able to provide compensation to the initial
source of dissatisfaction.(Swan, Martin and
Trawick, 2003).
A recent study on the international tour-ist
satisfaction in Mongolia established the
features about which the tourist were satis-fied
and those about, they were not satis-fied
and base on the areas identified as
producing dissatisfaction, a series of rec-ommendations
were made to the Tourist
Board on the things that need to be asses
more deeply with the idea of improving
them. ( Yu and Goulden, 2005).
A recent study in Kenya conclude that
the decline of tourist arrivals has to do
more with other factors exogenous to the
Kenya national parks than with the satis-faction
with the parks themselves (Akama
and Mukethe-Kieti, 2002).
The findings of Webb and Hassel, study
indicate that the main items contributing
toward visitor satisfaction and value for the
money relate to those as “managerially
provided” and “experientially provided”
were for managerially, the type, location
and number of facilities proved consistently
throughout the analysis to be the strongest
indicator of satisfaction. The strongest in-dicator
of value for the money was the use-fulness
of information. Experientially, visi-
144 A practical application of statistical gap analysis in national park management...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
tor perception of the environment as being
“natural and attractive and likewise pro-viding
a sense of adventure was the strong-est
experiential themes managerial-ly.(
Webb and Hassel, 2002).
Gaps an Important Concept
Based on the traditional definition of
service quality by Parasuraman et all. the
Gap Model was developed in 1985 ,were
perceived service quality is base on five
gaps using he disconfirmation paradigm.
They conceptualize the perception of ser-vice
quality as the difference between the
expected level of service and the actual
service performance... (Parasuraman, Zei-thami,
and Berry, 1985). Leminen identi-fies
three types of gaps. A type I gap exist
when one or several actors perceive the
same gap phenomena, but other actors do
not. A type II gap exists refers to two actors
having contradictory perception phenome-non.
A type III gap is identifying when a
third party interprets gaps based on evi-dence
indirectly indicating a gap (Leminen,
2002).
Visitor Satisfaction in Protected Areas
A study in Nicaragua conducted in 1998
at Volcan Masaya National Park estab-lished
that on a scale of 1 to 5, the ranking
of the satisfaction with the major activities
was: hike the trails 4.2; picnic 3.9; see the
crater 4.7; see the lava tubes 4.3; read the
exhibitions in the visitors center 4.1; study
nature 4.5; see the exhibitions 4.3; listening
to rangers explanation 4.4; read the park
brochures 4.4 and read the maps 3.6.The
two major complaints were : 15 % lack of a
restaurant and lack of general infrastruc-ture
11% (Ham and Whipple, 1998) .
In Costa Rica in 1999, a study conducted
among visiting tourists to national parks,
compared the ranking locals and foreign
visitors gave to the quality of various ser-vices,
in the case of restaurants 22.8% of
the locals and 30.1% of the foreign tourist
rank them as excellent, in the case of the
availability of information 26% of the locals
and 24.2% of the foreign rank them as ex-cellent
and in the case of number of hiking
trails 26.6% of the locals and 32.5% of the
foreign rank them as excellent (DeShazo
and Monestel, 1999).
In Panama, in a study conducted in
2000, using a sample of 727 individuals,
more than 80% reported that they were
satisfied or very satisfy, with their expe-rience
while visiting the parks located in
the former Panama Canal Zone. (Ham and
Weiler, 2000).
In the United States, if the Visitor Sur-vey
Card Data Reports are reviewed, indi-vidually
in the period between 1998 and
2004, the percentage of park visitors satis-fied
overall with facilities, services and
recreational opportunities, in 1998 was
95%, 1999 of 94%, 2000 of 95%, 2001 of
95%, 2002 of 95%, 2003 of 96% and in 2004
of 96%, values that can be regarded as
highly satisfactory. During the same pe-riod,
the only element that systematically
fell below the 80% satisfaction level, was
commercial services in the park (lodging,
food services and gift shops) which in 1998
was 74%, in1999, 70%, in 2000, 71%, in
2001, 72%, in 2002, 73%, in 2003, 75% and
in 2004 was 75%. (NPS, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004). .Another im-portant
practical contributor in the United
States, to the measurement of satisfaction
that cannot be overlooked is the American
Customer Satisfaction Index Service.
(NQRC-ASCI, 2004)
In Canada, since April 2000 , Parks
Canada satisfaction standards expects that
85% of visitors at each national park under
study will be satisfied and 50% will be very
satisfied with their overall visit. Very satis-fied
visitors are the most loyal, demanding
and responsive to changes in service deli-very.
Tracking the level of satisfaction of
this group can serve as an early warning
sign of required actions in national parks.
Visitors to national parks (92% on average
over four years) rate their overall visit as
satisfactory, and at least half of them at
most locations rate their visit as very satis-factory.
This is consistent with the results
of previous national surveys on the per-ceived
quality of government services
Juan Antonio Aguirre González 145
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
where the quality of service in national
parks was among the highest rated of any
federal government services (Parks Cana-da,
2003).
Materials and Methods.
Sites Location General and Maps.
Volcan Poas National Park is an active
volcano, with an elevation of 2,798 meters
above sea level, a crater lagoon of about 1
million cubic meters of water, with a tem-perature
of around 37 degrees Celsius, has
6,506.6 hectares, and it's high intensity use
area is 18.7 hectares. In 2004 it received
263 thousand visitors, is located 30 km
north of the city of Alajuela. The park is
accessible by public transportation in a 2-
hour ride from the city of San Jose. Ecologi-cally
it has been classified as a cloud forest.
Since its creation in the early seventies
was, declare a “model” park and presents
the best infrastructure facilities of any park
in Costa Rica. ( Dobles Zeledon, 2001)
Volcan Turrialba National Park estab-lished
in 1955, with 1257 hectares. The
park consists of the volcanic edifice with
very steep sides, mostly covered in mon-taine
rain forest. It is a stratovolcano 3328
m high. On its flanks, there are several
lava flows. The last eruption occurred in
1864-66 and nowadays there is solfataric
activity. The access road is very steep in
the upper part and so four-wheeled drive
vehicles are required. The park receives
around 6000 visitors a year mostly local
and has very limited and rustic facilities.
(Herrera Sibaja, 2004).
Sample Selection Procedure.
The interviews were conducted in the
case of Turrialba by the park rangers, giv-en
to each visitor entering the park during
the high season for a period of a month.
Spanish and English copies of the survey
were available. Visitors were ask return
them once they were completed to the en-trance
personnel as they departed. In the
case of Poas, bi-lingual students adminis-tered
the survey during two periods of one
week during the high season. The non-response
rate was less than 1%. 1414 usa-ble
surveys were collected in the two sites.
The model adapted was the expectation
disconfirmation model. “The model has
consumers using pre-consumption expecta-tions
in a comparison with post-consumption
experiences of a facility, ser-vice
or recreational opportunity or a combi-nation
to form an attitude of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction toward the facility, service
or recreational opportunity. In this model
the expectations develop for a facility, ser-vice
or recreational opportunity comes from
a comparison of perceived performance
with some “ideal” standard performance”.
