Content uploaded by Ulrike Gretzel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ulrike Gretzel on Aug 25, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Simic, J., Gretzel, U., Hardy, A. and Wright, P. (2008). Environmental
Consciousness of RV Visitors to Rocky Mountain National Parks. Parks for
Tomorrow 2008. Conference on Canadian Parks and Protected Areas.
Calgary, May 8-13, 2008.
Environmental consciousness of RV visitors to Rocky Mountain
National Parks
Jovan Simic
Social Science Researcher
Parks Canada Agency
Dr. Ulrike Gretzel
Assistant Professor and Director
Laboratory for Intelligent Systems in Tourism
Texas A&M University
Dr. Anne Hardy
Assistant Professor
University of Northern British Columbia
Dr. Pamela A. Wright
Associate Professor
University of Northern British Columbia
RV travel is a growing market but remains largely under-studied. More and more visitors to
National Parks choose to travel in an RV. The goal of the study presented in this paper was to
investigate the environmental consciousness of RV visitors to National Parks and determine their
awareness of the negative environmental impacts of RV traveling, as well as the actions they take
to mitigate these impacts. A paper-based intercept survey of RV travelers was conducted in the
summer of 2007 at three major campgrounds in the Mountain Parks: Whistlers (Jasper), Tunnel
Mountain (Banff) and Lake Louise. The results reveal that less than half of the RV visitors are
aware of their ecological footprint while traveling in an RV, and an even smaller number takes
measures to reduce their ecological footprint while traveling in an RV. However, the study results
also show that some RVers are more environmentally conscious than others. The paper
concludes that with the growing number of RV travelers, National Parks are a perfect place to
educate the visitors and raise the environmental awareness. These issues are further discussed in
relation to the Parks Canada mandate.
Key words: RV travelers, environmental consciousness, Parks Canada, Mountain Parks
Introduction and Background
The drive tourism industry, including recreational vehicles (RV’s), is increasing rapidly in
Canada. The most recent figures for the province of British Columbia (BC) were
collected in 1996 and suggested that more than one million non residents took a holiday
in their own or a hired motor vehicle (Statistics Canada 2001). Additionally, per capita,
Canada has a higher level of RV ownership than the USA, with 13% of the population
owning an RV, compared to 10% in the USA (Go RVing 2004). These figures, which
have most likely increased, suggest that a summer influx of RV travelers to remote areas
of Canada can have dramatic visitation impacts. However, apart from estimations of their
numbers and demographic profiles, little research exists which explores their behavior
and environmental impacts. Given that the goal of sustainable tourism is now a
cornerstone of many tourism development agencies, an understanding of this rapidly
growing market is imperative in order to plan and create policy for the environmental,
socio-cultural or economic impacts of RV tourism.
Gas consumption and the attendant carbon contributions associated with RV’s is perhaps the
single greatest impact. Fuel-consumption for RV’s can range from 24 litres/100km for a Class
A “luxury” motorhome to a more efficient 12-13 litres/100km for a CamperVan type model
(Pembina Institute nd). Beyond fuel use, grey water – particularly tank waste water with
the chemical additives of formaldehyde and ammonia is of significant concern
(Environment Canada 2001). RV’s have other ecological impacts including an increased
hardscaped ecological footprint within campgrounds; secondary energy use consisting
typically of either electric or diesel generation; increased water consumption; and potential
for increased noise/light pollution caused by generators, TV’s and other amenities (Davies
and Cahill 2000). The extent of the associated impact is influenced both the by RVers
behaviour and also by the size of the RV.
