ArticlePeerJ2024
Advancements in monitoring: a comparison of traditional and application-based tools for measuring outdoor recreation.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Outdoor recreation has experienced a boom in recent years and continues to grow. While outdoor recreation provides wide-ranging benefits to human well-being, there are growing concerns about the sustainability of recreation with the increased pressures placed on ecological systems and visitor experiences. These concerns emphasize the need for managers to access accurate and timely recreation data at scales that match the growing extent of the recreation footprint. Here, we compare spatial and temporal patterns of winter and summer recreation using traditional (trail cameras, infrared counters, aerial surveys, participatory mapping) and application-based tools (Strava Metro, Strava Global Heatmap, Wikiloc) across the Columbia and Canadian Rocky Mountains of western Canada. We demonstrate how recreation use can be estimated using traditional and application-based tools, although their accuracy and utility varies across space, season and activity type. We found that trail cameras and infrared counters captured similar broad-scale patterns in count estimates of pedestrians and all recreation activities. Aerial surveys captured areas with low recreation intensity and participatory mapping captured coarser information on the intensity and extent of recreation across large spatial and temporal scales. Application-based data provided detailed spatiotemporal information on recreation use, but datasets were biased towards specific activities. Strava Metro data was more suited for capturing broad-scale spatial patterns in biking than pedestrian recreation. Application-based data should be supplemented with data from traditional tools to identify biases in data and fill in data gaps. We provide a comparison of each tool for measuring recreation use, highlight each tools' strengths and limitations and applications to address real-world monitoring and management scenarios. Our research contributes towards a better understanding of which tool, or combinations of tools, to use that can expand the rigor and scope of recreation research. These findings support decision-making to mitigate pressures on wildlife and their habitats while allowing for high-quality recreation experiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.