1. Department of Tourism Providence University Master Thesis- An Exploration of Perceived Crowding: A Case of Tamsui Visitors Dr. Chang-Chan Huang Ting-Ying LiaoAugust, 2007

2. - 2007 350 22 1000 i 3. ii 4. An Exploration of Perceived Crowding: A Case of Tamsui Visitors Abstract Taiwan is a small island accommodating a large population. It is very commonthat a large amount of people serge into most of the popular recreational sites onweekends and holidays. This phenomenon has caused not only environmentalresource destruction but also visitors perception of crowding. Visitors perception ofcrowding, to a large extent, deteriorated their recreation experiences and, therefore,became a concern of recreation managers and researchers. Researchers of outdoorrecreation have utilized expectancy theory, stimulus overload theory, and socialinterference theory to explain visitors crowding phenomenon. Empirical studiesregarding visitors perceived crowding, to some extent, support the three theoriesrespectively. However, a comprehensive model which can better explain visitorsperception of crowding has not been proposed and tested. Thus, the purpose of thisstudy was to integrate expectancy theory, stimulus overload theory, and socialinterference theory into a comprehensive model to explain visitors perceivedcrowding and test the model in a recreational setting.Tamsui Old Main Street was selected as a study area, including Tamsui MRTstation, Golden Waterfront, and Tamsui Ferry Boat Terminus. An on-sitequestionnaire survey was conducted in February, 2007 to collect data from visitorsto the study area and 350 valid questionnaires were obtained. The result of researchregarding the perceived crowding of visitors to Tamsui Old Main Street can bedescribed by following five basic categories: number of encounters, thedifference in number of encounters between the expectation and actuality,density-induced stimulus, goal interference & perceived crowding. First, thenumber of encounters reported by the respondents ranged from 22 to 1000 indifferent measuring time. Second, most respondents encountered a little more thanthey had expected. Third, in density-induced stimulus, the strongest impression ofthe visitors was that the surrounding environment of Tamsui Old Main Street wasdirty. Fourth, in goal interference, the strongest recreation experience that visitorsexpected to acquire is taking a walk along the Tamsui Old Main Street. Thefriendship is indeed improved was the strongest recreation experience that thevisitors actually acquired. Moreover, visitors actual acquired recreation experienceis less stronger than they expected in all the experiences except enjoy the pleasingatmosphere. Finally, visitors reported a medium level of perceived crowding. iii 5. The results of the path analysis revealed that number of encounters had asignificant effect on perceived crowding by the difference in number ofencounters between the expectation and actuality and density-induced stimulushad a significant effect on perceived crowding. However, goal interference hadnot a significant effect on perceived crowding. Moreover, number of encountershad not a significant effect on density-induced stimulus and goal interference.According to the findings, it was suggested that Tamsui Government shouldkeep sound and positive conditions to reduce negative stimulation to visitors. Inaddition, providing accurate information about the number of encounters in TamsuiOld Main Street could reduce visitors perceived crowding. It was also suggestedthat researchers should develop more effective and appropriate tools to measurevisitors perceived crowding. Finally, the model developed in this study needs to betested in more recreation settings to understand visitors perceived crowding.Keywordsperceived crowding; expectancy theory; stimulus overload theory;social interference theory iv 6. ..................................................................................................................1 ..................................................................................................1 ..................................................................................................3 ..................................................................................................3 ..................................................................................4 ..........................................................................................................5 ......................................................................................5 ..................................................................................................6 ................................................................................................10 ........................................................................................20 ........................................................27 ........................................................................................................32 ............................................................................32 ................................................................................................34 pilot study.......................................................................35 ................................................................................................39 ....................................................................42 ........................................................................................44 ........................................................................................................45 ................................................................................................45 ................................................................................48 ........................................................................54 ................................................................................................72 ....................................................................................................80 ........................................................................................80 ........................................................................................81 ........................................................................................................84 ........................................................................................................85 ........................................................................................................89......................................................................................................................91 ......................................................................................................96 ......................................................................................................98 ........................................................................................100 ....................................................................................102 v 7. 2-1 ...............................................................................9 2-2 .............................................................................20 2-3 .............................................................................25 3-1 .............................................................37 3-2 .........................................................................38 3-3 .................................................................................39 3-4 .....................................................41 4-1 .............................................................................45 4-2 .....................................................................................47 4-3 .............................................................................48 4-4 .............................................................49 4-5 .............49 4-6 .................................................................................50 4-7 .................................................50 4-8 .........................................52 4-9 t ............................................53 4-10 ........................54 4-11 ................................................56 4-12 Modification Index, MI ..............57 4-13 ............57 4-14 CFA ............59 4-15 ............64 4-16 ....................64 4-17 ............................................66 4-18 Modification Index, MI ..........67 4-19 ........67 4-20 CFA ........69 4-21 ........72 4-22 ....................................................................................74 4-23 ............................................................................................74 4-24 ............................................................................76 vi 8. 