A study of RV users behaviours with regard to holding tank wastewater treatment in response
to a special program on treating liquid wastes was conducted throughout private, provincial
and federal campgrounds in Atlantic Canada (Camp Green Canada! 2000). Just over half
(55%) of respondents used biological treatments for wastewater instead of the more harmful
chemical treatments (43%), and 96% of those who had never used a biological treatment
indicated that given availability and competitive pricing they would consider using a
biological treatment alternative. In a related study in a similar location conducted by Camp
Green Canada in 2003, campground operators were asked about their awareness use and
promotion of the Camp Green, Canada! Campaign on RV waste-water initiated by
Environment Canada, Parks Canada and various tourism organizations (Environment Canada
nd). Roughly half of operators were aware of the program and 54% indicated that they
encouraged non-toxic RV wastewater dumping at their campground. The overwhelming
majority (96%) indicated that they had observed a change in tourist’s product choice
behaviour – towards biological controls in the last three years. Although holding tank
wastewater has received the bulk of the attention in greening RV travel – other tourism
campaigns target more general green camping behaviours such as choosing more efficient RV
vehicles (see for example http://www.greenlearning.ca/climate/solutions/lifestyle/4#rec
and www.gorving.ca).
While National Parks can do their share in implementing sustainability measures, such
initiatives ultimately need to be accepted by the visitors and often require their active
participation. Very little reliable information about environmentally friendly tourists and
their specific attitudes is currently available (Dolnicar et al. forthcoming). A recent study
by Dolnicar and Leisch (2008) finds that individuals generally demonstrate higher levels
of pro-environmental behavior at home in comparison to when they travel. Since RVers
take a piece of home with them and often travel in RVs to be able to feel “at home” while
on the road (Counts and Counts 1997), it is possible that they exhibit more environmental
behaviours. At the same time, they are often perceived as travelers driving huge gas-
guzzling vehicles and leaving garbage and grey water behind wherever they go (Hardy et
al. 2007).
With more and more visitors to National Parks choosing to travel in an RV, a study was
conducted in the summer of 2007 as a result of collaborative effort between Parks
Canada, University of Northern British Columbia and Texas A&M University to better
understand this segment of the market. While the overall study tries to understand a more
complete picture including visitors’ profiles and travel habits, as well as their
campground use behavior, this paper focuses on the environmental consciousness of RV
visitors to Rocky Mountain National Parks. In particular, this paper seeks to answer the
following research questions:
1. Who are the RV visitors to National Parks?
2. Are RVers aware of their environmental impacts?
3. Do RVers consciously take actions to mitigate these impacts?
4. Does environmental consciousness play a role in campground choice?
Methodology
A paper-based intercept survey was used to collect data for this study. It was designed to
collect a combination of quantitative and qualitative information. Quantitative, closed-
ended questions were mainly used to collect demographic information about RVers, as
well as information about their travel behaviours and camping preferences. Qualitative,
open-ended, questions were used in order to better understand users’ perceptions when it
comes to the issues surrounding environmental awareness, such as evaluating positive
and negative impacts of RVing in the National Parks. Rather than fitting their
experiences into predetermined boxes, we decided that qualitative questions would
enable our participants to express themselves fully, and also provide us with more
information, as qualitative data can be richer in meaning than quantitative data (Babbie
2004).
A total of 409 surveys were collected at six different campgrounds during the months of
August and first half of September. According to the Parks Canada website, June through
September are considered to be the months during which campgrounds receive the most
use, with July and August being the busiest. Although a convenience based sampling
method was used to select sampling days, a systematic random sample was used to start
each day such that the starting campsite was selected randomly after which every other
campsite was surveyed. If there was more than one person in an RV party, the person
with the next birthday was questioned.
There were a total of 49 questions included in the survey. The survey aimed at collecting
the following information about RV travellers:
Demographic information (age, gender, income, employment, hometown)
RV related information (type of RV vehicle, whether it was owned or leased; RV
club membership)
Travel preferences (caravan vs independent travel, full-timers vs vacationers,
overnight preferences, gas price influence; annual distance and average time
travelled in an RV per year).
Trip information (trip length, distance traveled, destination and starting point)
Campground preferences (repeat visitation, preferred amenities, evaluation of
services in Parks Canada campgrounds)
Environmental awareness (perception of environmental impacts, actions taken to
reduce negative impacts, greening of RVs)
Most of the surveys were conducted in three main campgrounds: Tunnel Mountain (138),
Lake Louise (122), and Whistlers (120). These campsites are very similar in nature, as
they are all located near or within town sites: Tunnel Mountain in Banff, Lake Louise in
Lake Louise, and Whistlers near Jasper. Furthermore, these campsites provide very
similar services and ratios of serviced and unserviced campsites. The remaining 29
surveys were collected in the campgrounds along the Icefields Parkway (Mosquito Creek,
Waterfowl and Snarring Overflow).
The quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive analyses to profile the RVers in the
sample and to investigate their environmentally conscious behaviors. Crosstabs and Chi-
Square tests were used to examine whether differences in environmentally conscious
behaviors existed between various groups of RVers. The qualitative data was analyzed
with the support of NVivo and involved coding themes that emerged from the open-ended
responses.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
RVer Profiles
The majority of RVers travels as couples. About three quarters of the participants were
from North America, with 58.2% from Canada and 15.4 % from the United States. Other
significant groups include Dutch (7.8%), German (7.1), British (3.9), and Swiss (3.7%).
Overall, over 26% of the respondents were international visitors. Most of the RVers were
between the ages of 35 and 64 (Figure 1).
over 7565-7455-6445-5435-4425-34under 24
Age
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Count
2.75%
16.5%
28.0%
20.25%
22.75%
8.25%
1.5%
Figure 1- Age distribution of RVers
There was also a large number of retirees among the RVers (31.5%). Education levels
were generally high with over 80% having some sort of post-secondary education and
over 45% having university degree or higher. Family annual incomes were also generally
high, as more than 80% made over $60,000, with nearly 40% making over $100,000.
RV Type and Ownership
Over three quarters of the respondents (76.4%) own the RV or trailer they travel with.
Younger RVers are significantly less likely to own their RV (p=.000), with only 48.7% of
the 34 or younger age group claiming ownership compared to 65.9% of those aged 35-44,
75.3% of those aged 45-54, 85.6% of those aged 55-64 and 90.9% of those 65 or older.
Surprisingly, 25% of international RVers own the RV or trailer they travel with.
Travel related information
It was interesting to note that there was a definite trend in the number of years of RV
experience. Number of RVers and years of experience were inversely proportional. This
might be an indication of the booming market. However, there was one exception to this
pattern, as the number of participants with over 20 years of experience was the greatest
(Figure 2).
20 or more year15-19 years10-14 years5-9 years1-4 yearsFirst trip
Started RVing (when)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Count
32.59%
5.47%
9.2%
15.17%
17.16%
20.4%
Figure 2 - RV experince in years
Most commonly (57%) RVers travelled between 1000 and 5000 kilometres per year in
their RV. Another 25% travelled between 5000 and 14000 kilometres and nearly 10%
travelled more than that. Gas prices did not have much influence on their decision to RV
(Figure 3) although we might expect that as prices have continued to rise since the study
it may become an issue.
very muchmuchmoderatelya littlenot at all
Gas price influence on plans
250
200
150
100
50
0
C o u n t
2.98%
4.96%
12.41%
19.35%
60.3%
Figure 3 - Influence of gas price on travel plans
The Canadian Rockies were a final destination for approximately 42% of the RVers,
while for the rest they were a drive through attraction. It is also interesting to note that
57% of the RV visitors were first time visitors to the region.
Preference for Campgrounds with Green Amenities
Almost a quarter (24.3%) of the RVers in the sample indicated that they would choose a
campground based on the availability of solar-powered electrical hook ups. Slightly more
(28.5%) prefer campgrounds that offer recycling. Almost half (46.2%) stated that they
would choose a campground over a similar other if it had sites that were constructed in an
environmentally friendly way. No significant differences were found based on RVer
characteristics except for very young RVers having a greater preference for campgrounds
that offer recycling (p=.006; Table 1).
