Introduction
Urban residents frequently visit national parks, natural recreation forests and mountains near the city for recreation. Moreover, the increasing environmental awareness has brought about greater interest in the importance of green space and nature restoration (Eom, 2008). These people’s interest inevitably leads to understanding and education about forests. Therefore, the role of forest interpreters is expanding from merely guiding visitors through the forest to providing understanding and education about forests itself and forest resources for the visitors.
The enactment of the Forestry Culture and Recreation Act in 2005 established the legal grounds for education and utilization of forest interpreters, and then the forest interpreter qualification system has been fully implemented through the Forest Education Promotion Act in 2012, resulting on approximately 6,500 interpreters trained as of December 2015 (Park and Jang, 2016). Furthermore, the number of participants in forest interpretation programs increased rapidly from 7 thousand in 1999 to 1.132 million in 2010 and then 1.806 million in 2014 (Korea Forest Service, 2015; Park and Jang, 2016).
Interpretation is an adequate combination of information, guidance and education services that help bring new understanding, insight and interest of users on cultural, historical and natural resources. At the same time it is a technique that describes the visiting place to visitors, having them recognize the importance of interrelation of the environment and realize the legitimacy of environmental conservation, and helps them to practice what they have learned in the forests (Cho, 2007; Edwards, 1965; Juvenvile et al., 1987). Forest interpretation provides a beautiful natural landscape for visitors while also helping them experience the forest as well (Jeoun et al., 2014).
Up until recently, the studies on forest interpretation have been on the participation motive and job training satisfaction of forest interpreters or the demands and development of forest interpretation programs (Cho, 2007, 2012; Jeoun et al., 2014; Ko and Shin, 2011; Park and Jang, 2016), but this research area is still at a level where many research results have not been derived. In particular, the major results among the studies that have been conducted thus far on development of forest interpretation programs were derived by Cho (2007, 2012), who conducted researches on the characteristics of visitors in Woraksan National Park and Baekunsan Natural Recreation Forest. In fact, forest interpretation programs have been developed and implemented empirically by forest interpreters assigned in different recreational forests, without systematic evaluation or feedback about the programs. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the public awareness, necessity, future participation intent, experience and satisfaction, and demands of forest interpretation programs, and suggest programs to increase future participation intent and satisfaction through the results.
Research Method
This study set the hypothesis that there are key factors to increase public participation and satisfaction in forest interpretation programs and that they are correlated to one another, and designed an experiment for verification. Accordingly, the recognition and demands of participants on forest interpretation programs were analyzed, and their attitude toward the programs of potential users was also evaluated. The experimental design consists of questionnaire design, survey and statistical analysis. Total 107 survey participants were selected by random sampling once they agreed to participate after the researchers personally explained the survey objective and method in Jinju and Gyeongnam region where arboretums and recreational forests are located nearby (Kim et al., 2009). Total 100 questionnaires were selected, excluding those with insincere or insufficient responses, among the ones finally collected. The questionnaire design consists of three categories according to the conceptual definition and variables as shown in Table 1. First, there are 4 variables on socio-demographic background as general characteristics. Second, there are 5 variables on the recognition of potential users of forest interpretation: each rated on a 5-point Likert scale; for example, the question for “awareness of forest interpretation programs” was“ How much do you think you know about forest interpreters or forest interpretation programs?”, which was rated 5 points for “very well” and 1 point for “not at all” (Kim et al., 2009). Third, there were 9 variables on demands of respondents as potential users on forest interpretation program. The collected data was analyzed using IBM SPSS ver. 24.0, conducting a frequency analysis on recognition and demands of forest interpretation programs as well as socio-demographic background of participants. Exploratory correlation analysis and path analysis were conducted on the variables to determine the correlation among awareness of forest interpretation programs, necessity, future participation intent, and experience.
Table 1
Scheme of questionnaire design.
