See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288990398

USER SATISFACTION IN NATIONAL PARKS

Article in Academic Research International · April 2012

CITATIONS READS
11 2,879

2 authors, including:

Lale Berköz
Istanbul Technical University
49 PUBLICATIONS 603 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lale Berköz on 02 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISSN-L: 2223-9553, ISSN: 2223-9944
Academic Research International Vol. 2, No. 3, May 2012

USER SATISFACTION IN NATIONAL PARKS

PınarSıvalıoğlu LaleBerköz
Istanbul Technical University Istanbul Technical University
TURKEY. TURKEY.
[email protected] [email protected]

ABSTRACT

This study has been prepared for the purpose of measuring place related satisfaction of the
national park visitors, with the aim of providing a perceptual evaluation at the end. In order to
measure the demographic characteristics of the national park visitors, their thoughts and
evaluations on the national parks, their leisure management attributes, and their perception,
satisfaction related with the national parks a questionnaire was used. Many methods are being
devised to be able to analyze the balance between the recreational use and preservation of natural
spaces. It appears that the basic purpose of these methods is to achieve recreational satisfaction.
Understanding recreational satisfaction provides managers with critical information for
developing various services to meet expectations of visitors and make them satisfied with their
visiting experiences. Literature survey on satisfaction was conducted, and, in the light of all the
gathered information, various statistical analyses were applied. Literature review and as a result
of the statistical analyses, a conceptual relationship model that comprises satisfaction and other
factors that have an impact on these concepts was formed. Satisfaction model that is encompassed
by this conceptual relationship model is the first study to be done on this subject in the national
park. It is intended to pave the way and be a guide for future studies.

Keywords:National Parks; satisfaction; perception; protected areas

INTRODUCTION
The irresponsible exploitation of natural resources for the sole purpose of satisfying human needs has
brought about numerous problems in the fragile relations between nature and humankind. Almost all
the definitions concerning sustainability and sustainable development require the involvement of
posterity in today’s decision making process. It appears that the theory of sustainable development
reflects a new tendency in thought and involves changes in behavior, attitudes and value judgments
(Demir, 2001). The researches on the balance between the recreational use and preservation of natural
spaces have yielded many methods. Providing recreational satisfaction seems to be the sole objective
of these methods that are being devised in such researches.
Natural and green spaces have a significant impact on human health and psychology. The potential
advantages for the urbanites of living in touch with nature have been investigated by those working on
environmental psychology and, in the majority of environmental literature, it has been widely accepted
that, living in close contact with nature has positive effect upon human psychology. Ulrich and Parson,
point out that, not only by being in direct touch (active contact) with nature, urbanites also,
psychologically, benefit from nature by merely seeing nature (passive contact), such as watching the
flowers in a park or looking at trees through a window or even by only knowing that there are such
natural places around, and they can use them whenever they want (Özgüner, as cited in 2004).
Visitor satisfaction is a key factor for a successful business enterprise. Satisfaction instigates the
possibility of a revisit and determines the experiences the visitors have during the visitation. In terms
of marketing, on the other hand, a satisfied visitor means that he/she will come back again, or prolong
his/her visit or encourage others to visit the same place. Increasing the number of conscious National
Park visitors will, also, have effect on the development of tourism potential of the city where the park
is situated. Visitor satisfaction can also be considered a significant factor determining the management
performance of the national park; and, it is believed that well managed national parks contribute to the
economic development of the surrounding residential areas. Measuring visitor satisfaction, therefore,
is extremely beneficial. .

Copyright © 2012 SAVAP International www.journals.savap.org.pk

www.savap.org.pk 537
 ISSN-L: 2223-9553, ISSN: 2223-9944
Academic Research International Vol. 2, No. 3, May 2012