The “ideal” standard was develop in the
case of locals visitor’s base on their “con-sumption”
experience develop while visiting
and enjoying, the country traditional “flag-ships”
national parks and in the case of the
international visitors “probably” develop
during the visits to the parks in their coun-try
of origin. This makes for differential
expectations, something that we have ob-served
repeatedly in Costa Rica, Volcan
Poas National Park, were locals tend to be
more lenient in their evaluation of satisfac-tion
for a facility, service or recreational
opportunity than foreigners are.
Working Definitions
Satisfaction: was defined following Oliv-er
were “Satisfaction is the consumer’s ful-fillment
response. It is a judgment that a
product or service feature, or the product of
service itself, provide (or is providing) a
pleasurable level of consumption-based
fulfillment, including levels of under-or
over- fulfillment… (Oliver, 1997)
Overall Total Visitor Satisfaction
(Awarded): was defined as the degree of
match between the customer expectation
with the infrastructure, services and recre-ational
options provided by the national
parks and protected areas in a “holistic”
way and his/her perception of the actual
infrastructure, services, and recreational
options received rating, directly requested
in one question at the end of the survey.
Overall Individual Satisfaction rating
for a facility, service or recreational op-tions:
are the individual satisfaction rat-ings
for the components provide during the
expectation–disconfirmation comparisons
for each sub-component use and enjoy or
experience, during the visit that is perform
146 A practical application of statistical gap analysis in national park management...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
by the visiting customer local or interna-tional
base on their “socio demographic
features, background, ethnic group and
personal beliefs, and is an individual satis-faction
level measurable for each of sub-component.
Expectations: are prejudices, desires,
needs, wants and individual attitudes,
which are influenced base on their socio
demographic features, background, ethnic
group, personal beliefs and the way he or
she chooses to relate with the natural envi-ronment.
Customer Visitor (Local or Internation-al):
are those that in order to enter the park
and obtain the service or product must pay
an entrance fee or be officially exonerated
of such payment.
National Parks: are those define by the
country.
Satisfaction Index (SI): Is the mathe-matical
composite construct that results
from the consolidation of “grades” assign by
each visitor for each sub-category of infra-structure,
service and recreational option
components.
Scale: the scale used was a “ likert” type
from one to 10 with one meaning total dis-satisfaction
and 10 total satisfactions. Its
maximum values is arrived at when, the
received infrastructure, services and recre-ational
options was awarded a value of 10,
meaning that A=E, (scale 0 to 10)*100 =
100%.
Dissatisfaction level: is the difference or
“gap” from 100% and is assumed“a percep-tional
measure” of the customer level of
dissatisfaction.
The model supply side is define by two
types of variables,
The “fix and given” this variable are not
under the operational control of the nation-al
park manager or administrative authori-ty
of the site, and we have called them: the
Ecocentric Provision Conditions Variables
(EPCV): natural beauty, biodiversity, natu-ral
resources and any special features pro-vided
by nature, which are given by the
natural conditions of the site and that pro-vided
the specific recreational conditions of
each site. The only real things the man-agement
can do about these variables are
to “provide safe access, information and
facilities for the purpose of enjoyment”
whether there they are locals or interna-tional
visitors.
The other group of variables is the “mod-ifiable”
variables, which are those about
which the park administration and man-agement
can do something about in order
to provide “satisfaction” making them
available and facilitating the enjoyment by
the visitor, and we have called them: the
Anthropocentric Provision Conditions Va-riables
(APCV): infrastructure, services and
recreational opportunities or human made
recreational conditions, conditions that
when confronted with the expectation of
the visitor about the infrastructure, servic-es
or condition give rise to the value as-signed
to the satisfaction grade between 1
and 10.
The demand or expectation side of the
model is define by:
Socio Demographic Variables (SDV):
age, sex, income, origin, company, educa-tion
and ethical values. The ethical values
are assume results from the socio-demographic
characteristics of the visitors
and are fix and given in the short-run.
Anthropocentric Expectations Condi-tions
Variables (AECV): are the expected
ideal conditions for infrastructure, services
and recreational opportunities, that the
visitors “brings” to the national park base
on some sort of standards that he has al-ready
develop prior to its arrival.
Therefore the possible results of the
model application in its simplest form are:
EV+APCV = SDV+ AECV, the park is at
a 100% match, between expectations and
the provisions of infrastructure, services
and recreation options. Managerially under
ideal conditions, park management would
not need to make any corrections in the
short term.
If EV+APCV > SDV +AECV in this con-dition,
park management does not need to
make any managerial corrections for the
time being.
If EV+APCV < SDV + AECV in this
condition the park administrator as park
management will need to know as a where
the “short terms broad dissatisfaction gaps”
exist and make the necessary corrections.
Juan Antonio Aguirre González 147
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
Process of Operationalization of the Model.
The first part of the process of operatio-nalization
of the adapted model was a very
long consultation process with park man-ager
and rangers of Volcan Poas National
Park, the most visited and best-equipped
national parks in Costa Rica and Volcan
Turrialba National Park one of the least
visited in order to have information on the
two extremes.The main conclusions from
the consultation process were: a) that it
was impossible to think of “pleasing” all the
visitors, since they come from at least 50
countries, not including the locals, b) the
process to be developed had to be simple, so
that they could not only apply but under-stand
it, c) have the potential of applying it
other parks so that they can compare their
results with those of others units in the
system, d) had to be management oriented
and that meant, oriented to identify areas
park management needed to improve, in
the “hope” that the problems (gaps) identi-fied
can be “ improve” quickly with the idea
that such actions will increase the “satis-faction”
of the visitors and “hopefully” will
provide the park with a good image locally
and internationally , “a good word-of mouth
propaganda” and possibly a returning cus-tomer
and e ) they wanted something that
they could use to improve budget alloca-tion.
The socio-demographic variables in-cluded
age, nationality, gender, years of
schooling (degree equivalent), monthly fam-ily
income in the local currency for nation-als,
converted later to US$ using the going
exchange rate for the period of the inter-view,
in the case of foreigners in US$
equivalent, travel company (alone, couple
or group) in the case of groups the size of
the group.
The mega components and subcompo-nents
were developed base on what Volcan
Poas National Parks had available since
this park has been since its creation “a
model” park for the National System of
Conservation Areas Organization the agen-cy
that administers all the national park in
Costa Rica.
For infrastructure mega-component, the
sub-components were 12 in total: visitor
center, restrooms, exhibitions and mu-seums,
trails, access roads, picnic areas,
parking areas, public transportation to the
park, lookouts points, souvenir shops, cafe-
148 A practical application of statistical gap analysis in national park management...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
teria and signage.
For the park services mega-component,
the sub-components were six in total: park
rangers, entrance personnel, trail map,
park information material, park technical
publications and park maps.
For the recreational options mega-component,
the subcomponent were 9 in
total: observe nature, see the volcanic cra-ter,
walk the trails, observed birds and
animals, walk with friends, walk with fami-ly,
learn about the park, learn about biodi-versity
and rest and relax.