2-1 Stokols1972 ..............................................11 2-2 Altman1975 ..............................................................12 2-3 Choi1976 ......................................................................14 2-4 Fisher1978 ............................15 2-5 Shelby1980 ...................................................................16 2-6 Manning1999....................................................................18 2-7 LeeGraefe2003.................................................24 2-8 ..........................27.............................................................27 3-1 ......................................................................................................33 3-2 ..............................................................................................34 4-1 ..............................................................55 4-2 ..............................................58 4-3 ..........................................................65 4-4 ..........................................68 4-5 ......................................................................................73 4-6 ..........................................................................75vii 9. SEMball 2007 viii 10. 200120051292,610,0004.7891.3%58.4%2005350311200Gramann, 19821987p.11975Shelby, Vaske & Heberlein, 1989,p.271SchreyerRoggenbuck1978AbsherLee19811987WestoverCollins1987LeeGraefe2003 1 11. Shelby, Heberlein, Vaske & Alfano, 1983Gramann, 1982, p.111; Schmidt & Keating, 1979, p.686Schmidt & Keating, 1979, p.6811988 Andereck &Becker, 1993; Graefe, Vaske & Kuss, 1984; Hammitt, McDonald & Noe, 1984;Westover & Collins, 198719871988 Andereck & Becker,1993; Bultena, Field, Womble & Albrecht, 1981; Ditton, Fedler & Graefe, 1983;Hammitt et al., 1984; Lee & Graefe, 2003; Shelby et al., 1983; Tarrant, Cordell &Kibler, 1997198719881997bLee & Graefe, 2003; Gramann & Burdge, 1984; Westover & Collins, 19871987Absher & Lee, 1981; Ditton et al., 1983; Schreyer &2 12. Roggenbuck, 1978 Lee Graefe2003 3 13. perceived crowding number of encounters expectation of encounters density-induced stimulus goal interference 4 14. Stokols1972, p.276nonsocial crowdingsocial crowdingAltman1975, p.146Choi, MirjafariWeaver1976, p.353Manning Ciali1980, p.330Shelby1980, p.44Gramann1982, p.123Schmidt & Keating, 1979, p.681; Shelby et al., 1983, p.2; Shelby et al., 1989,p.271; Graefe et al., 1984, p.399; Lee & Graefe, 2003, p.1Bell, Fisher, Baum, & Greene, 1990, p. 3045 15. 2000, p.1721987, p.23 1988,p.14 perception of crowding expectancy theorystimulus overload theorysocial interference theory Lawler1973Schreyer & Roggenbuck, 1978, p.375Graefe et al., 1984, p.397Schreyer & Roggenbuck, 1978, p.376 6 16. Schreyer & Roggenbuck, 1978, p.375LeeGraefe2003, p.2 Graefe, et al., 1984; Lawler, 1973;Schreyer & Roggenbuck, 1978Shelby1983Gramann1982, p.111size densityheterogeneityBaum& Paulus, 1991, p.552; Schmidt & Keating, 1979, p.685; Stokols,1976, p.51 Andereck, 1989, Lee & Graefe, 2003, p.3Manning, 1999,p.93; Schmidt & Keating, 1979, p.684 Andereck & Becker, 1993, p.26; Schmidt & Keating, 1979, p.684Baum & Paulus, 1991,p.553Gramann, 1982, p.111; Schmidt & Keating, 1979, p.686Andereck & Becker, 1993, p.26;Lee & Graefe, 2003, p.3 7 17. Bell1990, p.297social overloadunwanted interactionbehavior constraintarousal Schmidt & Keating, 1979, p.681Gramann1982,p.112Schmidt & Keating, 1979, p.682Gramann1982Altman, 1975;Stokols, 1976; Gramann, 1982, p.1122-1 Lee & Graefe, 2003,p.3 LeeGraefe 2003, p.3 8 18. 2-1 1.1a. 1b. 2.Gramann1982, p.113 Graefe, et al., 1984; Lee & Graefe, 2003; Schreyer &Roggenbuck, 1978; Shelby et al., 1983Shelby1983Gramann, 1982, p.111; Schmidt & Keating, 1979, p.686Schmidt & Keating, 1979, p.6829 19. Crowding Model Stokols1972Altman 1975Choi 1976Fisher, Bell Baum1978Shelby1980 Manning1999Stokols1972 Stokols1972(a)(b) (a)(b)(a) (b) 10 20. 1. 2. 3. 4. - -- (1) () -- - - () - (5a) (5b) (2) - - -(4a) (3) (4b) 2-1 Stokols1972 Stokols1972, p.77 Stokols197211 21. Altman1975Altman1975, p.154-158privacy systemsocial isolation - - - / - - - - - - -/ 2-2 Altman1975Altman1975, p.15512 22. Altman1975Baum & Paulus,1991, p.552-553 Altman1975Choi 1976 Choi 1976, p.353-3551. 2. - 3. 4. 5. 6. 13 23. 7. Choi 1976, p.356-357 1. 2.-- 2-3 Choi 1976Choi 1976, p.358 Choi197614 24. Choi1976 Fisher 1978 Fisher 1978, p.302-304generalenvironment behavior model () -- - - 2-4 Fisher 1978 Fisher 1978, p.302 Fisher 1978 15 25. Stoloks1972 Altman1975 Fisher 1978 Fisher 1978Shelby1980 Shelby1980, p.451. 