Results and Discussions
Socio-demographic background
Of all respondents, 68% were male and 32% were female, showing that there were relatively more male respondents than female. 75% of them were in their 20s, followed by 17% in their 30s, 5% under age 18, 2% in their 50s, and 1% in other ages, indicating that the youth and the prime-aged population have interest in forest interpretation (Table 2). They were relatively younger than the major age groups visiting recreational forests and mountains in the suburbs (Kim and Huh, 2016; Heo et al., 2016). As for education level, undergraduate students and bachelor degree holders accounted for 38% and 22%, while others took up 39%, showing an even distribution. For residential area, Jinju took up 72% and Gyeongnam region 27%.
Table 2
Socio-demographic background of respondents.
| Variable | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| Gender | Male | 68 |
| Female | 32 | |
| Total | 100 | |
|
|
||
| Age | 18 and under | 5 |
| 19-29 | 75 | |
| 30-39 | 17 | |
| 40-60 | 2 | |
| 60+ | 1 | |
| Total | 100 | |
|
|
||
| Education | High school and others | 39 |
| Undergraduate | 38 | |
| Bachelor degree | 22 | |
| Master degree and higher | 1 | |
| Total | 100 | |
|
|
||
| Residential location | Jinju city | 72 |
| Gyeognam provincez | 27 | |
| Other | 1 | |
| Total | 100 | |
Recognition on forest interpretation programs
The result of analyzing the awareness of forest interpretation programs showed that 32% of the respondents said they do not know it well, and 31% said they have never heard of it, indicating that overall, 63% are not sufficiently aware of forest interpretation programs (Table 3). In a study on the user characteristics of recreational forests in the suburbs and the promotion of recognition in forest recreation culture, Lee and Kim (2001) discovered that user awareness of forest culture programs was not very high. Park et al. (2002) claimed in a study on the user behavior of recreational forests that the awareness of forest interpretation programs was low at 11%. Even though the awareness of forest interpretation programs in this study is low at 27%, it shows an increase compared to the results by Lee and Kim (2001) and Park et al. (2002). The result of analyzing the necessity of forest interpreters and forest interpretation programs showed that 7% of the respondents said they are strongly necessary, 45% said they are necessary, and 39% gave a neutral response, proving that overall the recognition on the necessity was obviously high. In a study on the plans to promote National Recreation Forest, Kim et al. (2007) claimed that users recognize the importance of managing education and outdoor learning programs. The result of analyzing future participation intent of forest interpretation programs showed that 52% of the respondents said they would participate, and 38% said they might. Park et al. (2002) claimed that 63.4% responded they would participate in forest interpretation programs if possible. Overall the awareness of forest interpretation programs was low, but the necessity and participation intent were relatively high. To increase practical participation, it is necessary to come up with a way to attract active participation of people who say that they would or might participate.
Table 3
Awareness, necessity, and future participation intent of forest interpreter and interpretation program.
The result of analyzing the experience of forest interpretation programs showed that the highest ratio (74%) of the respondents said they never experienced, followed by 11% that experienced once and 4% that experienced at least 10 times (Table 4). In the analysis of satisfaction among the respondents that have experience in forest interpretation programs, 80% said they were neutral, followed by 8% that were strongly satisfied and 8% that were satisfied, 4% that were strongly unsatisfied and 0% that were unsatisfied. Park et al. (2002) claimed that the biggest motive for visiting recreational forests is clear water and valley, followed by rest and meditation, stress relief, breakaway from the city, and appreciation of natural landscape. Connell and Meyer (2004) mentioned that people visit botanical gardens to enjoy themselves, appreciate the landscape, have quality time with friends or family, and find pleasure in staying within nature. Ballantyne et al. (2008) discovered that the visitors’motivations of interest, concentration, and education on conservation were relatively low at Mt. Coot-tha Botanic Gardens in Australia. Considering these results, the visitors’ expectations and demands of forest interpretation programs may not be limited only to education. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the factors that affect satisfaction and improve satisfaction by interpreting the correlation and influence among factors though most showed at least a neutral level of satisfaction or higher.
Table 4
Experience and satisfaction of forest interpretation program.
As a result of analyzing the correlation among awareness, necessity, future participation intent and experience of forest interpretation programs to promote participation, it was found that future participation intent had a significant correlation with necessity, awareness with necessity and experience, necessity with awareness and future participation intent, and experience with awareness (p<.01).