Table 1- Preference for Campgrounds with Recycling based on Age Group
34 or
younger 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or
older
% of age group who prefer
campgrounds that offer recycling 43.6 22.2 22.2 37.8 21.2
Perceptions of Positive and Negative Impacts of RVing
Participants were asked to list positive and negative impacts that RVing has upon
National Parks. Three main concepts that emerged as positive impacts included:
RVing being the source of money for National Parks, both through Parks fees
(n=111) and latent impacts of tourism (n=58);
Bringing people closer to the environment and in that way creating new stewards
(n=119); and
It’s cleaner than building hotels and permanent structures (n=57).
Negative impacts listed by the participants included:
Environmental pollution through gas emissions and chemicals used (n=124);
Wildlife disturbances (n=94);
Garbage (n=59);
Traffic jams and road safety (63); and
Crowding (n=54).
Over half of the RVers (55.5%) who identified negative impacts of RVing (n=292) stated
that they had taken actions to mitigate those negative impacts. Whether steps are taken to
reduce negative impacts depends on nationality, with Canadians being more likely to take
actions (Table 2). It also depends on income (the over $100,000 bracket is more likely to
take actions), time spent RVing (with first timers not surprisingly being less likely to
engage in mitigation) and ownership (RV owners are more likely to try to reduce negative
impacts. No significant relationships were found for time spent traveling in an RV per
year, RV club membership, kilometers traveled per year, age and education level.
Most significant actions RVers take to mitigate their negative impacts include: picking up
garbage and litter (n=31), leaving a campsite clean (n=25), recycling (n=21), and using
environmentally friendly fuels and chemicals (n=17).
Table 2 - Significant Influences on Whether Actions Have Been Taken
Have taken actions to reduce negative impacts of RVing
Yes
(% of respondents)*
No
(% of respondents)*
Nationality
Canada 62.7 37.3
US 56.3 43.8
International 39.5 60.5
Income
$60,000 or less 47.1 52.9
$60,001 - $80,000 59.6 40.4
$80,001 - $100,000 43.2 56.8
More than $100,000 66.7 33.3
RV Ownership
Yes 60.6 39.4
No 39.7 60.3
First-Timer
Yes 41.7 58.3
No 59.1 40.9
*Differences significant at the p< 0.05 level
Greening the RV
About 10% of the respondents use diesel generators as an energy source for their RV,
54.5% use a gasoline generator, 24.8% use solar panels and 31.2% use some other form
of energy source (e.g. propane, batteries or other electrical sources). Most RVers (80%)
use only one form of energy source for the RV while 20% use two or more sources. Of
those who use only one energy source, about 12% depend solely on solar power.
Overall, less than a third (30.2%) of the respondents indicated that they had taken steps to
"green" their RV. Differences exist based on demographic variables as well as RV-related
behaviors. Canadians are more likely to have taken steps to green the RV (41.8%
compared to 25.4% for Americans and 4.5% for international RVers) (Table 3). Also,
young RVers are least likely to have taken steps to green the RV they travel with. Not
surprisingly, RV or trailer owners are more likely to have taken steps and first-timers are
less likely to have greened the RV. Interestingly, RV club membership has a positive
influence in that club members are more likely to indicate that they had greened their RV.
Finally, those who travel only a limited distance annually in their RV are least likely to
have taken steps to green the RV. No significant differences were found for income, time
spent traveling in an RV annually and education level.
Most of the RVers that have taken steps to green their RV installed solar panels (n=43).
Some (n=23) also mentioned using more environmentally friendly products, chemicals
and fuels, such as energy efficient lights and other electrical devices, biodegradable toilet
paper, biodegradable soap, green water and drain chemicals. Some (n=3) have even
mentioned downsizing to a more fuel-efficient RV units.
Table 3 - Significant Influences on Whether RV Has Been Greened
Have greened the RV
Yes
(% of respondents)*
No
(% of respondents)*
Nationality
Canada 41.8 58.2
US 25.4 74.6
International 4.5 95.5
Age
34 or younger 13.5 86.5
35-44 years 25.9 74.1
45-54 years 28.0 72.0
55-64 years 41.5 58.5
65 or older 29.7 70.3
RV Ownership
Yes 37.4 62.6
No 3.6 96.4
First-Timer
Yes 5.5 94.5
No 36.1 63.9
RV Club Membership
Yes 42.4 57.6
No 28.0 72.0
Distance Traveled Annually
0-999km 20.0 80.0
1,000-4,999km 26.4 73.6
5,000-14,999km 43.2 56.8
15,000km or more 34.2 65.8
*Differences significant at the p< 0.05 level
Conclusions
RVers seem to be generally aware of the impacts they have and about half of those who
perceive problems actively seek to mitigate the negative consequences of their travel
style. This is also reflected in preferences for environmentally friendly campgrounds.