Two additional questions were added: a)
in a scale of 1 to 10 evaluated the overall
satisfaction from the visit, 1 means totally
un-satisfy and 10 totally satisfy and b) was
there something that you expected to find
and did not found and that finding it would
have made your visit more enjoyable and
satisfying.
The Idea of the Gap (Maximum Awarded
Satisfaction Rating –Estimated Satisfac-tion
Rating) in the Statistical Analysis
One interesting feature of the consulta-tion
process since its beginning, was the
fact that as the survey was being pre-tested,
the resulting overall satisfaction
level rating awarded to the visit was supe-rior
to the overall estimated satisfaction
level averaging all the sub components of
the three mega- subcomponent. It was con-cluded
after long conversations with the
park personnel and other people knowled-geable
of the day to day running of the
parks, that what was important was not
what influence the overall satisfaction rat-ing
being awarded but “the Gap in Satisfac-tion
between the Overall Awarded Rating
and the Overall Estimated Rating”, which
the idea of the GAP capture. ( Parasura-man,
Zeithamy and Berry, 1985) and ( Le-minen,
2001)
The final survey length after all the re-finements
was one page, took on the aver-age
about 10 minutes to fill, was adminis-tered
during the “high visitation” season
which runs from Mid December to Mid
May, and coincides with the “dry season in
each location. The selection was done ran-domly
in each location. Statistical Analysis
The key dependent variable was the
GAP in satisfaction. The steps in the statis-tical
analysis were: a) development of the
satisfaction index for each mega and sub-component,
b) correlation matrix: to identi-fy
those variables highly correlated with
the key dependent variable, c) ANOVA
estimation verify groups differences, d)
standardizing the variables and estimating
the multiple regression equations with
standardized variables, to mean zero and
variance one in order to determine the rank
order of the variables using version No 12
of Minitab, e) evaluating the standardized
equations at each stage removing those
independent variables whose regression
coefficients showed p values not significant
at the 95% probability level and running
the equation again, f) Verification of the
logic of the models at each step against the
practical experience gained during the sur-veys
and discussions with each of the chief
administrators in the two sites. This last
step proved to be essential in the under-standing
of the “logic” and potential appli-cation
for park management purposes, but
particularly if the results made any sense
for operational purposes in the running and
managing tourist in the two locations.
Results
Analysis of Variance: Differences be-tween
and within types of visitors between
National Parks.
Between the two parks for foreign and
local visitors combine.
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted at two level. The first level was
between the ratings given by all the visi-tors,
in order to test the equality of means
values, for each variable between the 2
national parks, Turrialba (T) and Poas (P)
and second level was to test the within each
park, local and foreign visitors equality of
means.
The results presented in Table 1, indi-cate
that between all visitors in the two
locations, the only socio-demographic va-riables
that were not significantly different
were , sex and size of the group at the 95%
probability level. In infrastructure, all the
variables were significantly different in the
satisfaction ranking. In park services pro-vided,
with the exception of park rangers,
which was detected as non-significant dif-
Juan Antonio Aguirre González 149
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
ferences between the two sites all the oth-ers
were significantly different inn the
ranking level for satisfaction. In recrea-tional
options, all the variable were signifi-cantly
different in the satisfaction ranking.
In so far, as the values of the awarded
satisfaction index, the 2 sites were not sig-nificantly
different at the 95% probability
level, receiving all values between 8.4 and
8.7 out of a possible “perfect satisfaction
score” of 10. The estimated satisfaction
index was in the case of Turrialba, lower
than the value of the awarded satisfaction
index in the case of Poas. The values of the
GAP (Awarded-Estimated) were 3.3 points
for Turrialba, and 0.4 for Poas.
Between the parks for local visitors.
The results presented in Table 2, indi-cate
that the in the socio-demographic cha-racteristic,
non-significant differences be-tween
the two sites at the 95% probability
level were detected, in sex, and number of
persons in the group. In infrastructure, all
the variables were significantly different in
the sub-component. In terms of the park
services provided, all the variables were
detected as significantly different with the
exception of park rangers. In recreational
options, all the variables were significantly
different.
The values of the estimated satisfaction
index for local visitors, in the two sites
were significantly different from each oth-er,
at the 95% probability level. The esti-mated
satisfaction indexes were in the case
Turrialba, 5.0, and Poas 9.0. The values of
the GAP Awarded-Estimated were 2.8
points for Turrialba, and 0.3 for Poas.
Between the parks for foreign visitors.
The results presented in Table 3, indi-cate
that in the socio-demographic va-riables
non-significant differences between
the two sites at the 95% probability level
were detected, in sex and persons in-group.
In infrastructure, the analysis detected
significant differences in all the variables,
but trails and lookouts. In terms of the
park services provided, the analysis de-tected
significant differences in all the va-riables
but park rangers. In recreational
options, the analysis detected significant
differences in all the variables. The values
of the estimated satisfaction index for for-eign
visitors, in the two sites were signifi-cantly
different from each other, at the 95%
probability level. The values of the GAP
Awarded –Estimated, were 3.1 points for
Turrialba, and 0.5, for Poas.
Satisfaction Index: Passing or failing grade.
The unanimous request was from the
very beginning by park managers was to
know and understand why, how did the
park “do” in satisfying their customer the
visitor, did they “pass or failed” the exami-nation,
are visitors satisfy or not. The re-sult
was the development of a scale, very
similar to the “school” scale were anything
below a 60% was “flunk” or failed, therefore
the managers needed to worry about those
sub-components and immediately find out
was wrong, between 70% and 90% was
“OK” for the time being and anything over
90% meant that whatever they were doing
in those areas, satisfy the visitor at least in
the short term.
The results of this “management deci-sion
oriented” scale seem to have been what
the administrators and park personnel
were waiting for. Table 4, presents the re-sults,
which by the way coincide with the
analysis of variance of the “likert” scale
values ratings. The issue here was to trans-late
science into a “lay” person language.
Base on the ANOVA results, all the indi-vidual
ratings for local and international
visitors were kept separate for each site.
Table 4 summarized the results and points
out for:
For Turrialba, in infrastructure, eating
facilities, public transportation, souvenirs
and exhibitions, parking areas, and public
transportation seem to be critical, in ser-vices,
information about the park, is critical
and in the area of recreation options, ob-serve
birds and animals are critical.
For Poas, in infrastructure, exhibitions
and museums and picnic areas, in relation
with services, information seem to be a
problem in Turrialba and in the area of
recreation options, observe birds and ani-mals
and learn about biodiversity seem to
be of concern not critical.
150 A practical application of statistical gap analysis in national park management...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
Table 1 All the Visitors: One Way Analysis of Variance Comparisons.
Results for the 2 National Parks.