PLACE SATISFACTION
User satisfaction lies at the core of many sectors and work areas today (housing, commerce, tourism,
service industry, recreational satisfaction). In all work areas involving human use, gathering
information about such concepts like satisfaction, perception, preference provides significant clues for
getting more successful results in these areas. Today, numerous methods and measuring techniques
are being used for measuring satisfaction. Managers can develop various activities and services to
address visitor expectations and make them satisfied with their experiences during their visit. Visitors
usually come with already clear expectations as to the quality and types of services that a certain place
provides. To what degree their expectations are met after the visit will determine the visitor
satisfaction level. When general performance during or after visiting the destination meets or exceeds
the expectation, visitor is considered to be satisfied. However, when perceived performance falls
beneath the expectation, visitor, in this case, may be dissatisfied.
According to Crosby (1993) and Oderlund (1998), customer satisfaction is increasingly becoming a
salient issue in most service industries (Akama and Kieti, as cited in 2003). With reference to the
tourism and hospitality industry, it can be stated that satisfied tourists are more likely to recommend
the tourist destination to others, which is the cheapest and most effective form of marketing and
promotion. Furthermore, tourist satisfaction usually contributes to increased rates of the retention of
tourists’ patronage, loyalty and acquisition, which in turn helps in realizing economic goals like
increased number of tourists and revenues. There is usually a positive association between tourist
satisfaction and the destination’s long-term economic success. Moreover, tourists can express their
satisfaction through many ways such as positive word of mouth, paying compliments to the service or
product provider and development of long-term loyalty to the destination. At the same time, the
relationship between the tourist and the tourist destination is strengthened. Thus, the quality of the
services that are provided has serious influence on the overall tourist satisfaction (Akama and Kieti,
2003).
As Rosenberg and Hovland point out, when different behavioral components (cognitive, affective and
behavioral) are taken into consideration, we see that some researchers define user satisfaction in terms
of affective constituents while others maintain that perception is a hugely significant factor. The
definitions that rely on the affective constituents identify user satisfaction as satisfaction with the place
one lives in and reflection of happy feelings on the place where one lives. The definitions that rely on
the cognitive constituents, on the other hand, define user satisfaction by comparing the existing
situation with the standards, in terms of expectations and demands (Kellekçi and Berköz, as cited in
2006).
Another view defines place satisfaction as a multidimensional and concise judgment about the
perceived quality of a place (Stedman, 2002). Satisfaction depends upon many variables. It has been
observed, both in recreation and community sociology literature, that social criteria have a significant
role (Eisenhauer et al., 2000; Jonas et al., 2003; Kyle et al., 2004a, 2004c; Mesch and Manor, 1998;
Stedman, 2003). Being able to engage in activities that one likes is a criterion that contributes to the
place satisfaction of persons in recreation (Bricker and Kerstetter, 2000; Kyle et al., 2004a; Manning,
1999). Ecologic and environmental conditions, also, contribute to the formation of satisfaction one
feels for a certain place (Eisenhauer et al., 2000; Kaltenborn, 1998; Kyle et al., 2004a, 2004b;
Stedman, 2002; 2003).
Studying user satisfaction and choosing one of the nature protection zones as the study area
Müderrisoğlu et al. (2005), in order to measure user satisfaction in Abant Nature Park, used ROS
(Recreational Opportunity Spectrum) method. It was observed that the general satisfaction
expectations of the park users were similar to the actual satisfactions, they got from the area, but that
satisfaction differed in terms of the relation between the purpose of their visit and the qualities that the
park offered. It has been observed that identifying the bearing capacity of the area accurately, giving
visitors information about the natural beauties the area offers, the type and the form of using the area,
and the range of activities contributes to the creation of conscious users and increases the satisfaction
that they get from the area (Müderrisoğlu et al., 2005). Uzun and Müderrisoğlu (2010) found that rural
area satisfaction and dissatisfaction factors are affected by user characteristics. It was found that

Copyright © 2012 SAVAP International www.journals.savap.org.pk

www.savap.org.pk 538
 ISSN-L: 2223-9553, ISSN: 2223-9944
Academic Research International Vol. 2, No. 3, May 2012

satisfaction factors slightly varied depending on educational level, age, the time spent in the area,
visiting frequency, and group size and that the most significant user characteristic was education.

STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY

In this study, 5 national parks in the Marmara Region, the most developed region in Turkey in terms of
population and economic growth, with different characteristics and highest user density rates have
been chosen as the study area. These 5 national parks that are chosen as sample area can be sub-
divided into two groups: National parks with natural qualities (Uludağ National Park, KazDağları
National Park, KuşCenneti National Park) and national parks with historical qualities (Gallipoli
Historical Peninsula National Park and Troy Historical National Park).
In order to measure the demographic characteristics of the national park visitors, their thoughts and
evaluations on the national parks, their leisure management attributes and their satisfaction with
national parks a questionnaire was used. The questionnaire forms have been accordingly designed to
provide relevant data to identify tendencies and evaluate them with suitable analysis techniques. The
questionnaire was conducted face to face in the national parks chosen as the study area during summer
months of 2010. As part of the study, the data gathered from the 400 survey forms have been analyzed
bidirectional and evaluated with SPSS statistical package program in 95% confidence interval, with a
p<0,05 significance level.
There are two hypotheses in this study:
A. Measuring satisfaction of national park users and explaining its sub-dimensions; three different
questions have been used for measuring satisfaction. The purpose of these questions is to be able to
explain the concept of satisfaction with its sub-dimensions. For all these questions, measurement was
done by using Likert scale.
B. Identifying other factors that affect satisfaction and explaining the relation among them; such
as demographic properties, in particular, will have effect on satisfaction.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The evaluations of survey forms coming from the study area convinced us that it was very important
to, initially, define visitor profile: It is seen that, of all the national park visitors who joined the survey
170 (42,5%) are female and 230 (57,5%) are male.
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Survey participants
Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender
Female 170 42,5
Male 230 57,5
Age
20 years old and younger 62 15,5
21-30 years old 185 46,3
31-40 years old 71 17,8
41-50 years old 51 12,8
51 years old and older 31 7,8
Income
High income group 16 4,0
Upper middle income group 64 16,0
Middle income group 270 67,5
Lower middle income group 35 8,8
Low income group 15 3,8
Education
Primary school 59 15,3
High school 129 33,4
Associate degree 23 6
Undergraduate and graduate 175 45,3