2. 3. 2-5 Shelby1980 Shelby1980, p.4516 26. Shelby1980 Shelby1980, p.53Shelby1980 Shelby1980Shelby1980,p.44desired experience Shelby1980 Shelby1980 Manning1999Manning1999 17 27. - - -/- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- 2-6 Manning1999Manning1999, p.96 Manning1999 Manning1999 Shelby1980Manning1999 Manning1999Manning1999 Manning1999Manning1999 18 28. 1997a, p.2 Manning1999 Manning1999 19 29. 2-2 Stokols 1972 Altman 1975 Choi 1976 Fisher 1978 Shelby 1980 Manning 1999 2-2Choi1976Shelby1980Manning1999 SchreyerRoggenbuck1978//self-awareness/stress release/solitudeintrospection20 30. AbsherLee19817%23%Bultena1981r = .45r = .42Ditton1983 Shelby1983Graefe198413VaskeGraefeDempster1982environmental disturbanceGramannBurdge198421 31. Hammitt198443%47%WestoverCollins19871987 1988 Shelby19891517,0003559 22 32. AndereckBecker19931997b Tarrant 1997 LeeGraefe2003Central Pennsylvania Festival of the Art2-723 33. .374 -.332 2-7 Lee Graefe2003 24 34. 2-3 Schreyer & Roggenbuck1978 Absher & Lee1981 Bultena1981 Ditton1983 Shelby1983 Graefe1984 13 Gramann & Burdge1984 Hammitt1984 Westover & Collins1987 1987 1988 Shelby1989 35 Andereck & Becker1993 1997b Tarrant1997 Lee & Graefe2003 25 35. 2-31988Andereck & Becker, 1993; Graefeet al., 1984; Hammitt et al., 1984; Lee & Graefe, 2003; Westover & Collins, 198719871988Andereck & Becker,1993; Bultena et al., 1981; Ditton et al., 1983; Hammitt et al., 1984; Lee& Graefe,2003; Shelby et al., 1983; Tarran et al., 1997 1987 1988 1997b Lee & Graefe, 2003; Gramann & Burdge, 1984; Westover & Collins, 1987 1987 Absher & Lee, 1981; Ditton et al., 1983; Schreyer & Roggenbuck, 19782-3LeeGraefe20032-8LeeGraefe200326 36. 2-8 LeeGraefe2003 1997bAndereck & Becker, 1993; Hammitt et al., 1984;Shelby, 1980; Shelby et al., 1983; Shelby et al., 1989; Tarrant et al., 1997; Tarrant &English, 1996; Tarrant, 1999 Heberlein Vaske1977not at allcrowdedextremely crowded Bultena 1981 27 37. 19871988Lee Graefe2003 Westover Collins1987 Choi (1976 p.355) Choi 1976Manning, 1999, p.84; Tarrant & English, 1996, p.159; Tarrant, 1999, p.159Gramann & Burdge, 1984; Lee & Graefe, 2003; Shelby et al., 19831988Absher & Lee, 1981; Bultena et al., 1981;Tarrant et al., 1997; Westover & Collins, 1987; Womble & Studebaker, 1981 1988p.84the social density was measured objectively asthe number of individuals/parties at site per dayAbsher & Lee, 1981, p.238ShelbyColvin1982observersself-reportdiaries 1984, p.177GramannBurdge1997bp.25Manning, 1999, p.114; Tarrant et al., 1997, p.98actual densityreported contacts28 38. Andereck & Becker, 1993; Bultena etal., 1981; Ditton et al., 1983; Hammitt et al.,1984; Lee & Graefe,2003; Shelby et al.,1983Bultena et al., 1981; Hammitt et al.,1984; Lee &Graefe,2003compare the number of others they saw with theirexpectations and then indicate whether they saw more, the same, or fewer othersthan they expected Ditton et al., 1983 Andereck & Becker, 1993far fewer than expected to far more than expected Schmidt & Keating, 1979, p.6811987 Absher & Lee, 1981; Ditton et al., 1983; Schreyer &Roggenbuck, 1978 Schreyer Roggenbuck1978 Gramann & Burdge,1984; Schreyer & Roggenbuck, 1978Driver1977recreation experience preference, REPitem pool/29 39. // / Driver, Brown& Peterson, 1991, p.263-286Crandall1980Driver171990, p.36181.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.200041.78%17.41%11.44%1988Ditton et al., 1983experience expectationsfulfillment of expectationsLee Graefe 2003, p.4West1982 national forest 47.9% 16.7% Manning, 1999, p.106 30 40. 198719931997bWestover Collins19871997b Lee Graefe2003 Lee Graefe2003 Lee Graefe200331 41. 3-1 32 42. H2 H1 H3 H5H4 H6 3-1 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 33 43. 2005 4.81%6.36% 712007 1858 3-2 3-2 http://www.tamsui.gov.tw/briefmap.htm 34 44. pilot study p.96-97 2006 11 24 11 25 41 41 35 45. 10% 10% 3-1 7 4 p.100-101 3-2 56.1%43.9%212963.4%2017.1%40494.9%58.5%17.1%12.2%36.6%24.4%22.0%92.7%65.9% 36 46. 3-1 1. 24.39 2.21.95 3.19.51 4. 14.63 5.12.20 6. 12.20 7.9.768. 4.88 10%9.21.95 1. 26.83 2. 12.20 3.9.76 4.9.7639.0%19.5%36.6%24.4%12.2%3-31031266M =2.80M = 3.50M = 3.30M =2.50M = 2.50 360M = 5.58 M = 4.6537 47. 3-2 18 43.9%38 92.7% 23 56.1% 24.9% 12.4%20 717.1%21-29 26 63.4%27 65.9%30-39 614.6%512.2%40-49 24.9% 922.0% 12.4% 24.9%49.8% 717.1% 717.1%16 39.0% 24 58.5%819.5%512.2%819.5% 12.4% 15 36.6%10 24.4% 10 24.4%12.4% 512.2%24.9% 512.2%922.0%512.2% 15 36.6% 12.4% 37.3%M = 4.61 M = 4.58 M = 4.8138 48. 