N.P N.P
Turrialba Poas F p TP
mean value mean value
Socio Demographics T P
Age 32 3.9 96.99 0.000 SD
Sex 0.59 0.55 1.28 0.279 NS
Nationality 0.8 0.2 464.95 0.000 SD
Education 4.8 5.9 76.98 0.000 SD
Persons in Group 7.3 7.88 21.01 0.000 NS
Infrastructure
Visitors Center 3.6 8.2 356.78 0.000 SD
Restrooms 3.1 8.5 539.22 0.000 SD
Exhibitions/Museums 1.7 7.9 666.27 0.000 SD
Trails 6.3 8.5 146.48 0.000 SD
Access Roads 4.4 8.1 364.43 0.000 SD
Picnic Areas 6.3 7.8 129.24 0.000 SD
Parking 3.8 8.4 517.71 0.000 SD
Transportation 2.8 8.4 720.07 0.000 SD
Lookouts 7.6 9.1 65.3 0.000 SD
Souvenir 1 8.5 1866.9 0.000 SD
Cafeteria 0.8 8.1 2649.1 0.000 SD
Signage 6.1 8.4 134.45 0.000 SD
Park Services
Park Rangers 7.8 8.1 69.8 0.000 NS
Entrance Personnel 5.6 8.2 194.4 0.000 SD
Trail Maps 2.4 8.2 633.33 0.000 SD
Information 4.9 8 290.59 0.000 SD
Park Publication 3.3 8 574.29 0.000 SD
Park Maps 2.4 8 561.57 0.000 SD
Recreation Options
Natural Beauty 8.5 8.9 7.04 0.001 SD
Walk the Trails 7.7 8.7 80 0.000 SD
Obs Birds & Animals 6.5 7.8 36.05 0.000 SD
Walk with Friends 7.8 8.7 17.32 0.000 SD
Walk with Family 7.2 8.6 93.12 0.000 SD
Learn about Park 6.9 8.3 42.31 0.000 SD
Learn about Biodiversity 6.9 7.9 23.28 0.000 SD
Relaxation 7.3 8.4 43.67 0.000 SD
Indices
Estimated Index Value 3.1 8.3 730.71 0.000 SD
Awarded Index Value 8.4 8.7 2.4 0.087 NS
A-D Difference 3.3 0.4 151.33 0.000 SD
TP is the Tukey's Pair wise comparisons. NS means not significantly
different and SD means significantly different.
Juan Antonio Aguirre González 151
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
Table 2 Local Visitors: One Way Analysis of Variance Comparisons.
N.P N.P
Variables Turrialba Poas F p TP
mean value mean value
Socio Demographics T P
Age 33 31 28.4 0.000 NS
Sex 0.63 0.63 17.57 0.000 NS
Education 4.84 5.3 9.55 0.000 SD
Persons in Group 7.61 9.74 29.41 0.000 NS
Infrastructure
Visitors Center 3.5 8.8 139.59 0.000 SD
Restrooms 2.8 9.1 242.32 0.000 SD
Exhibitions/Museums 1.3 8.5 297.8 0.000 SD
Trails 5.9 9.1 105.69 0.000 SD
Access Roads 4.1 9 171.25 0.000 SD
Picnic Areas 6.2 8.2 36.75 0.000 SD
Parking 3.8 9.1 171.37 0.000 SD
Transportation 2.8 8.6 199.07 0.000 SD
Lookouts 7.3 9.4 34.21 0.000 SD
Souvenir 0.9 8.9 467.85 0.000 SD
Cafeteria 0.9 8.6 582.33 0.000 SD
Signage 5.9 9 63.54 0.000 SD
Park Services
Park Rangers 7.9 8.2 49.9 0.000 NS
Entrance Personnel 5.5 8.8 113.87 0.000 SD
Trail Maps 2.3 8.9 241.82 0.000 SD
Information 4.7 8.7 95.51 0.000 SD
Park Publication 3.3 8.7 179.71 0.000 SD
Park Maps 2.1 8.9 250.74 0.000 SD
Recreation Options
Natural Beauty 8.4 9.5 14.3 0.000 SD
Walk the Trails 7.7 9.3 56.19 0.000 SD
Obs Birds & Animals 6.6 8.6 32.18 0.000 SD
Walk with Friends 7.8 9.3 19.49 0.000 SD
Walk with Family 7.7 9.3 49.29 0.000 SD
Learn about Park 6.9 9 29.25 0.000 SD
Learn about Biodiversity 7.1 8.8 22.75 0.000 SD
Relaxation 7.4 9.3 58.25 0.000 SD
Indices
Estimated Index Value 5 9 295.02 0.000 SD
Awarded Index Value 7.8 9.3 96.2 0.000 SD
A-D Difference 2.8 0.3 151.92 0.000 SD
TP is the Tukey's Pair wise comparisons. NS means not significantly
different and SD means significantly different.
152 A practical application of statistical gap analysis in national park management...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
Table 3 Foreign Visitors: One Way Analysis of Variance Comparisons.
N.P N.P
Turrialba Poas F p TP
mean value mean value
Socio Demographics T P
Age 25 41 60.88 0.000 SD
Sex 0.42 0.53 27.83 0.000 NS
Education 4.7 6.1 38.46 0.000 SD
Persons in Group 6.2 7.3 1.81 0.164 NS
Infrastructure
Visitors Center 37 8 157.5 0.000 SD
Restrooms 4.5 8.3 138.2 0.000 SD
Exhibitions/Museums 3 7.7 138.7 0.000 SD
Trails 7.9 8.4 6.16 0.002 NS
Access Roads 5.9 7.8 120.2 0.000 SD
Picnic Areas 7.1 7.8 113 0.000 SD
Parking 4 8.3 214.1 0.000 SD
Transportation 3.1 8.3 291.9 0.000 SD
Lookouts 8.8 9 3.76 0.000 NS
Souvenir 1.2 8.4 1520 0.000 SD
Cafeteria 0.76 8.4 1980 0.000 SD
Signage 6.8 8.2 44.12 0.000 SD
Park Services
Park Rangers 7.2 8 11.25 0.000 SD
Entrance Personnel 6 8.4 45.63 0.000 SD
Trail Maps 3 8.1 246.7 0.000 SD
Information 5.3 7.8 175.2 0.000 SD
Park Publication 3.3 7.8 271 0.000 SD
Park Maps 3.5 7.8 141.2 0.000 SD
Recreation Options
Natural Beauty 9 8.7 10.98 0.000 NS
Walk the Trails 7.9 8.5 24 0.000 SD
Obs Birds & Animals 5.7 7.6 34.05 0.000 SD
Walk with Friends 8 8.5 7.76 0.000 NS
Walk with Family 5 8.5 91.96 0.000 SD
Learn about Park 6.7 8.1 16.38 0.000 SD
Learn about Biodiversity 6 7.7 17.4 0.000 SD
Relaxation 6.9 8.2 13.84 0.000 SD
Indices
Estimated Index Value 5.5 8.2 300.4 0.000 SD
Awarded Index Value 8.9 8.7 1.45 0.000 NS
A-D Difference 3.1 0.5 408.9 0.000 SD
TP is the Tukey's Pair wise comparisons. NS means not significantly
different and SD means significantly different.