Copyright © 2012 SAVAP International www.journals.savap.org.pk

www.savap.org.pk 539
 ISSN-L: 2223-9553, ISSN: 2223-9944
Academic Research International Vol. 2, No. 3, May 2012

The sample group is balanced in terms of the gender spectrum, and also 64,1% of the national park
visitors participating in the survey are in 20-40 age span. 270 (67,5%) of the national park visitors
participating in the survey are from middle income group. It was also found that the results did not
alter when the national parks were evaluated separately. Thus, it can be stated that members of middle
income group visit national parks more often than the rest. University graduates and high school
graduates constitute the majority of the national park visitors by a 78.7% ratio (Table 1).
In order to obtain data about the park usage and preferences of the national park visitors, participants
were asked about their goal in coming to the national park. The participants were asked to make three
choices in order of priority in reply to the question “What is your purpose in visiting national parks”.
The general assessment of the answers given by the survey participants showed that their first three
choices were respectively, seeing historical assets, sight-seeing and relaxing.
Table 2. What is your purpose in visiting national parks?
1. Choice 2. Choice 3. Choice
Frequency (%) Frequenc (%) Frequenc (%)
y y
To walk 16 4 18 4,5 23 5,8
To do exercise 6 1,5 6 1,5 7 1,8
To have a picnic 32 8 12 3 16 4
To get some fresh air 23 5,8 12 3 15 3,8
To see natural life 51 12,8 28 7 14 3,5
To stop over 5 1,3 4 1 4 1
For natural landscape beauties 11 2,8 27 6,8 8 2
For the flora/vegetation cover 4 1 10 2,5 10 2,5
To relax 35 8,8 42 10,5 63 15,8
For sight-seeing 62 15,5 85 21,3 52 13
To see historical assets 105 26,3 22 5,5 22 5,5
To take a vacation 20 5 31 7,8 17 4,3
For outdoor activities 3 0,8 10 2,5 3 0,8
For camping 6 1,5 6 1,5 4 1
For nature photography 5 1,3 7 1,8 15 3,8
For the fauna/wild life 3 0,8 9 2,3 9 2,3
Other 8 2 1 0,3 1 0,3
Unanswered 5 1,3 70 17,5 117 29,3
Overall 400 100 400 100 400 100
When participant choices on their purpose for visiting national parks were analyzed in terms of the
national parks that comprise the study area it was found that; Uludağ National Park visitors, for,
especially, picnic (21,5%) purposes and for getting fresh air (16.5%). KazDağları National park
visitors who wanted, especially, relaxing (29.2%) and sight-seeing (19.1%), KuşCenneti National Park
visitors who wanted to see natural life (47.6%).Gallipoli Historical Peninsula National Park (62.5%)
and Troy Historical National Park (70.5%) visitors for their historical assets. When purposes in
visiting the national parks were evaluated in terms of demographic characteristics, no differentiation
was observed; similar results were obtained.
General evaluations have been carried out on measurements concerning the satisfaction rates for such
factors as security, access transportation that affect user satisfaction; they were, at the same time,
evaluated by means of different analyses made by way of crosstabs for each national park in the study
area. When the averages belonging to these questions that are referred to as “security and
transportation questions” were analyzed, it was found that feeling secure/insecure had the highest
average while the statement ‘parking places are enough’ had the lowest average.
It was found that, of all the national park visitors who joined the survey, 58,8% (28.6%+30.2%) of
them felt secure in the national park, 35,7 (%) of them felt neither secure nor insecure, 5,5 (%) of them
felt insecure. When the evaluation was carried out in terms of distinct national parks, it was found that
an overwhelming majority of KuşCenneti National Park visitors felt totally secure in the park. It can
be seen that, of all the national park visitors who joined the survey 45% (30.2%+14.8%), think that
access to national parks is easy while 27,9 (%) (19.1%+8.8%) of them think that it is not easy. It can

Copyright © 2012 SAVAP International www.journals.savap.org.pk

www.savap.org.pk 540
 ISSN-L: 2223-9553, ISSN: 2223-9944
Academic Research International Vol. 2, No. 3, May 2012

be said that 41,1 (%) of the participants are undecided whether the number of the parking places are
enough or not. 32,6 of the participant, on the other hand, think that the number of the parking lots are
enough, while 26,3 of them think the number is not enough.
Table 3. Average points belonging to questions on security and transportation factors
N Min. Max. Average. Std.
Do you feel safe in this NP? 398 1 5 3,82 ,961