The model in Fig. 1 is obtained from the result of path analysis using an exploratory method among forest interpretation programs awareness, necessity, future participation intent and experience with correlation. Although theoretical interpretation is limited because the model was derived with an exploratory method without the basis on previous research findings, the model can be interpreted as follows. The model was fit with chi-square (χ2) statistics at 2.813, degree of freedom (df) 3, and p .421. Furthermore, according to Kim (2010), Xu and Fox (2014), Kim and Huh (2016), GFI (goodness of fit index) was 1.000 while .90 or higher is the adequate level, and RMR (root mean square residual) was .032 while .050 or lower is the adequate level. AGFI (adjusted GFI) was 0.953 while .900 or higher is adequate, NFI (normal fit index) was 0.954 while 0.900 or higher is adequate, and TLI (Tucker-Lewis index) was 1.007 while 0.9 or higher is adequate. As a result, the model’s goodness of fit turned out to be satisfactory.
Figure 1
Path analysis model of awareness, necessity, future participation intent (FPI), and experience of forest interpretation program: χ2=2.813, df=3, p=.421.
Table 5
Correlation of awareness, necessity, future participation intent, and experience of forest interpretation program.
| Variable | Awareness | Necessity | FPIz | Experience | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||||
| Awareness | Person correlation | 1.000 | |||
| Sig. (2-tail) | |||||
|
|
|||||
| Necessity | Person correlation | .291** | 1.000 | ||
| Sig. (2-tail) | .003 | ||||
|
|
|||||
| FPI | Person correlation | .193 | .505** | 1.000 | |
| Sig. (2-tail) | .054 | .000 | |||
|
|
|||||
| Experience | Person correlation | .428** | .013 | .099 | 11.000 |
| Sig. (2-tail) | .000 | .900 | .328 | ||
The non-standardized and standardized regression coefficients between [awareness ← participation experience] are .459 and .428, respectively, and p was .000, indicating great significance (Table 6). And then [necessity ← awareness] and [future participation intent ← necessity] were also highly significant. The statistical significance of indirect effect was tested with bootstrapping (Kim, 2010), and the result showed that the standardized indirect effect of [participation experience → awareness → necessity] is .124 and p .010, showing significance (Table 7). The indirect effect of [participation experience → awareness → necessity → future participation intent] and [awareness → necessity → future participation intent] also turned out to be significant. Therefore, this indicates that participation experience of forest interpretation programs has direct and indirect positive effects with significance on awareness, necessity, and future participation intent, and awareness on necessity and future participation intent. Moreover, necessity has direct positive effects with significance on future participation intent.
Table 6
Regression weights among awareness, necessity, future participation intent, and experience of forest interpretation program.
| Unstandardized estimate | Standardized estimate | S.E. | C.R. | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||||
| Awareness ← Experience | .459 | .428 | .097 | 4.711 | .000 |
| Necessity ← Awareness | .208 | .291 | .069 | 3.021 | .003 |
| FPIz ← Necessity | .510 | .505 | .088 | 5.819 | .000 |
Table 7
Standardized indirect effects and two tailed significance among of awareness, necessity, future participation intent, and experience of forest interpretation program.
| Experience | Awareness | Necessity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||
| Awareness | Standardized indirect effect | .000 | .000 | .000 |
| p-value | - | - | - | |
|
|
||||
| Necessity | Standardized indirect effect | .124* | .000 | .000 |
| Sig. (2-tail) | .010 | - | - | |
|
|
||||
| FPIz | Standardized indirect effect | .063* | .505* | .000 |
| Sig. (2-tail) | .010 | .010 | - | |
Demands of forest interpretation programs
Forest interpreters
The most proper major for forest interpreter was forestry, landscape architecture and horticulture that took up 91%, implying that having expertise is important (Table 8). The appropriate education level of forest interpreter was bachelor degree (45%), while 35% also said it doesn’t matter, which shows that while it is good to have specialized knowledge, a similar level of people also thinks it doesn’t matter. The appropriate career of forest interpreters was providing knowledge and information of forests (46%), followed by communicating with participants (27%) and minimizing use of forest resources (19%). With regard to this, Ha and Kim (2006) presented 6 categories as the major tasks of forest interpreters: developing expertise, understanding the target area, program planning, development, implementation and evaluation. Cho (2007) mentioned that natural environment interpretation is a tool that provides inspiration, education, culture and beautiful recreational experience for visitors of national parks and natural recreation forests, and conserves the culture, history and natural resources for the agencies that manage the national parks and natural recreation forests. Overall forest interpreters need the education level and career to provide knowledge and necessary information on forests for visitors, and to minimize the use of forest resources for management agencies.