Juan Antonio Aguirre González 153
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
Rank Ordered Regression Analysis: Nar-rowing
the focus.
In table 5, we can observed that in the
case Volcan Turrialba National Park for-eign
visitors: visitor center with an abso-lute
value coefficient of 0.45069 and rest
and relax with an absolute value coeffi-cient
of 0,25039 were the 2 most impor-tant
variables in explaining
the variation in the GAP
(A-E). In the case of the
local visitor’s park rangers
with an absolute value
coefficient of 0.42045, and
signage with an absolute
value coefficient of
0,36360 were the two most
important variables in ex-plaining
the variation in
the GAP (A-E).
In table 6, we can ob-served
that in the case of
the foreign visitors to Vol-can
Poas National Park,
see the volcano crater with
an absolute value coeffi-cient
of 0.24124 and park
maps with an absolute
value coefficient of
0,23270 were the 2 most
important variables in ex-plaining
the variation in
the GAP (A-E). In the case
of the local visitors park
maps with an absolute val-ue
coefficient of 0.43200,
and see the volcanic crater
with an absolute value
coefficient of 0,31966 were
the two most important
variables in explaining the
variation in the GAP (A-E).
Volcan Poas National Park:
Findings to think about.
One results , that sur-prised
us in the case of
Poas was the reduction in
the value of the multiple
correlation coefficients of
the regression models de-velop,
while in the case of
Turrialba, using the
GAP(A-E) as a dependent variable, were
quite robust ,while Poas presented an R2
value of 36% for locals and 21% for foreign
visitors. The idea was how the R2 values
could be improved. At that point, instead of
using the GAP (A-E) for the Poas data, we
used the Awarded Satisfaction Value in-stead
and since we had no prior criteria, we
used first the “stepwise” technique, to de-
Table 4 Satisfaction Index: Estimated and Awarded
By Sub-Component.
Turrialba Turrialba Poas Poas
Variables Locals Foreign Locals Foreign
Age years 34 26 32 41
Origin 81 19 20 80
Education Level UI UI UI UC
Persons in Group 8 6 10 7
Infrastructure S.I S.I S.I S.I
Visitor Center 36 38 89 81
Restrooms 28 46 91 84
Exhibitions & Museums 14 30 86 78
Trails 59 80 92 84
Access Roads 41 59 90 79
Picnic Areas 62 71 83 78
Parking Areas 38 40 91 83
Public Transportation 28 31 87 84
Lookouts Points 74 89 95 90
Souvenirs 9 13 90 84
Cafeteria 9 8 86 84
Signage 60 68 90 83
Services S.I S.I S.I S.I
Park Rangers 80 72 83 81
Entrance Personnel 56 61 89 84
Trail Map 23 31 89 81
Information a Park 48 54 88 78
Park Publications 33 33 87 79
Park Map 22 35 89 79
Recreation Options S.I S.I S.I S.I
See Nature 84 90 95 88
Walk Trails 77 79 93 86
Observe B & A 67 58 87 76
Walk w Friends 79 80 94 85
Walk w Family 78 50 93 85
Learn a Park 70 67 91 81
Learn a Biodiversity 71 60 89 77
Rest and Relax 74 69 93 82
Satisfaction Index S.I S.I S.I S.I
Estimated 51 54 89 87
Awarded 79 87 93 94
E-A Gap -28 -33 -4 -7
154 A practical application of statistical gap analysis in national park management...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
velop the model. The results are presented
in Table 7. The new R2 went to 83% in the
case of the local visitors model and in the
case of the foreign model to 66% almost 3
times what we had obtained using the gap
as dependent variable.
Discussion
The two parks selected Volcan Poas Na-tional
Park (VPNP) and Volcan Turrialba
National Park (VTNP), are both active vol-canoes,
whose main attraction, is to go
“see” the crater of the volcanoes “sending
smokes and fumes” into the air. VPNP
since its creation has been a “model” park
because of the accessibility and that gives
VPNP, the best national park infrastruc-ture
and services of any park in Central
America, Costa Rica. VTNP because of its
accessibility was provided with minimal
facilities and services and is just beginning
to be developed. The idea was to select very
similar ecological conditions and two very
different stages of the development to see if
visitors to both locations could tell the dif-ference
and showed through their satisfac-tion
rating. In the case of VPNP, facilities,
services and recreational opportunities
usually are “look upon” by the Costa Rica
park systems as “the standard” all the
parks like to have.
Table 5 Turrialba Foreign and Local Visitors Standardized Regression Analysis
Foreign GAP A-E
The regression equation is
SA-E = - 0,0000 - 0,205 SSee the Natural Beauty - 0,209 SPark Publica-tions-
0,250 SRelajarse - 0,242 SLearn about Biodiversity
- 0,451 SVisitors Center
Predictor Coef StDev T P
Constant -0,00000 0,02223 -0,00 1,000
SSee the -0,20525 0,02884 -7,12 0,000
SPark Pu -0,20864 0,03130 -6,66 0,000
SRelajar -0,25039 0,02777 -9,02 0,000
SLearn a -0,24247 0,02871 -8,45 0,000
SVisitor -0,45069 0,03021 -14,92 0,000
S = 0,2278 R-Sq = 95,1% R-Sq(adj) = 94,8%
F = 380,90 P = 0,000 N = 104
Local Turrialba Regression Analysis
GAP A-E
The regression equation is
SE-A = - 0,0000 - 0,244 SPicnic Areas + 0,420 SPark Rangers - 0,364
SSignage- 0,272 SVisitors Center - 0,203 SEducation Level- 0,167
SRestrooms - 0,231 SOB Aves % An + 0,350 SLearn about Park - 0,360
SLearn about Biodiversity
Predictor Coef StDev T P
Constant -0,00000 0,03343 -0,00 1,000
SPicnic -0,24385 0,04615 -5,28 0,000
SPark Ra 0,42045 0,04218 9,97 0,000
SSignage -0,36360 0,04301 -8,45 0,000
SVisitor -0,27212 0,03734 -7,29 0,000
SEducati -0,20345 0,03560 -5,71 0,000
SRestroo -0,16698 0,03691 -4,52 0,000
SOB Aves -0,23063 0,04962 -4,65 0,000
SLearn a 0,34951 0,07889 4,43 0,000
SLearn a -0,35969 0,07521 -4,78 0,000
S = 0,7053 R-Sq = 51,3% R-Sq(adj) = 50,3%
F = 50,82 P = 0,000 N = 444
Juan Antonio Aguirre González 155
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
Table 6 Poas Foreign and Local Visitors Standardized Regression Models
Local GAP A-E
The regression equation is
SA-E = - 0,0000 + 0,288 STrail Maps - 0,432 SPark Maps - 0,253 SSex
- 0,320 SSee the Natural Beauty + 0,236 STransportation
+ 0,185 SLearn about Park + 0,238 SInformation Material
Predictor Coef StDev T P
Constant -0,00000 0,06127 -0,00 1,000
STrail M 0,28779 0,09918 2,90 0,004
SPark Ma -0,43200 0,09712 -4,45 0,000
SSex -0,25306 0,06428 -3,94 0,000
SSee the -0,31966 0,07860 -4,07 0,000
STranspo 0,23630 0,07931 2,98 0,003
SLearn a 0,18547 0,08060 2,30 0,023
SInforma 0,2378 0,1035 2,30 0,023
S = 0,8128 R-Sq = 36,6% R-Sq(adj) = 33,9%
F = 13,84 P = 0,000 N = 175
Foreign GAP A-E
The regression equation is
SA-E = 0,0000 + 0,198 SVisitors Center - 0,167 SLookout Points
+ 0,205 SParking Areas + 0,233 SPark Maps + 0,210 SOB Aves % An
- 0,241 SSee the Natural Beauty
Predictor Coef StDev T P
Constant 0,00000 0,03385 0,00 1,000
SVisitor 0,19827 0,03945 5,03 0,000
SLookout -0,16683 0,04006 -4,16 0,000
SParking 0,20526 0,04016 5,11 0,000
SPark Ma 0,23270 0,03942 5,90 0,000
SOB Aves 0,20986 0,03842 5,46 0,000
SSee the -0,24124 0,04078 -5,92 0,000
S = 0,8904 R-Sq = 21,4% R-Sq(adj) = 20,7%
F = 31,09 P = 0,000 N = 691
Table 7 Poas Local Visitors Standardized Regression Models
Locals.