There are enough parking places in this NP. 399 1 5 3,11 1,073

Access/transportation to this NP is easy. 398 1 5 3,23 1,178

Satisfaction Analyzes
The answers to the question that was designed to measure overall satisfaction were first analyzed
totally and then were applied factor analysis, which was to be later used for regression analyses. It was
found that, of all the national park visitors who joined the survey 67,3% were satisfied with their
general visiting experiences. 64,4 (%) of them were satisfied with the natural environment quality of
the national park. 54,4 (%) of them were satisfied with the quality of the social surroundings of the
national park. 43,5 (%) of them were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the possibility of
participating in activities, in the national park. When, by means of crosstab method, this question was
analyzed in respect to each national park the results obtained were similar to the general results. When
the average points are evaluated, natural environment quality of the national park has the highest
(3,75) average while participating in favorite activities has the lowest one (3,27). It can, therefore, be
said that the overall satisfaction levels of the national park visitors are high.
In order to see whether general satisfaction status is in any way related with demographic
characteristics, the number of visits to the park and the time spent in the park; a correlation analysis
was carried out for these variables. Correlation analysis is significant at the level of 0,01 and 0,05. No
relation was found between overall satisfaction and age, gender and the time spent in the national park.
Table 4.Evaluation of overall satisfaction for national parks
Neither
Indicate your satisfaction level with the strongly Dissatisfie satisfied Strongly
Satisfied Mean
following criteria during your last visit dissatisfied d nor satisfied
to this park. dissatisfie
d
40 36 53 160 106
Your general experience? 3,65
(% 10.1) (%9.1) (%13.4) (%40.5) (%26.8)

Natural environmental quality of the 12 37 91 151 102

3,75
national park? (%3.1) (%9.4) (%23.2) (%38.4) (%26)

Social environmental quality of the 19 39 121 139 74

3,54
national park? (%4.8) (%9.9) (%30.9) (%35.5) (%18.9)

The possibility of your joining your 42 24 170 98 57

3,27
favorite activities in the national park? (%10.7) (%6.1) (%43.5) (%25.1) (%14.6)

There was, however, a negative relation with educational status at the level of 16,8 (%). Thus, it
seems, the higher educational status is the lower overall satisfaction level becomes. As higher
education means higher expectations, when a place fails to meet the expectations, a drop in the
satisfaction level is fairly normal. A positive correlation was found between overall satisfaction and
income at the level of 17%. The higher the income is the higher the satisfaction level gets. There is
also a positive relation between the number of visits to the national parks and overall satisfaction at the
level of 17,9 (%). The higher the satisfaction is the bigger the number of the visits reaches.

Copyright © 2012 SAVAP International www.journals.savap.org.pk

www.savap.org.pk 541
 ISSN-L: 2223-9553, ISSN: 2223-9944
Academic Research International Vol. 2, No. 3, May 2012

Table 5.Correlation analysis

Number of Time spent in
Age Education Gender Income visits to NP NP
,005 -,168** ,026 ,170** ,179** ,023
Overall satisfaction
,926 ,001 ,611 ,001 ,004 ,652
Overall Satisfaction Factor Analysis
Four propositions in the first question have been bundled under 1 factor, to be used in the regression
analysis and called overall satisfaction. As a result of KMO analysis, which was made to test the
suitability of the question for the factor analysis, a KMO value of 0,757 was found, which is a
remarkably high value and shows that the data set is suitable for the factor analysis. The 1 factor that
was obtained explains 60,5 (%) of the total variance. The overall reliability coefficient (Cronbach
Alpha) calculated for the overall satisfaction factor is α=0,776 which shows that the scale is reliable.
The factor loads for the items of overall satisfaction factor are shown in Table 6, and the loads for the
first three factor items are above 0.7. 390 surveys were involved in this analysis.
Table 6.Overall satisfaction total variance

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

% of % of
Component Total Variance Cumulative % Total Variance Cumulative %
1 2,421 60,513 60,513 2,421 60,513 60,513
2 ,676 16,898 77,411
3 ,531 13,279 90,690
4 ,372 9,310 100,000
Table 7.Overall satisfaction factor loads

Factor name Factor items Factor load Variance Reliability

NP natural environment quality ,833

NP social environment quality ,816

OVERALL
Satisfaction with overall visiting ,768 60,513 0,776
SATISFACTION
experience