3-3 800 5 5 54 4 50 11111 266.00 2.80 3.50 3.30 2.50 2.5010 233.58 1.23 1.51 1.25 1.27 0.97 100077777 60 3333331 359.39 5.58 4.65 4.61 4.58 4.81 237.31 1.20 1.25 1.38 1.23 1.14 11/24 11/25 p.98-99171997bp.25Manning, 1999, p.114; Tarrant et al.,1997, p.9839 49. 1717173-48 1740 50. 3-4 1.1.1. Andereck, 1989, Lee & Graefe, 2003, p.32.Manning, 1999, p.93; Schmidt & Keating, 1979,p.6843.2.2.Bell, 1990, p.2973.3.4. 4.4.Westover & Collins, 1987 5.5.5. 6.6.Gramann & Burdge, 1984 7.6. 8.7.Bell, 1990, p.2977. 1997b 9.10. 8. 11. 199320004 41 51. 91717999 42 52. SEMHair, Anderson, TathamBlack2006,p.741100400ShumackerLomax1996SEM2005002006p.11340020062005270 156,004,160p.106752107100150 43 53. SPSS 10.0 LISREL 8.72 SAS9.1confirmatory factor analysis, CFApath analysis, PA 44 54. 2007 2 3 2 28 2/32/62/82/112/132/152/28 7 352 2 350 4-1 136 38.9% 64 18.3% 72 20.6% 124 35.4% 74 21.1% 50 14.3% 90 25.7% 22 6.3% 68 19.4% 4-1 % % % %64 (18.3%)74 (21.1%) 22 ( 6.3%) 160 (45.7%)72 (20.6%)50 (14.3%) 68 (19.4%) 190 (54.3%) 136 (38.9%) 124 (35.4%) 90 (25.7%) 350 (100.0%) 45 55. 4-21. 50.3% 49.7%2. 20-29 58.3% 20 20.0% 30-39 14.3% 40-49 7.4%3. 56.3% 17.1% 16.3% 8.9% 1.4%4. 39.7% 23.1%12.6% 8.3% 6.6% 6.0% 2.6%46 56. 4-2 174 49.7% 23 6.6%176 50.3% 44 12.6% 298.3%20 7020.0%216.0%20-29 204 58.3%8123.1%30-39 5014.3% 92.6%40-49 267.4%139 39.7% 41.1% 51.4% 6017.1%137 39.1%5716.3% 9126.0%197 56.3% 4212.0% 318.9%4111.7% 3510.0%278 79.4%4 1.2% 185.1% 5415.4%5. 79.4% 15.4% 5.1%6. 39.1% 26.0% 12.0% 11.7% 10% 1.2%47 57. 1 7 4-3 259 179 22 1000 200 23.7% 300 100 14.3% 500 4-3 221 .3%180 1 .3% 3061.7%200 83 23.7% 401 .3%250 236.6% 5082.3%300 51 14.6% 6041.1%35011 3.1% 701 .3%400 13 3.7% 802 .6%450 2 .6% 901 .3%500 37 10.6%10050 14.3% 550 1.3%12051.4%600 3 .9%15032 9.1%800 2.6%1602 .6%100082.3%1702 .6%350 100.0% 48 58. 1 7 4-4M = 5.07 4-4 5.07 1.26 4-5M = 4.27M = 4.35M =4.15 4-5 4.271.284.351.21 4.151.3549 59. 4-6M = 3.90 4-6 3.90 1.508174-73.594.37M = 4.37M = 3.83 M = 3.59 4-7 3.67 1.463.59 1.543.83 1.47 3.75 1.773.68 1.494.37 1.404.37 1.583.72 1.43 50 60. 9174-84.635.99 M = 5.99M = 5.88M = 5.71M =4.634.185.73M =5.73 M = 5.57M = 5.56 M = 4.18 t4-9951 61. 4-8 5.71 1.17 35.99 1.08 1 5.43 1.37 6 5.45 1.46 5 5.50 1.39 4 4.63 1.52 9 5.22 1.48 8 5.88 1.17 2 5.35 1.42 7 5.57 1.23 25.56 1.26 3 4.97 1.51 6 4.95 1.53 7 5.03 1.47 5 4.18 1.51 9 4.91 1.48 8 5.73 1.22 1 5.55 1.29 4 52 62. 4-9 t I-J tI.141.13 2.357*JI.431.26 6.389**JI.461.29 6.700**JI.501.60 5.826**JI.471.32 6.716**JI.451.47 5.759**JI.311.51 3.821**JI.151.05 2.594* JI-.20 1.27 -2.954*J* P < .05** P < .01 53 63. Confirmatory Factor Analysis, CFA 350 4-10 4-1 4-10 t() .87 .08 11.43*.60 .64 1.06.08 13.60*.69 .53 1.08.07 14.97*.74 .45 0.96.09 10.15*.54 .71 1.00.08 13.18*.67 .55.96.07 13.43*.68 .54.91.08 10.90*.58 .67 .67.088.60*.47 .78* P < .0554 64. 0.64 0.60 0.53 0.69 0.45 0.74 0.71 0.540.67 0.55 0.68 0.54 0.58 0.67 0.47 0.78 4-1 1. 0 .47 .74 4-1 .95 .07.09 4-10 2. Hair 2006, p.745 4-1155 65. 4-11 2 GFI SRMRRMSEA /dfNNFI CFI PNFICN .92.057.12116.49 / 20 .91 .94.66 111.35 4-11 RMSEA .12.8 SRMR .057.05 CN 111.35 200 GFI>.9NNFI>.9CFI>.9PNFI>.5Modification Index, MI 4-12 MI2 2 = .05 3.84 MI 3.84 2006p.188 56 66. 4-12 Modification Index, MI S1 S2 S3 S4 S5S6 S7S8 S1--- S2 9.34--- S3 0.01 7.08--- S4 4.91 3.13 3.82--- S5 0.60 2.16 1.02 8.49--- S6 1.32 0.68 7.08 1.40 1.03 --- S7 6.32 4.95 3.57 0.04 7.01 80.89--- S8 2.96 0.04 1.82 0.01 1.161.04 0.15 ---S1=S2=S3=S4=S5=S6=S7=S8= 4-12MIMI0.0180.89MIMI 4-13 4-2 4-13 t() .90 .08 11.76*.62 .62 1.08.08 13.87*.70 .51 1.11.07 15.27*.75 .43 0.96.09 10.11*.54 .70 1.02.08 13.49*.69 .53.87.07 11.79*.62 .62 .67.088.48*.47 .78* P < .0557 67. 0.62 0.620.51 0.700.43 0.750.70 0.54 0.53 0.690.620.62 0.470.78 4-2 1. 0.47 .75 4-2.95 .07 .09 4-13 58 68. 2. Hair 2006, p.745 4-14 4-14 CFA GFI.98>.9 SRMR .033 .05 RMSEA .059 .08 2(df) 29.86(14)p >.1 p = .0080NNFI.98 >.9 CFI.98 >.9 PNFI.65 >.5CN341.66>200(1) 2006p.150a. 2 CFA 59 69. 2 .1 2 2 SEM SEM 2004p.5.9b. GFIgoodness of fit index, GFIGFI 0 1 GFI R2 GFI GFI .9 2006p.153 CFA GFI .98c. SRMRstandardized root mean square residual, SRMR SRMR 0 1 SRMR 0Srbom Jreskog1982 SRMR .05 CFA 2006p.154 SRMR .033 Srbom Jreskog1982 SRMR .05 d. RMSEAroot mean square error of approximation, RMSEA 60 70. Hu Bentler1999.06 .10 Browne &Cudeck, 1993McDonald Ho2002.05 .082004p.5.17 CFA RMSEA .059(2) baseline model2006p.157a. NNFInon-normed fit index, NNFI NNFI 0 1 .9 CFA 2004p.5.14NNFI .98.9 b. CFIcomparative fit index, CFICFI 2004p.5.18CFI 0 1 CFI.9 CFA CFI.98.9 61 71. (3) estimated coefficients R2 2006p.161a. PNFIparsimonious normed fit index, PNFI NFI .06 .09 PNFI .5 2006p.162 CFA PNFI .65.5 b. CNHoelter Hoelters critical N, CN Hoelter1983 CN 200 CFA 2006p.164 CN 341.66 Hoelter1983 CN 200 CFA 2.1.1 62 72. 