Index A
The regression equation is
SIndice A = 0,0000 + 0,235 SPark Maps + 0,202 STrails
+ 0,270 SSee the Natural Beauty + 0,178 SOB Aves % An
+ 0,160 SRelajarse + 0,0982 SSouvenirs Shop+ 0,158 SPark Publications
Predictor Coef StDev T P
Constant 0,00000 0,03168 0,00 1,000
SPark Ma 0,23453 0,06055 3,87 0,000
STrails 0,20155 0,03907 5,16 0,000
SSee the 0,27003 0,04054 6,66 0,000
SOB Aves 0,17797 0,04091 4,35 0,000
SRelajar 0,16031 0,03695 4,34 0,000
SSouveni 0,09823 0,03367 2,92 0,004
SPark Pu 0,15809 0,06032 2,62 0,010
S = 0,4203 R-Sq = 83,0% R-Sq(adj) = 82,3%
F = 117,53 P = 0,000 N = 175
156 A practical application of statistical gap analysis in national park management...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
Indice A
The regression equation is
SIndice A = 0,0017 + 0,139 SWalk Trails + 0,226 SLookout Points
+ 0,185 SLearn about Park + 0,170 SInformation Material
+ 0,153 SRestrooms + 0,199 SSee the Natural Beauty
+ 0,146 SRelajarse
Predictor Coef StDev T P
Constant 0,00171 0,02215 0,08 0,938
SWalk Tr 0,13902 0,03403 4,09 0,000
SLookout 0,22617 0,02401 9,42 0,000
SLearn a 0,18527 0,02840 6,52 0,000
SInforma 0,17034 0,02602 6,55 0,000
SRestroo 0,15324 0,02368 6,47 0,000
SSee the 0,19891 0,03100 6,42 0,000
SRelajar 0,14582 0,02881 5,06 0,000
S = 0,5819 R-Sq = 66,2% R-Sq(adj) = 65,9%
F = 191,22 P = 0,000 N = 691
The second important element, that be-came
obvious from the beginning of the
consultations with the park personnel at
VPNP was the fact that Costa Rica parks
are visited not only by locals but by an im-mense
diversity of people, in the case of
Poas for example, studies conducted in
2002 and 2003 indicated that visitors came
from over 50 countries, and that it was
impossible to develop “conditions to please
that diversity”. The final agreement was to
develop at best a local standard “using per-haps
Poas” as a guideline for what a park
should have and offered that the country
could maintain and them see how the visi-tor's
reacted, anything else everybody felt it
was unaffordable base on the “normal”
budget restrictions the park system regu-larly
faces.
As it an be observed, from the data col-lected
VPNP seems to be a national parks
that appears to please “visitors from many
parts of the world, whatever standards
they brought to the park, base on what
they have experience in other countries
that they might have been before coming to
Costa Rica as well as in their country of
origin. In the case of VPNP , the awarded
rating to the overall visit and the estimated
overall rating were very close, indicating
that the overall awarded rating and the
estimated ratings, may be reflecting a very
similar process of “intellectual” aggrega-tion.
Socio-demographically is important to
remember that the non-significant differ-ences
in both groups, between parks were
found in age and education, in other words
both locations received similar people. Poas
however received more women than Tur-rialba.
The female interest in recreations is
becoming more common and their needs
will have to be seriously address in the
immediate future, if the national parks are
to satisfy and increasing number of women
as part of their regular constituency...
For Poas management.
In the case of Poas as the best equipped
national park in the country, it was the
best satisfaction rated of the two sites, and
the fact that the awarded satisfaction level
was very close to the estimated satisfaction
level rating, seem to indicate that whatever
standards locals and foreign visitors
brought with them to Poas in relation to
national parks infrastructure, services and
recreational opportunities, the location
seem to meet them. Poas in fact , was the
“only” of the two site that seem to meet
standards the visitors had about park in-frastructure,
services and recreational op-tions
if one goes by the way the awarded
satisfaction ratings coincidence with the
estimated.
The results indicated that in cases were
the estimated and awarded satisfaction
values show a very small disconfirmation
value, perhaps a “better” the dependent
variable was the “overall awarded level of
satisfaction” itself reported since what you
need to know was what influence the over-
Juan Antonio Aguirre González 157
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
all level and not the gap since the gap was
very small or did not existed in many cases.
In the cases of “developing or lesser
equipped in infrastructure, services and
recreational option, the idea was to find the
gap and what to do to close it, but that once
the gap is close and A=E, one should move
directly to the behavior of the value of A
and identify the direct areas for interven-tion
in the short and medium term man-agement
horizon.
For Turrialba Management
Volcan Turrialba National Park is a
“new” park, although its establishment
dates back many years ,it was not until
recently that because of its active crater
and its proximity to one of Costa Rica cen-tral
highland plateau major cities Cartago,
that it has began to really developed as a
destination. The on going improvement of
the access road will turn the site without
question in the coming years, into a very
important destination.
The disconfirmation that is reflected in
the low values for satisfaction in the overall
ratings and individual ratings and the em-phasis
in infrastructure and for informa-tion,
express by the visitors through their
ratings are the logical development in a
“developing” location. The findings of this
study are being given scrutiny, in the on
going tourism management planning meet-ings
at VTNP (Herrera, 2005).
In the case of VTNP, the awarded and
the estimated ratings showed a very broad
disconfirmation gap. The question is why
the estimated rating were , yielding an
overall estimated rating commensurably
low and the awarded was similar to what
VPNP was receiving. The explanation may
rest in the socio-demographics, while in the
case of VPNP; the visitors tended to be
older and very educated and were able to
rationalize their process of ratings in condi-tions
that are “very” satisfactory in compar-ison
to any parks anywhere else in the
world.