Possibility of joining in favorite activities ,687

in NP

Satisfaction Scale Factor Analysis

Factor analyses have been implemented by combining the questions that were prepared to measure
satisfaction. As a result of the analyses, it was found that the reliability coefficient (Cronbach alpha)
for the satisfaction dimensions of the national park visitors is α=0,936. The coefficients for this
research are high, which shows that the designed scale has a high level of reliability. 285 survey
forms, in which all the questions received valid answers, were included in this analysis. As a result of
KMO analysis, which was made to test the suitability of this scale for the factor analysis, a KMO
value of 0,898 was found, which is a remarkably high value. As a result of the factor analysis, a
quadruple factor structure has emerged according to Eigen values. These four factors explain 69,4 (%)
of the total variance.
The first factor is called satisfaction with the physical qualities and, alone, explains 41.057% of the
total variance. It may, therefore, be claimed that satisfaction with the physical qualities is the most
significant factor in the measurement of satisfaction. This factor is composed of 6 items, and the
factor, load of the first four items is above 0.7.

Copyright © 2012 SAVAP International www.journals.savap.org.pk

www.savap.org.pk 542
 ISSN-L: 2223-9553, ISSN: 2223-9944
Academic Research International Vol. 2, No. 3, May 2012

The second factor is called satisfaction with the service quality of the historical areas and explains
13.989% of the total variance by itself. This factor, too, is composed of 6 items and the factor, load of
the first three items is above 0.7.
The third factor is called satisfaction with the equipment and explains 8.315% of the total variance by
itself. The factors show a gradual decrease after the 2nd factor. This factor is composed of 7 items, and
the factor, load of only the first 2 items is above 0,7 but the rest also scored remarkably close to scored
0,7.
The fourth factor is called satisfaction with function areas and explains 6.158% of the total variance.
This factor is comprised of 4 items, and the first 2 items have factor loads above 0,7.
Table 8 shows the satisfaction scale sub-factors, factor loads and the variance they explain. Besides,
reliability analyses for each factor were implemented separately, and reliability coefficients for each
factor were found as high.
In order to find whether satisfaction sub-factor averages of the national park visitors who joined the
survey display any significant difference in terms of gender variable, a T-test was done and, as a result
of the analysis, no difference was found. One Way Anova tests were carried out in order to identify
whether satisfaction sub-factors display significant difference in terms of the age variable. As a result,
it was found that the factors, statistically, display no significant difference in terms of the age variable.
When the analysis was carried out in terms of the income groups, the difference between group
averages and points for satisfaction with the physical qualities and points for satisfaction with function
areas is, statistically significant (F=5,910; p=0,000<0,05 and F=3,757; p=0,005<0,05). The points of
the middle income group for satisfaction with the physical qualities are higher than those of the upper-
middle and the high income groups. The scores of the middle income group for satisfaction with the
function areas are higher than those of upper middle, income group.
Table 8.Satisfaction scale factor structure
Factor
Factor name Factor items load Variance Reliability
Natural life ,876
Natural beauties ,865
Satisfaction With The Physical Landscape ,826
41,057 0,884
Qualities Quietness ,791
Historical assets ,634
Lively environment ,583
Archaeological areas ,897
The Outdoor ,884
museum
Satisfaction With The Servie Quality Of
Information service ,775 13,898 0,878
Historical Areas
Martyrs’ cemeteries ,610
Service building ,608
Services provided ,574
Garbage cans ,803
Toilets ,799
Restaurant/cafe ,683
Illumination ,664
Satisfaction With The Acquipment 8,315 0,849
Information ,661
signboards
Orientation signs ,552
Reception ,492
Resting area ,750
Picnic area ,726
Satisfaction With The Function Areas Landscape watching ,693 6,158 0,851
spots
Camping areas ,516
TOTAL VARIANCE 69,428
Copyright © 2012 SAVAP International www.journals.savap.org.pk
www.savap.org.pk 543
 ISSN-L: 2223-9553, ISSN: 2223-9944
Academic Research International Vol. 2, No. 3, May 2012

Satisfaction with physical qualities and function areas displays a significant difference in terms of
educational status, whereas satisfaction with the service qualities of historical places and satisfaction
with equipment display no significant difference in terms of educational status. As a result of the
supplementary post-hoc analysis which was carried out to identify the sources of the differences, it
was found that the differences have their source in the primary school graduates and university
graduates. The averages of the points of primary school graduates for satisfaction with physical
qualities are higher than those of high school and university graduates and those with master degrees
(F=6,208; p=0,000<0,05). When the averages for satisfaction with functional qualities are evaluated,
we can see that the scores of high school graduates are higher than those of university graduates and
postgraduates (F=3,951; p=0,009<0, 05). In this context, it appears that as educational status rises
satisfaction level decreases. As expectations rise along with the educational level, it is only normal
that the satisfaction level should go down as educational status goes up.
Table 9.Averages for satisfaction scale factors

N Min. Max. Average. S.s.