3. 2006p.186Bollen1989 1 t 1.96 R2 t R2 2006p.187SEM construct reliabilityaverage variance extracted 2006 p.188 .60 .502006p.188R2 R2 2006p.188 CFA 4-15 .97.84R2 .5 t R2 .84.5063 73. 4-15 t R2 11.76*.3813.87*.4915.27*.5610.11*.29 .97.8413.49*.48 11.79*.38 8.48*.22* P < .05 350 4-16 4-3 9 9 9 4-16 t ().56.069.01*.49.76.89 .06 14.15*.71.50 .77 .07 11.30*.60.651.06 .08 12.92*.66.56 .84 .07 12.29*.64.59 .89 .08 11.53*.61.63 .99 .08 12.69*.65.57 .60 .06 10.64*.57.68 .43 .075.98*.34.89* P < .0564 74. 0.76 0.49 0.50 0.71 0.65 0.60 0.56 0.66 0.64 0.59 0.61 0.63 0.65 0.57 0.57 0.68 0.34 0.89 4-3 1. 0.34.71 4-3.95 .06 .08 4-16 65 75. 2. Hair 2006, p.745 4-17 4-17 2 GFI SRMRRMSEA /dfNNFI CFI PNFICN .93.057.10121.27 / 27 .92 .94.69 136.15 4-17 RMSEA .10.8 SRMR .057.05 CN 136.15 200 GFI>.9NNFI>.9CFI>.9PNFI>.5Modification Index, MI 4-18 MI2 2 = .05 3.84 MI 3.84 2006p.188 66 76. 4-18 Modification Index, MI E1E2E3E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E1--- E224.26 --- E3 2.104.41 --- E4 2.685.341.33 --- E5 5.28 11.53 0.1813.47--- E6 2.93 10.333.071.67 7.35--- E7 0.38 1.7711.580.16 0.08 5.73--- E8 2.500.17 1.08 1.09 1.11 0.65 5.43--- E9 2.38 1.260.0410.35 0.00 0.20 1.90 20.09 ---E1=E2=E3=E4=E5=E6=E7=E8=E9= 4-18MIMI0.0024.26MIMI 4-19 4-4 4-19 t ().50 .067.72*.44 .81 .74.07 10.45*.57 .681.04.08 12.39*.65 .57 .90.07 13.04*.68 .54 .95.08 12.17*.64 .581.00.08 12.52*.66 .56 .57.06 9.8*.54 .71* P < .05 67 77. 0.81 0.440.68 0.570.57 0.65 0.680.54 0.640.58 0.660.56 0.540.71 4-4 1. 0.44 .68 4-4 .95 .06 .08 4-192. Hair 2006, p.745 4-2068 78. 4-20 CFA GFI.97>.9 SRMR .040 .05RMSEA .077 .08 2(df) 42.97(13)p >.1 p = .00 NNFI.92 >.9 CFI.95 >.9 PNFI .57 >.5CN 225.87>200(1) 2006p.150a. 2 CFA 2 .1 2 2 SEM SEM 2004p.5.9 b. GFI CFA GFI .9769 79. c. SRMR CFA SRMR .040Srbom Jreskog1982 SRMR .05d. RMSEA CFA RMSEA .077(2) baseline model2006p.157a. NNFI CFA NNFI .92 .9 b. CFI CFA CFI .95.9 70 80. (3) estimated coefficients R2 2006p.161a. PNFI CFA PNFI .57.5 b. CN CFA CN 225.87Hoelter1983 CN 200 CFA 2.13. CFA 4-21.97 .83 R2 .5 t R2 .8371 81. 4-21 tR2 7.72* .19 10.45* .32 12.39* .42 13.04* .46.97.83 12.17* .41 12.52* .44 9.8* .29* P < .05.50 CFA CFA SEM 4-572 82. S1s1 - s7 S2S32 S4E11S5E2 3S6E3 5 4S7E4 6E5 E6 e1 e7E7 4-5 4-22 .44 .75 .45 t 1.9673 83. 4-22 t s1 .0811.05*.64.76s2 .0812.08*.70.71s3 ------ .75.66s4 .09 9.24*.54.84s5 .0811.69*.68.73s6 .0710.56*.61.79s7 .08 8.10*.47.88e1 .08 7.10*.44.90e2 .09 8.97*.57.82e3 .1110.07*.66.76e4 ------ .68.73e5 .11 9.93*.64.76e6 .1110.10*.66.75e7 .07 8.53*.54.84 t * p .051. 4-23 0.44 .75 .95 75 85. 2. Hair 2006, p.745 4-24 4-24 GFI .93 >.9 AGFI .91 >.9 RMSEA.052 .08 2(df) 224.23(116)p >.1 p < .0001 NNFI .92>.9 CFI .93>.9 PNFI.74>.5CN 223 >200(1) a. 2b. GFI GFI .93.976 86. c. AGFI AGFI .91.9d. RMSEA RMSEA .052.08(2) a. NNFI NNFI .92.9 b. CFI CFI .93 .9 (3) a. PNFI PNFI .74.5 b. CN CN 223 CN 200 77 87. 2.1 4-23 4-61 .26t 5.03 4-23 4-62 .1t 1.63 4-23 4-63 -.09t -0.15 4-23 4-64 .51t 12.20 78 88. 4-23 4-65 .38t 7.70 4-23 4-66 -.07t -1.5119871988Andereck & Becker, 1993; Bultena et al., 1981; Ditton et al., 1983;Hammitt et al., 1984; Lee & Graefe, 2003; Shelby et al., 1983; Tarrant et al., 1997 79 89. 2006 11 24 11 25 41 10% 8 4 8 9 1 7 2007 2 5 80 90. 350 35020-29 259 179 200 23.7%M=5.07 M=4.27M=4.35M=4.15M=3.90M=4.37M=3.83M=3.59M=5.99M=5.88M=5.71 81 91. M=4.63M=5.73 M=5.57 M=5.56M=4.18t 8 MI 7 2000 9 82 92. MI 7 83 93. t 84 94. 1997bp.25Manning, 1999, p.114; Tarrant et al.,1997, p.98221000 85 95. 83-41987198886 96. 1997bLee & Graefe, 2003; Gramann & Burdge, 1984; Westover & Collins,1987Driver Bassett1975 Michigan AusableRiver yelling or shouting Manning, 1999,p.105 1987 Absher & Lee, 1981; Ditton et al., 1983; Schreyer & Roggenbuck, 1978 87 97. 77/1 copingManning & Valliere, 2001, p.41312007/05/29 88 98. Lee Graefe2003, p.9 Shelby 1983, p.1289 99. 90 100. 2006 2004LISREL 1990 1987 20002000 http://www.tamsui.gov.tw1988 1997a 1021-181997b 10319-362006199361/2 55-7991 101. Absher, J. D., & Lee, R. G. (1981). Density as an incomplete cause of crowding in backcountry settings. Leisure Sciences, 4, 231-247.Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: Brookes/Coie Publishing Company.Andereck, K. L. (1989). Perceived crowding among visitors in a built recreation environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Clemson University.Andereck, K. L., & Becker, R. H. (1993). Perceptions of carry-over crowding in recreation environments. Leisure Science, 15, 25-35.Baum, A., & Paulus, P. B. (1991). Crowding. In D. Stokols, & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 533-570). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.Bell, P. A., Fisher, J.D., Baum, A., & Greene, T. E. (Eds) (1990) Environmental psychology (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.Bultena, G., Field, D., Womble, P., & Albrecht, D. (1981). Closing the gates: A study of backcountry use-limitation at Mount Mckinley National Park. Leisure Sciences, 4, 249-267.Choi, S. C., Mirjafari, A., & Weaver, H. B. (1976). The Concept of Crowding: A Critical Review and Proposal of an Alternative Approach. Environment and Behavior, 8, 345-362Crandall, R. (1980). Motivations for leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 45-43.Ditton, R. B., Fedler, A. J., & Graefe, A. R. (1983). Factors contributing to perceptions of recreational crowding. Leisure Sciences, 5, 273-286.Driver, B.L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. L. (1991). Benefits of leisure. State College, Pa: Venture Pub. 92 102. Graefe, A. R., Vaske, J. J., & Kuss, F. R. (1984). Social carrying capacity: An integration and synthesis of twenty years of research. Leisure Sciences, 6, 395-431.Gramann, J. H. (1982). Toward a behavioral theory of crowding in outdoor recreation: An evaluation and synthesis of research. Leisure Sciences, 5, 109-126.Gramann, J. H., & Burdge, R. J. (1984). Crowding perception determinants at intensively developed outdoor recreation sites. Leisure Sciences, 6, 167-186.Hammitt, W. E., McDonald, C. D., & Noe, F. P. (1984). Use level and encounter: Important variables of perceived crowding among nonspecialized recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 1-8.Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. (5 edn). Prentice Hall International: UK.Heberlein, T. A., & Vaske, J. J. (1977). Crowding and visitor conflict on the Bois Brule River (report WIS WRC 77-04). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Water Resources Center.Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Lee, H., & Graefe, A. R. (2003). Crowding at an arts festival: Extending crowding models to the frontcountry. Tourism Management, 24, 1-11.Manning, R. (1999). Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and research for satisfaction (2nd Edition.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Manning, R., & Ciali, C. (1980). Recreation density and user satisfaction: A further exploration of the satisfaction model. Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 329-345. 93 103. Manning, R., & Valliere, W. A. (2001). Coping in Outdoor Recreation: Causes and Consequences of Crowding and Conflict Among Community Residents. Journal of Leisure Research, 33, 410-426.Schmidt, D., & Keating, J. (1979). Human crowding and personal control: An integration of the research. Psychological Bulletin, 86,680-700.Schreyer, R., & Roggenbuck, J.W. (1978). The influence of experience expectations on crowding perceptions and social-psychological carrying capacities. Leisure Sciences, 1, 373-394.Shelby, B. (1980). Crowding models for backcountry recreation. Land Economics, 56(1), 43-55.Shelby, B., & Colvin, R. (1982). Encounter measures in carrying capacity research: Actual, reported, and diary contacts. Journal of Leisure Research, 14, 350-360.Shelby, B., Heberlein, T. A., Vaske, J. J., and Alfano, G. (1983). Expectations, preferences, and feeling crowded in recreation activities. Leisure Sciences, 6, 1-13.Shelby, B., Vaske, J. J., & Heberlein, T. A. (1989). Comparative analysis of crowding in multiple locations: Results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences, 11, 269-291.Shumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginners guide to structural equation modeling, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Stokols, D. (1972).On the distinction between density and crowding. Psychological Review, 79, 275-277.Stokols, D. (1972). A socialpsychological model of human crowding phenomena. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 38, 72-83.Stokols, D. (1976). The experience of crowding in primary and secondary environments. Environment and Behavior, 8, 49-86.94 104. Tarrant, M. A. (1999). Variability of the perceived crowding scale: A research note. Leisure Sciences, 21, 159-164.Tarrant, M. A., Cordell, H. K., & Kibler, T. L. (1997). Measuring perceived crowding for high-density river recreation: The effects of situational conditions and personal factors. Leisure Sciences, 19, 97-112.Tarrant, M. A., & English, D. B. K. (1996). A crowding-based model of social carrying capacity: Applications for whitewater boating use. Journal of Leisure Research, 28, 155-168.Vaske, J. J., Graefe, A. R., & Dempster, A. B. (1982). Social and environmental influences on perceived crowding. In Proceedings: Wilderness psychology group conference, ed. F.E. Boteler, 211-227. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University.West, P. C.(1982). Effects of user behavior on the perception of crowding in backcountry forest recreation. Forest Sciences, 28, 95-105.Westover, T. N., & Collins, J. R. (1987). Perceived crowding in recreation setting: An urban case study. Leisure Sciences, 9, 87-99.Womble, P., & Studebaker, S. (1981). Crowding in a national park campground. Environment and Behavior, 13, 557-573.95 105. 04-26328001-135131. 2. 30 500 ------------------------------------ 2-1 3. ----------------------------- 3-1. 3-2. 3-3. ------------------ 4. 5. 6. 96 106. 7. 1. 2.20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 3. 4. 5. 6. 97 107. 04-26328001-135131. 30 500 -------------------------------- 1-1 2.----------------------------- 2-1. 2-2. 2-3. -------------------3. 4. ---------- 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9________________________ 98 108. 5. 5-1.-------------------- 5-1-1. 5-1-2. 5-1-3. 5-1-4. 5-1-5. 5-1-6. 5-1-7. 5-1-8. 5-1-9. 5-1-10. 5-2.-------------------- 5-2-1. 5-2-2. 5-2-3. 5-2-4. 5-2-5. 5-2-6. 5-2-7. 5-2-8. 5-2-9. 5-2-10. 1.2.20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 3. 4. 5. 6. 99 109. 1. 62. 224.393.1 4.15. 56. 321.95 7.18.29. 110. 111. 119.5112. 113. 114. 1 15. 614.6316. 512.2017. 512.2018. 49.7619. 14.8820. 121. () 322. 223. 221.95 24. 125. 1 100 110. 1. 42. 324.393. 24.15 9 21.956.619.51 7.28.3 7.32 9.2 4.8810. 1 2.4411. 1 2.4412. 1 2.4413. 1 2.44 1.72. 3 26.83 3. 14. 25 2 12.206.17.49.76 8./ 3 9.76 9. 1101 111. 4-1 4-1 12 34 56 7 -----------------------------------------------N 5 35 75106 7356% 1.4% 10.0% 21.4% 30.3% 20.9% 16.0%4-231.2%22.3%18.6% 4-2 12 3 4567 -----------------------------------------------N52251 146 74 25 27% 1.4% 6.3% 14.6% 41.7% 21.1% 7.1% 7.7% N21746 157 72 31 25%.6% 4.9% 13.1% 44.9% 20.6% 8.9% 7.1%N73349 152 51 35 23% 2.0% 9.4% 14.0% 43.4% 14.6% 10.0% 6.6% 102 112. 4-3 4-3 1 2 3 4 567 -----------------------------------N2053598983 32 14% 5.7% 15.1% 16.9% 25.4% 23.7% 9.1% 4.0% 4-4 103 113. 4-4 1234567 -------------------------- N19 64 79 85 70 19 14%5.4%18.3% 22.6%24.3%20.0% 5.4% 4.0%N 25 7667 90 522317%7.1%21.7% 19.1%25.7%14.9% 6.6% 4.9%N 18 4778 105523416%5.1%13.4% 22.3%30.0%14.9% 9.7% 4.6% N 47 4465 81 444326% 13.4%12.6% 18.6%23.1%12.6% 12.3%7.4%N 22 5487 100462120%6.3%15.4% 24.9%28.6%13.1% 6.0% 5.7%N6 3353 85 100 5221%1.7% 9.4% 15.1% 24.3% 28.6% 14.9% 6.0%N 11375482755635%3.1% 10.6% 15.4% 23.4% 21.4% 16.0% 10.0% N 175975104 592115 %4.9% 16.9% 21.4% 29.7% 16.9% 6.0% 4.3% 4-5104 114. 4-5 12 3 4567 -------------------------------------- N 2950 80 95114 %.6%2.6%14.3%22.9%27.1%32.6%N 1 6 32 60 108143% .3% 1.7% 9.1%17.1%30.9%40.9%N 4224 60 77 84 99 %1.1% .6%6.9%17.1%22.0%24.0%28.3%N 4921 58 71 75 112 %1.1%2.6%6.0%16.6%20.3%21.4%32.0%N 3521 61 66 83111 % .9%1.4%6.0%17.4%18.9%23.7%31.7%N 8 1849 98 79 42 56 %2.3%5.1% 14.0%28.0%22.6%12.0%16.0% N 7630 68 74 79 86 %2.0%1.7%8.6%19.4%21.1%22.6%24.6% N 22 5 40 63 104134% .6% .6%1.4%11.4%18.0%29.7%38.3% N 4723 69 65 89 93 %1.1%2.0%6.6% 19.7% 18.6% 25.4% 26.6%4-6105 115. 4-6 12 3 4567 --------------------------------------N 2056 85 83106 % 5.7% 16.0%24.3%23.7%30.3%N 2 71534 98 99 95%.6%2.0%4.3%9.7%28.0%28.3%27.1%N 8123875 72 81 64 % 2.3%3.4% 10.9% 21.4%20.6%23.1%18.3%N10173069 81 84 59 % 2.9%4.9%8.6% 19.7%23.1%24.0%16.9%N 6133568 82 82 64 % 1.7%3.7% 10.0% 19.4%23.4%23.4%18.3%N17305811063 46 26 % 4.9%8.6% 16.6% 31.4%18.0%13.1% 7.4%N 9123869 88 82 52 % 2.6%3.4% 10.9% 19.7%25.1%23.4%14.9% N 2 41139 65 120109%.6%1.1%3.1% 11.1%18.6%34.3%31.1% N 3 31652 77 10099 %.9% .9%4.6% 14.9% 22.0% 28.6% 28.3%1. 270 2. 15600 2,700,000 52 0.6215600 3. 4160 2,700,000 52 0.454160 4. 100 160 15600 100 1565. 110 150 4160 32 130 106