한국환경생태학회지 (Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology)

  • 제23권4호
  • /
  • Pages.309-316
  • /
  • 2009
  • /
  • 1229-3857(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-131X(eISSN)
한국환경생태학회 (Korean Society of Environment and Ecology)
권호 표지

휴양지역의 조우 평가기준 설정을 위한 시각매체의 활용시 움직임의 효과

Effects of Movement When Using Visual Media to Determine Encounter Standards1a

  • 김상오 (전남대학교 농업생명과학대학 임학과) ;
  • Kim, Sang-Oh (Department of Forestry, College of Agriculture & Life Science, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Shelby, Bo (Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University)
  • 발행 : 2009.08.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

휴양지역의 평가기준 설정을 위한 다양한 시각매체의 활용가능성에 대한 관심이 높다. 그러나 기준평가를 위한 시각 매체의 유용성은 시각매체가 얼마나 정확하게 현장 상태를 반영하는가에 달려있다. 본 연구는 정적 이미지와 동적 이미지를 이용하여 산정된 조우기준을 비교함으로써 움직임의 효과를 평가하였다. 연구대상지는 무등산도립공원 내 중머리 지역이었다. 총 50명의 대학생이 실험실 조사에 참여하였으며 Photoshop과 Flash 컴퓨터 프로그램을 이용하여 제작된 정적이미지와 동적 이미지의 허용도를 평가하였다. 조사결과, 정적 이미지와 동적 이미지 간에 최대허용수에 차이가 없는 것으로 분석되었으며 전반적 조우규범측정곡선도 거의 동일한 것으로 나타났다. 이미지 노출 순서와 움직이는 사람의 비율에 따른 조우기준도 조사되었다. 그러나 본 지역과 같은 특정 상황에서 조우기준을 개발하기 위하여 정적 이미지 대신 보다 복잡한 방법을 요구하는 동적 이미지를 이용함으로써 얻는 이점은 없다고 판단된다. 보다 정교한 매체이용에 따른 장단점에 대하여 토의하였으며 다른 자원환경 평가에 움직임 또는 소리와 같은 요소들이 조우규범에 미치는 영향에 대한 보다 많은 연구가 요구된다.