Satisfaction with physical qualities 399 1,00 5,00 4,0339 ,71428

Satisfaction with the service quality of historical areas 398 1,00 5,00 3,4448 ,82251

Satisfaction with equipment 398 1,00 5,00 3,2060 ,79830

Satisfaction with function areas 390 1,00 5,00 3,6947 ,81662

Regression Analysis
Deciphering the relationship between overall satisfaction, and the factors that constitute the
satisfaction scale and identifying the other variables that affect satisfaction have been the main
objective of this study. In order to unfold these relations, multiple linear regression analyses have been
carried out. Firstly, overall satisfaction was analyzed in terms of the obtained satisfaction factors. All
the variables included, the analysis was carried out with enter method on 278 survey forms. R2 value
was found to be 0.182 and Durbin-Watson coefficient was calculated as 1.962, which shows that there
was no autocorrelation in the analysis. The fact that the significance level of F value is smaller than
0.05 means that the relation among the variables as a whole is concordant with the linear regression
model.
Table 10.Regression model summary
Change Statistics
Std. Error
of the R Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R R2 R 2d Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 ,427a ,182 ,170 ,85127841 ,182 15,225 4 273 ,000 1,962

Since all the variables in the model have the same unit of measurement, the B, and BETA values are
remarkably close to each other, and their order does not change. In this analysis, it was observed that,
even when all the variables are included, only 2 variables have a remarkable effect on overall
satisfaction. “Satisfaction with the Service Quality of Historical Places” and “Satisfaction with
Function Areas” variables were, in all the tried methods, excluded from the analysis. When the effect
sizes of the two variables that affect overall satisfaction are evaluated, we can see “satisfaction with
equipment” is on the first rank with a 0,323 effect size, and “Satisfaction with Physical Qualities” is
on the second rank with an effect size of 0,234. Thus, when equipment satisfaction increases by 1 unit,
overall satisfaction increases by a measure of 0,323, and, when satisfaction with the physical qualities
increases by 1 unit, overall satisfaction increases by a measure of 0,234. Accordingly, the equation
should be as follows:
GM = 0,234FOM + 0,323EM

Copyright © 2012 SAVAP International www.journals.savap.org.pk

www.savap.org.pk 544
 ISSN-L: 2223-9553, ISSN: 2223-9944
Academic Research International Vol. 2, No. 3, May 2012

Table 11.Table of coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 CONSTANT -,085 ,051 -1,672 ,096

Satisfaction with physical Qualities ,234 ,051 ,251 4,582 ,000

Satisfaction with The service Quality of ,032 ,051 ,034 ,620 ,536
Historical Areas
Equipment satisfaction ,323 ,051 ,346 6,328 ,000

Satisfaction with Function Areas ,010 ,051 ,011 ,204 ,839

Then, control variables, sub-factors and the variables, which were assumed to have effect on overall
satisfaction, “Feeling Secure in NP” and “Access to NP is Easy”- were included, and the whole
analysis was repeated. Finally, the analysis was repeated with 11 variables and by means of Backward
method. The analysis covered 268 survey forms. The R2 values obtained at every step is given in Table
12 It can be seen that, as the number of variables decrease the R2 values go down too. The analysis is
concordant with the linear model and is significant. This analysis was completed in 7 steps, and 5
variables were included in the model in these steps. They are satisfaction with physical qualities,
equipment satisfaction, feeling secure in the national park, income state, and educational status.
Although all the other independent variables display positive effect in this model, education displays
negative effect; that is, as overall satisfaction increases for 1 unit educational status decreases for a
measure of 0,101. Table 13.
Table 12. Regression model Summary
Change Statistics
Adjusted Std. Error R
R R of the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 ,515a ,265 ,233 ,82252572 ,265 8,384 11 256 ,000

2 ,515b ,265 ,236 ,82092894 ,000 ,003 1 256 ,955

3 ,515c ,265 ,239 ,81938878 ,000 ,033 1 257 ,856

4 ,514d ,264 ,241 ,81813324 -,001 ,207 1 258 ,650

5 ,513e ,264 ,244 ,81687112 -,001 ,198 1 259 ,656

6 ,512f ,262 ,245 ,81596222 -,001 ,420 1 260 ,518

7 ,509g ,259 ,245 ,81640546 -,004 1,285 1 261 ,258 2,012

Table 13. Table of coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
7 (Constant) -1,313 ,356 -3,688 ,000
Satisfaction with physical Qualities ,138 ,053 ,149 2,619 ,009
Equipment satisfaction ,254 ,051 ,272 4,977 ,000
Education -,104 ,044 -,127 -2,347 ,020
Do you feel secure in this NP? ,254 ,059 ,241 4,292 ,000
Income ,201 ,077 ,142 2,608 ,010

Copyright © 2012 SAVAP International www.journals.savap.org.pk

www.savap.org.pk 545
 ISSN-L: 2223-9553, ISSN: 2223-9944
Academic Research International Vol. 2, No. 3, May 2012

As a result of all these analyses, the model in Figure 1 has been devised to account for the overall
satisfaction. The R2 values obtained in these analyses is low. This means there may be other
independent variables that are not included in this study and can affect satisfaction, but, for researches
in the field of social sciences, these R2 values are considered normal.