Table 8
Demands of respondents as latent user related to major, education level, and career of forest interpreter.
Forest interpretation programs
In the demand of attractive contents for forest interpretation programs, recreational activities accounted for the highest ratio at 47%, followed by forest conservation (32%) and education (12%) (Table 9). Park et al. (2002) mentioned that people showed most interest in environmental conservation for the contents that must be included in forest interpretation programs, followed by forest functions, trees and flowering plants, and wild animals, while this study proved that people generally showed interest in recreation and environmental conservation. Proper objective of forest interpretation programs were experience and interest at the ratio of 42%, followed by education (20%), conservation and resource, and public relation of forests and parks (19%). The preferable style in selecting forest interpretation programs was participation and experience with the highest ratio of 52%, followed by recognizing the importance of how to use and conserve forests (31%). This is similar to the above-mentioned results by Park et al. (2002), Connell and Meyer (2004), and Ballantyne et al. (2008), indicating that users prefer amusing programs for recreational activities while showing relatively lower preference in educational programs.
Table 9
Demands of respondents as latent user related to content, purpose, and style of forest interpretation programs.
The key condition in selecting the venue for forest interpretation programs was diversity with the highest ratio of 45%, followed by safety (20%), connectivity to the community (19%), and accessibility (15%) (Table 10). Kim et al. (2007) mentioned in a study on the activation of National Recreation Forest that users recognize high importance of ‘management of education and outdoor learning programs’, ‘various experience programs’, and ‘tour packages connected to surroundings’ and that it is necessary to prepare various education and experience programs, and tour packages accordingly. The study showed a similar tendency in terms of diversity of venues and connectivity to the community. The proper participation duration of forest interpretation programs showed similar percentages overall. Regular experience type was highest at 30%, but the others were also similar, such as short-term experience type at 27%, one-day experience type 22%, and long-term experience type 20%. The proper operation season for forest interpretation programs was spring (33%), followed by summer (19%) and fall (15%), while 4% also said winter and 29% said it doesn’t matter. It seemed that forest interpretation programs can be operated regardless of the season unless the climatic conditions make outdoor activities impossible.
Table 10
Demands of respondents as latent user related to condition, participation duration, and operation season of forest interpretation programs.
Conclusion
This study was conducted to analyze the recognition and demands of forest interpretation programs for wise use and improvement of forest recreational resources. To estimate the awareness, necessity, future participation intent, experience and satisfaction, and demands of forest interpretation programs, a survey was conducted on 100 residents living in Jinju city or Gyeongnam region. Frequency analysis, correlation analysis and path analysis were conducted on the collected data. Overall 63% of the respondents were not sufficiently aware of forest interpretation programs, while the recognition on the need of such programs was obviously high. The analysis of future participation intent of forest interpretation programs showed that 52% said they would participate, and 38% said they might. 74% responded that they had never experienced forest interpretation programs, and 80% of those with experience responded they were neutral about their satisfaction with the programs. The correlation analysis among the awareness, necessity, future participation intent and experience of forest interpretation programs showed that future participation intent had a highly significant correlation with necessity. In the path analysis, it was found that not only necessity but also awareness and experience had an indirect positive effect on future participation intent. Therefore, future participation intent can be improved by increasing experience and awareness as well as necessity. Forest interpreters needed expertise to provide knowledge and necessary information on the forests. The attractive contents for forest interpretation programs was recreational activities, followed by forest conservation and education. The proper objective was experience and interest, followed by education, conservation and resource, and public relation of forests and parks. The preferable style in selecting forest interpretation programs was participation and experience, and the key condition in selecting the venue was diversity, followed by safety, connectivity and accessibility. The participation duration and season for forest interpretation programs did not show any distinctive features.
PDF Links
PubReader
Full text via DOI
Download Citation