The usefulness of media representations for assessing normative standards depends in part on how accurately media reflect "on-the-ground" resource conditions. This study compared encounter standards based on still and moving pictures to assess movement effects. The study location was the Jungmoeri area of Mudeungsan Provincial Park (MPP) in Korea. A total of 50 college students participated in a laboratory experiment where they evaluated still and moving pictures constructed using Photoshop and Flash computer programs. For the maximum acceptable number (MAN), however, there was no significant difference of ratings between still and moving pictures, and the overall encounter norm curves were nearly identical. There were some "method findings" for ordering effects and percent of people moving, but for a resource manager developing standards there was no advantage to the more complex logistics of using moving pictures to assess this particular impact. The trade-offs of using more sophisticated media are discussed, and more research is needed to further explore factors such as movement of sound in evaluation of other resource conditions.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bateson, J. and M.K. Hui(1992) The ecological validity of photographic slides and videotapes in simulating the service setting. Journal of Consumer Research 19: 271-281 https://doi.org/10.1086/209301
  2. Daniel, T.C. and R.S. Boster(1976) Measuring landscape aesthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. Research Paper RM-167. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 66pp
  3. Daniel, T.C. and M.M. Meitner(2001) Representational validity of landscape visualizations: The effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21: 61-72 https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0182
  4. Freimund, W.A., J.J. Vaske, M.P. Donnelly and T.A. Miller(2002) Using video surveys to access dispersed backcountry visitors' norms. Leisure Sciences 24: 349-362 https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400290050790
  5. Graefe, A.R., F.R. Kuss and J.J. Vaske(1986) Recreation impacts and carrying capacity: A visitor impact framework. Washington, DC: National Conservation Association. 107pp
  6. Hall, T. and J.W. Roggenbuck(2002) Response format effects in questions about norms: Implications for the reliability and validity of the normative approach. Leisure Sciences 24: 325-337 https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400290050772
  7. Heberlein, T.A., G.E. Alfano and L.H. Ervin(1986) Using a social carrying capacity model to estimate the effects of marina development at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Leisure Sciences 8: 257-274 https://doi.org/10.1080/01490408609513075
  8. Hetherington, J., T.C. Daniel and T.C. Brown(1993) Is motion more important than it sounds?: The medium of presentation in environment perception research. Journal of Environmental Psychology 13: 283-291 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80251-8
  9. Inglis, G.J., V.I. Johnson and F. Ponte(1999) Crowding norms in marine settings: A case study of snorkeling on the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Management 24: 369-381 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900240
  10. Kellomaki, S. and R. Savolainen(1984) The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landscape Planning 11: 97-107 https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(84)90033-9
  11. Kim, S.O. and B. Shelby(2005) Developing standards for trail conditions using image capture technology. Leisure Sciences 27: 279-295 https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400590930691
  12. Manning, R.E. and D.W. Lime(1996) Crowding and carrying capacity in the national park system: Toward a social science research agenda. In: D.W. Lime (ed.), Congestion and crowding in the national park system: Guidelines for management and research (Miscellaneous Publication 86-1996, pp. 27-66). St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota
  13. Manning, R.E., D.W. Lime, W. Freimund and D. Pitt (1996) Crowding norms at frontcountry sites: A visual approach to setting standards of quality. Leisure Sciences 18: 39-59 https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409609513271
  14. Manning, R.E., S. Lawson, P. Newman, D. Laven and W. Valliere(2002) Methodological issues in measuring crowding-related norms in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences 24: 339-348 https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400290050781
  15. Manning, R.E. and W.A Freimund(2004) Use of visual research methods to measure standards of quality for parks and outdoor recreation. Journal of Leisure Research 36: 557-579 https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2004.11950036
  16. Manning, R.E., W. Vallierer, B. Wang and C. Jacobi (1999) Crowding norms: Alternative measurement approaches. Leisure Sciences 21: 97-115 https://doi.org/10.1080/014904099273174
  17. Martinson, K. and B. Shelby(1992) Encounter and proximity norms for salmon anglers in California and New Zealand. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12: 559-567 https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8675(1992)012<0559:EAPNFS>2.3.CO;2
  18. Needham, M.D. and R.B. Rollins(2005) Interest group standards for recreation and tourism impacts at ski areas in the summer. Tourism Management 26: 1-13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.08.015
  19. Patterson, M.E. and W.E. Hammitt(1990) Backcountry encounter norms, actual reported encounters, and their relationship to wilderness solitude. Journal of Leisure Research 22: 259-275 https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1990.11969829
  20. Shafer, E.L. and T.A. Richards(1974) A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. Research Paper NE-302. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. 26pp
  21. Shelby, B.(1981) Encounter norms in backcountry settings: Studies of three rivers. Journal of Leisure Research 13: 129-138 https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1981.11969475
  22. Shelby, B. and B. Shindler(1992) Interest group standards for ecological impact at wilderness campsites. Leisure Sciences 14: 17-27 https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409209513154
  23. Shelby, B. and J.J. Vaske(1991) Using normative data to develop evaluative standards for resource management: A comment on three recent papers. Journal of Leisure Research 23: 173-187 https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1991.11969850
  24. Shelby, B., J.J. Vaske and M. Donnelly(1996) Noons, standards, and natural resources. Leisure Sciences 18: 103-123 https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409609513276
  25. Shelby, B., J.J. Vaske and R. Harris(1988) User standards for ecological impacts at wilderness campsites. Journal of Leisure Research 20: 245- 256 https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1988.11969778
  26. Shelby, B. and R. Harris(1985) Comparing methods for determining visitor evaluations of ecological impacts: Site visits, photographs, and written descriptions. Journal of Leisure Research 17: 57-67 https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1985.11969614
  27. Shelby, B. and T.A. Heberlein(1986) Carrying capacity in recreation settings. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, 164pp
  28. Shuttleworth, S.(1980) The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management 11: 61-76
  29. Stamps, A.E.(1990) Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills 71: 907-913 https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.71.7.907-913
  30. Stankey, G.H., D.N. Cole, R.C. Lucas, M.E. Petersen and S.S. Frissell(1985) The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning (Report INT -176). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service. 37pp
  31. Vaske, J.J.(1977) The relationship between personal norms, social norms and reported contacts in Brule River visitors' perception of crowding. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 77pp
  32. Vaske, J.J., B. Shelby, A.R. Graefe, and T.A. Heberlein(1986) Backcountry encounter norms: Theory, method and empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research 18: 137-153 https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1986.11969653
  33. Vaske, J.J., M.P. Donnelly and J.P. Petruzzi(1996) Country of origin, encounter norms, and crowding in a fiontcountry setting. Leisure Sciences 18(2): 161-176 https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409609513279
  34. Whittaker, D. and B. Shelby(2002) Evaluating instream flows for recreation: Applying the structural norms approach to biophysical conditions. Leisure Sciences 24(3-4): 363-373 https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400290050808
  35. Whittaker, D. and B. Shelby(1988) Types of norms for recreation impacts: Extending the social norms concept. Journal of Leisure Research 20: 261-273 https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1988.11969780
  36. Williams, D.R., J.W. Roggenbuck and S. Bange(1991) The effect of norm-encounter compatibility on crowding perceptions, experience and behavior in river recreation settings. Journal of Leisure Research 23: 154-172 https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1991.11969849
  37. Zube, E.H., D.G. Pitt and T.W. Anderson(1975) Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast. In: E. Zube, R. Brush and J. Fabos (ed.) Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, pp. 151-167