Figure 1.Regression model

Only two of the factors obtained in satisfaction scale ranked as independent variables in the regression
analyses: satisfaction with equipment and satisfaction with physical qualities. It was, however,
observed that equipment satisfaction has a more dominant influence on satisfaction than the other
factors. This situation can be, also, seen as the effect of the provided service quality on satisfaction.
Although the other two factors obtained through factor analyses, that is satisfaction with the service
quality of historical areas and satisfaction with function areas, do not appear in the regression analysis,
they, nevertheless, are in indirect relationship.
The model includes both the relations obtained from correlation analyses and the relations obtained
from regression analyses. Educational status, on the other hand, displayed a constant negative effect
on satisfaction in all analyses. Satisfaction, normally, decreases as educational status rises. As higher
education means higher expectations, when these expectations are not fully satisfied, a drop in the
satisfaction level is fairly normal. Works on the relevant literature also support this claim. Income
state, however, has a positive influence on satisfaction. It can be assumed that, as the income level
rises the activities in the area become more accessible, opportunities for participating in more activities
increase and conditions of access to the area get better.
Feeling secure in the national park has, also, positive effect on satisfaction. Finally, after the
correlation analyses, the relation between the number of visits to the national park and satisfaction was
examined and, it was found that when satisfaction increases the number of visits increase too.

CONCLUSION
In the framework of the perceptual evaluation of national park users and by examining user
satisfaction, we tried, in this study, to explain the concept of satisfaction and the sub-dimensions that
constitute the concept, and investigated the relations between them and the other factors that are
assumed to have influence on satisfaction. National parks are natural, recreational protection areas and
contribute to the economies of the countries. As the study area, out of 7 national parks in the Marmara
Copyright © 2012 SAVAP International www.journals.savap.org.pk
www.savap.org.pk 546
 ISSN-L: 2223-9553, ISSN: 2223-9944
Academic Research International Vol. 2, No. 3, May 2012

Region, the most developed region of our country, 5 national parks with different characteristics and
highest user density rates have been chosen. These chosen national parks are, also, valuable in terms of
meeting recreational needs.
User satisfaction is a concept that lies at the core of many sectors and work areas today. In order to
secure loyalty and increase attachment, sectors finance works on customer satisfaction and try to
identify usage preferences. Understanding recreational user satisfaction provides managers with vital
data for developing various services to meet expectations of visitors and make them satisfied with
their visiting experiences. User satisfaction is one of the factors that determine management
performance of recreational areas. There is, also, a positive association between tourist satisfaction and
the long-term economic success of an area. When recreational satisfaction is achieved, user attitudes
towards the environment begin to change and the quality of social life increases. Thus, a well-managed
national park will contribute to the economic development of the settlements. A satisfied visitor will
visit again, recommend the place to others, want to know more about the area and may, in time,
become a loyal frequenter. This will also contribute to increase the rates of protecting the area in
question and, indirectly, to the realization of economic objectives for the area.
In this study, various analyses have been carried out, and the presumptions have been tested in order to
identify the relations that were presumed in the hypotheses. The satisfaction questions that were
devised for that purpose were subjected to a factor analyses and, as a result, 4 sub-factors, which had
high reliability values and which reflect overall satisfaction and satisfaction sub-dimensions, were
obtained. They are named as Satisfaction with Physical Qualities, Satisfaction with the Service Quality
of the Historical Areas, Equipment Satisfaction, and Satisfaction with Function Areas. The highest
mean values, in the analyses, were obtained for satisfaction with physical qualities factor and this
factor, alone, accounts for the biggest part of the variance.
Satisfaction with physical qualities and equipment satisfaction, the factors obtained in the satisfaction
scale, have been included in the conceptual relation model designed on the basis of the results
obtained from many analyses. Equipment satisfaction is more dominant influence on overall
satisfaction than the other factors. This situation is attributed to the influence of the provided service
quality on satisfaction. Feeling secure in the national park, also, has a positive effect on satisfaction.
When the relation between satisfaction and the number of visits is examined, it can be seen that when
satisfaction increases the number of visits increase too. Thus, satisfaction is a source of motivation for
subsequent visits and is effective in creating attachment and loyalty to the visited area.
It was found, on the other hand, that satisfaction and satisfaction sub-factors do not display a
significant change in relation with gender and age. However, a significant differentiation was observed
in relation with income and educational status. Satisfaction scores dropped as educational status
increased. Since, in direct proportion to this variable, the expectations for the visited area will increase,
dissatisfaction is unavoidable if these expectations are not met duly. Income state, on the other hand,
has a positive effect on satisfaction. It can be assumed that, as the income level rises the activities in
the area become more accessible, opportunities for participating in more activities increase and
conditions of access to the area get better.
As mentioned before, the best way to measure the performance of a recreational area or service
industry is to conduct customer satisfaction surveys. With these surveys, the management and service
performance of the national park can be identified, and user involvement in the area and management
can be achieved. In today’s world, where participative management plans are a necessity, the human-
environment relation and the factors that increase satisfaction need to be taken into consideration in
recreational planning. In this way, services will be developed for the needs and expectations of
national park users and these expectations will be met as much as possible. Finally, involvement of
society in planning and management will, thus, be achieved.