In the case of VTNP visitors were
“younger”, and that may help explain why
although they were unhappy with many
specific items, because of their age and
“perhaps” more adventurous disposition
toward the eco-recreations, they still found
VTNP, the experience satisfactory, it may
be interesting to think that a “rougher”
park may be what younger visitors want in
the first place?. What was interesting was
that both groups particularly those visiting
VTNP were able to separate the “ whole”
from the parts and make sense base on
what can be observed at VTNP and VPNP
in terms of availability and “quality” of
most of the infrastructure, services, and
recreational options .
If one looks at the sub-components rat-ings,
in the case of VPNP local visitors rat-ings
are never lower than 80% in any cate-gory.
The foreign visitors however indicated
by the award of satisfaction ratings below
80% to, exhibitions, access road, picnic
areas, and information about the park in
general, observed birds and animals and
learn about biodiversity, areas that deserve
attention. It is hard to accept that people
pass their prime may not be to enthusiastic
about, roughness and difficulties, the evi-dence
gathered is that Poas visitor’s seem
to want to enjoy nature but with a good
doses of comfort, while the younger more
adventurous VTNP visitors, are unsatis-fied,
say so but in the end they continue to
visit the site and are probably happy with
the overall visit.
Conclusions.
General Research Conclusions
a) The two sites are significantly differ-ent
from each other, based on the analysis
of variance conducted. This result was ex-pected
since the parks were selected to
represent different stages of park develop-ment
conditions in the country. Poas a
model park, and Turrialba, a park that is
beginning to be developed.,
b) Poas was the best rated park and the
awarded satisfaction level was very close to
the estimated satisfaction level rating,
which confirm its model park conditions
since its creation in 1971, so whatever visi-tors
seem to have as “a satisfaction stan-dard
in their minds” in terms of expecta-tions,
Poas was the site that seem to meet
standards the visitors had about park in-frastructure,
services and recreational op-tions,
whatever they might have been.
c) Turrialba, as expected is in need of a
very real “development support” if the park
158 A practical application of statistical gap analysis in national park management...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
is to be properly developed, receiving the
lowest ratings in many of the individual
sub-components and in the overall satisfac-tion
rating
d) The satisfaction measures for infra-structure,
services and recreational options
derived from the study prove useful for
establishing the areas of the park infra-structure,
services and recreational options
that needed management decisions in rela-tion
to their improvement from the visitor's
viewpoint.
Managerial Oriented Conclusions
a) Turrialba being a developing park,
the main interest of both groups center in
improving the visitor center facilities and
signage,
b) Poas, being the volcanic crater the
main attractions and lookouts being the
main facility to enjoy the main attractions
of the park.
c) Lookouts areas seem to be what the
park managers, need to make sure that is
maintained in excellent conditions in both
places,
c) Information and learning, seem to
critical areas and a concern by visitors, in
the two parks.
Implications for long-term management
national park management in the Central
Americans countries.
The process outline seems to help the
managers of the protected areas with:
a) Information to help “zero in”, the
management decisions in the short and
medium term and for the development of
the Tourist Management Plans that is be-ing
developed at VTNP,
b) Guidance in the resource allocation
process, under the conditions of scarcity
that are so common in developing coun-tries,
c) Regular monitoring of the conditions,
with a simple and quick methodology that
can be used for “day to day” decisions as
well as more sophisticated statistical anal-ysis
d) The identification of areas in the
management of protected areas that need
further analysis and in that way is contri-buting
to the development of the long term
socio-economic visitor's research programs
in national parks,
e) The “real” importance of the informa-tion
and education activities in national
parks, combination of activities that seems
to be critical to enhance “consumer satis-faction”
among the visitors to national
parks and
f) Information and education as means
of facilitating whether visitors needs and
expectations are met, whether they receive
what they should and as a context for anal-ysis
of human use on the country national
parks.
g) A real application that demonstrates
that even thought many criticisms have
been raised against the expectations-disconfirmation
theoretical framework to
study the level of visitor's satisfaction in
the case of national parks offers the poten-tial
to help orient management decisions
substantially exist.
In terms of the general hypothesis that
it was established that significant differ-ences
between local and foreign visitors in
satisfaction levels in park infrastructure,
services and recreational options existed
and even though the two parks are differ-ent
in development stages and facilities,
that local and foreign visitors are different
within and between parks, their needs and
concerns point in very similar directions, in
terms of the infrastructure, services and
recreational option, logical coincidence in-dicating,
that “sound and well oriented”
management improvements will have a
tendency to benefit “all” visitors and that
should always be kept in mind.
One last comment that seems essential
at this time. Even though, in VPNP and
VTNP local and foreign visitors seem to be
different. Therefore, “sound good oriented”
management decisions to improve infra-structure,
services and recreational options
will benefit “all” of the consuming visitors
that come to experience Costa Rica and
Central America national parks, indepen-dent
of the norms and standards they bring
in their minds in their quest for eco-tourist
recreational activities, in and that should
always be kept in mind.
Juan Antonio Aguirre González 159
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
Bibliography.
Akama, J.S. and Mukethe Kiety, Damian-nah
2002 “Measuring tourist satisfaction with
the Kenya’s wildlife safari: a case study
of Tsavo West National Park”. Tourism
Management. 24: 73-81.
Bitner, M.J., and Hubbert, A.R.
1994 Encounter Satisfaction versus Overall
Satisfaction versus Quality: The Cus-tomer’s
Voice. In Rust, R.T and Oliver,
R.L.(Eds.). Service Quality: New Direc-tions
in Theory and Practice. Thousand
Oak, CA: Sage, 72-92.
Boza, Mario
1993 “Conservation in Action: Past, Present
and Future of the National Park System
of Costa Rica”. Conservation Biology.
7(2): 239-247.
Chang Chia Ming, Chen Chin Tsu and Hsu
Chin Hsien
2002 “A Review of Service Quality in corpo-rate
and Recreational Sport/Fitness
Programs”. United States Sports Acad-emy
Journal. 5(3). Reprint.13 pages
Dobles Zeledon, Juan
2001 Personal Communication. Park Direc-tor.
Volcan Poas National Park.
Erevelles and Leavitt
1992 “A Comparison of Current Models of
Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction”.
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dis-satisfaction
and Complaining Behavior,
8: 53-58.
Ham, Sam H y Whipple, Rob
1998. Volcan Masaya National Park Visitor
Profile, Nicaragua. Department of Re-source
Recreation and Tourism. College
of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Science.
University of Idaho. Research Report.
AED Order 222429-7P-068).71 pages
Ham, Sam and Weiler, Betty
2000.Perfil de los Turistas en las Areas
Protegidas de la Cuenca del Canal de
Panama. Eoturismo en la Cuenca del
Canal de Panama. Segunda Parte. De-partment
of Resource Recreation and
Tourism. College of Forestry, Wildlife
and Range Science. University of Idaho.