Copyright © 2012 SAVAP International www.journals.savap.org.pk

www.savap.org.pk 547
 ISSN-L: 2223-9553, ISSN: 2223-9944
Academic Research International Vol. 2, No. 3, May 2012

REFERENCES
Akama, J.S. &Kieti, D.M. (2003).Measuring tourist satisfaction with Kenya's wildlife safari: a case
study of Tsavo West National Park.Tourism Management, 24, 73-81.
Bricker, K.S. &Kerstetter, D. (2000). Level of specialization and place attachment: An exploratory
study of whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sciences, 11, 233-257.
Demir, C. (2001). TurizmveRekreasyonFaaliyetlerininMilliParklardaSürdürülebilirliği:
Türkiye’dekiMilliParklaraYönelikBirUygulama, (Sustainability of Tourism and
Recreation Activities in National Parks: A Case Study on national parks in Turkey)
yayınlanmamışDoktoraTezi, DokuzEylülÜniversitesi, SosyalBilimlerEnstitüsü, Đzmir.
Eisenhauer, B. W., Krannich, R. S., &Blahna, D. J. (2000). Attachments to special places on public
lands: An analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community connections. Society &
Natural Resources, 13, 421-441.
Kaltenborn, B. P. (1998). Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impacts: A study
among residents in Svalbard in the Norwegian high Arctic. Applied Geography, 18(2), 169-189.
Kellekçi, Ö. L. &Berköz, L. (2006a). Konutveçevreselkalitememnuniyetiniyükseltenfaktörler. (Factors
that increase dwelling and environmental quality satisfaction) Đstanbul TeknikÜniversitesi,
itüdergisi/a, mimarlık, planlama, tasarım, Cilt:5, Sayı:2, Kısım:1, 167-178.
Kyle, G., Bricker, K., Graefe, A., & Wickham, T. (2004a). An examination of recreationists'
relationships with activities and settings.Leisure Sciences, 26, 123-142.
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2004b). Effects of place attachment on users'
perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24, 213-225.
Kyle, G. T., Mowen, A. J., & Tarrant, M. A. (2004c). Linking place preferences with place meaning:
An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 24, 439-454.
Jonas, L. M., Stewart, W. P., & Larkin, K. W. (2003).Encountering Heidi: Audiences for a Wilderness
Adventurer Identity.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32(4), 403-431.
Manning, R. E. (1999). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction. (2 ed.).
Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.
Mesch, G. S. & Manor, O. (1998).Social ties, environmental perception, and local
attachment.Environment and Behavior, 30(4), 504-519.
Müderrisoğlu, H., Yerli, Ö.,Turan A.A., &Duru, N. (2005). ROS (Rekreasyonel Fırsat Dağılımı)
yöntemiile Abant Parkı’ndakullanıcımemnuniyetininbelirlenmesi, (ROS -
Recreational Opportunities Distribution method to determine user satisfaction with the Abant Park),
Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi 2005, 11 (4) 397-405.
Özgüner, H. (2004). Doğalpeyzajıninsanlarınpsikolojikvefizikselsağlığıüzerineetkileri (Effects
on people's psychological and physical health of the natural landscape). Süleyman Demirel
Üniversitesi, OrmanFakültesiDergisi, Seri:A, Sayı:2, 97-107.
Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based
cognitions, attitude and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34(5), 561- 581.
Stedman, R. C. (2003a). Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical
environment to sense of place. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 671-685.
Uzun, S. veMüderrisoğlu, H. (2010).Kırsal Rekreasyon Alanlarında Kullanıcı Memnuniyeti: Bolu
Gölcük Ormaniçi Dinlenme Yeri Örneği (Countryside Recreation Areas User Satisfaction: The Case
of Bolu Golcuk Forest Place of Rest), Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, Seri
A, Sayı: 1, 67-82.

Copyright © 2012 SAVAP International www.journals.savap.org.pk

www.savap.org.pk 548

View publication stats