Informe Final de Investigacion. Poyecto
222429-30. 38 pages
Herrera Sibaja, Horacio
2004 Personal Communication. Park Direc-tor
. Volcan Turrialaba National Park.
Hom, Willard
2000 .An Overview of Customer Satisfac-tion
Models. R P Proceedings . Chancel-lor’s
Office. Calfifornia Community Col-lege.
Pages 99-110.
Latu, Tavite M and Everett, Andre M.
2000 Review of Satisfaction Research and
Measurement Approaches. Science and
Research Internal Report No 183. De-partment
of Conservation. Wellington
.N.Z. 43 pages
Leminen, Seppo
2001 Gaps in buyer seller-relationships.
Management Decisions. London: 2001.
Vol.39.Iss. 3; pg 180
Mackoy, R.D and Spreng, R.A.
s/f The Dimensionality of Costumer Satis-faction
and Dissatisfaction; An Empiri-cal
Examination. Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Com-plaining
Behavior, 9, 104-104.
National Park Services
2001 Visitor Survey Card: VSC Workbook.
Survey Instructions and Guidelines and
Survey Analysis and Reporting Guide-lines.
United States Department of the
Interior. Report Prepare by the Univer-sity
of Idaho Cooperative Park Studies
Unit for the National Park Services.
Washington, D.C. 80 pages
National Park Services
1998. National Park System. Visitor Sur-vey
Card Report. United States De-partment
of the Interior. Report Prepare
by the University of Idaho Cooperative
Park Studies Unit for the National Park
Services. Washington, D.C. 4 pages
National Park Services
1999 National Park System .Visitor Survey
Card Report. United States Department
of the Interior. Report Prepare by the
University of Idaho Cooperative Park
Studies Unit for the National Park Ser-vices.
Washington, D.C. 4 pages
National Park Services
2000 National Park System .Visitor Survey
Card Report. United States Department
of the Interior. Report Prepare by the
University of Idaho Cooperative Park
Studies Unit for the National Park Ser-vices.
Washington, D.C. 4 pages
National Park Services
2001. National Park System .Visitor Sur-vey
Card Report. United States De-partment
of the Interior. Report Prepare
160 A practical application of statistical gap analysis in national park management...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
by the University of Idaho Cooperative
Park Studies Unit for the National Park
Services. Washington, D.C. 4 pages
National Park Services
2002 National Park System .Visitor Survey
Card Report. United States Department
of the Interior. Report Prepare by the
University of Idaho Cooperative Park
Studies Unit for the National Park Ser-vices.
Washington, D.C. 4 pages
National Park Services
2003 National Park System .Visitor Survey
Card Report. United States Department
of the Interior. Report Prepare by the
University of Idaho Cooperative Park
Studies Unit for the National Park Ser-vices.
Washington, D.C. 4 pages
National Park Services
2004 National Park System .Visitor Survey
Card Report. United States Department
of the Interior. Report Prepare by the
University of Idaho Cooperative Park
Studies Unit for the National Park Ser-vices.
Washington, D.C. 4 pages
National Quality Research Center
2004 American Consumer Satisfaction In-dex
University of Michigan Business
School. Cloes Fornell International
Group and Federal Consulting Group.
Natural Resource Conservation Service.
Environmental Quality Incentives Pro-gram.
Customer Satisfaction Study. Fi-nal
Report. Michigan. 20 pages
Oliver, R.L.
1994 Conceptual Issues in the Structural
Analysis of Consumption Emo-tion.
Satisfaction, and Quality: Evidence
in a Service Setting. In Allen, C.T and
John, D.R. (Eds). Advances in Consumer
Ressearch, Vol. 21. Association for Con-sumer
Research. Provo. UT, 16-22.
Oliver, R.
1997 Satisfaction : A Behavioral Perspec-tive
on the Consumer. Boston: McGraw-
Hill, 1997.
Oliver, R.
1999 Value as Excellence in the Consump-tion
Experience. In M. Holbrook (Ed.),
Consumer Value: A framework for
Analysis and Research. 43-62, New
York: Routledge.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithami, V.A., and Ber-ry,
L.L.,
1985 A Conceptual Model of service quality
and its implications for future research.
Journal of Marketing, 49 (Fall) 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithami, V.A., and Ber-ry,
L.L.,
1988 SERVQUAL : A multiple items scale
for measuring consumer perception of
service quality. Journal of Retailing. 64
(1) . 12-37.
Parks Canada.
2003 State of Protected Heritage Areas.
Annual Report. (e.g.,
http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/links/goto_e.as
p?destination=http://www.iccs-isac.
org/eng/cf-02.htm).
Reynolds, P.C., and Braithwaite, Dick
2002 Toward a conceptual framework for
wildlife tourism. Tourism Manage-ment.
22 (2002), 31-42.
Shazo , I.R. y Monestel Vega, Luis.
1999 Costa Rica. Caracterización de los
Visitantes y sus Opiniones para las
Principales Areas Protegidas Publicas y
Privadas. Development Discussion Pa-pers
No 689. Central American Project
Series. Harvard Institute for Interna-tional
Development. Harvard Universi-ty.
33 pages
Swan, J.E., Martin, W.S., and Trawick Jr,
Frederick
2003 Compensatory Birding: An Ethnogra-phy
of Avoiding Dissapointment and
Producing Satisfaction in Birding. Jour-nal
of Consumer Sastifaction , Dissatis-faction
and Complaining Behavior. Pro-vo:
2003. Vol.16. pp 157-166
Tian-Cole, Shu., Crompton, J.L., and Will-son.,
Victor. L.
2002 An Empirical Investigation of the
Relationships Between Service Quality,
Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions
Among Visitors to a Wildlife Refugees.
Journal of Leisure Reearch. 2002. Vol
34, no. 1, pp 1-24.
Yu, Larry and Goulden, Monthuya.
2005 A comparative analysis on interna-tional
tourist’s satisfaction in Mongolia.
Tourism Management. Article in Press.
Accepted for Publication. 16 June 2005.
United Nations Environmental Program.
2005 World Data base of Protected Areas.
Current Site Summary. Central Ameri-ca.
www.sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/-
Juan Antonio Aguirre González 161
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(2). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121
statistics/region2.cfm?a Region com-tains:
Belice, Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicargua, Pa-nama.
11/25/2005.
Webb, Dave and Hassall, Kate
2002 Measuring visitor satisfaction in
Western Australia’s conservation state.
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dis-satisfaction
and Complaining Beha-vior.
Provo: 2002.Vol. 15 pg 81
Woodruff, R.B., and Gardial, S.F.
1996 Know Your Customer: New Ap-proaches
to Understanding Customer
Value Satisfaction. Cambridge, Massa-chusetts:
Blackwell.
Recibido: 17 de marzo de 2008
Reenviado: 15 de noviembre de 2008
Aceptado: 28 de febrero de 2009
Sometido a evaluación por pares anónimos