However, only a small percentage of RVers have invested in alternative energy sources or
engage in other activities to green the RV in which they travel. This is especially the case
for those who do not own their RV and travel only short distances and perhaps do not
seem to perceive the necessary impetus to exhibit pro-environmental behaviours.
Interestingly the issue of greening wastewater holding tank procedures that is so
pronounced in the existing practice of organizations promoting green RVing did not
receive much mention in our study.
While clearly not all RVers are environmentally conscious, there seems to be a large
enough group of RVers that are attracted to sustainable facilities to warrant investment in
environmental protection in National Parks. Also, there appears to be a great potential to
educate these travelers about their impacts and possibilities to mitigate such negative
effects while they visit protected areas. The existing programs on green waste-water
RVing for tourists and campground operators that appear to be used heavily in eastern
Canada did not resonate in this study, thus suggesting the possibility to tap into existing
campaigns and programs for relatively little cost and potential high reward. The findings
indicate that RVers see themselves as creating greater stewardship for parks and should
certainly be involved in environmental protection initiatives. However, messages
regarding the greening of the RV itself are almost certainly lost on those who do not own
the RV.
One of the limitations of the study is that it only included a small portion of RV travelers
from the US. It is suggested that additional data collection earlier in the summer is
needed to capture that specific market segment. Also, many respondents skipped the
open-ended questions where detail about specific concerns, actions and behaviours was
provided. Follow up, in-depth interviews could definitely shed even more light on
perceived impacts and actions taken. Alternatively, Parks Canada could build off the
information gathered in this study and the RV studies from eastern Canada to develop
closed-ended questions for further research. A further limitation is the lack of available
data with which to compare the environmental attitudes and actions of RVers to those of
other visitors to National Parks.
The number of RV enthusiasts and RV buyers is likely to grow extensively in the US as
well as Canada as the enormous baby boomer generation retires (Hardy et al. 2007).
National Parks have to be aware of this growing visitor segment and should play an
active role in encouraging RV travelers to engage in pro-environmental behaviours.
References
Camp Green Canada! (2000).Recreational Vehicle Holding Tank Wastewater Treatment
Survey. 2000. Accessed online (May 13, 2008) at: www.campgreencanada.ca/eng/FileLib
%5C2000report.pdf
Camp Green Canada! (2003). Camp Green Canada! Survey Report 2003. Accessed
online (May 13, 2008) at: www.campgreencanada.ca/eng/FileLib%5Csurvey_report2003.pdf
Counts, D. A. & Counts, D. R. (1997). Over the next hill: An ethnography of RVing
seniors in North America. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press.
Davies, T. and S. Cahill (2000). Environmental Implications of the Tourism Industry.
Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 00-14. Washington, DC. Accessed online
(May 13, 2008) at: http://www.rff.org.
Dolnicar, S., G. I. Crouch, and P. Long (forthcoming). Environmentally Friendly Tourists:
What Do We Really Know About Them? Journal of Sustainable Tourism.
Dolnicar, S. and F. Leisch (2008). An Investigation of Tourists’ Patterns of Obligation to
Protect the Environment. Journal of Travel Research, 46 (4), 381-391.
Environment Canada (No date). Camp Green, Canada! Fact Sheet. Accessed online (May
13, 2008) at: www.on.gc.ca/fpd
Environment Canada (2001). Green Camping and RV’s. EnviroZine (12). Accessed
online (May 13, 2008) at:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/envirozine/english/issues/12/feature2_e.cfm
Go RVing (2004). RVers – Who Are They? Accessed online (September 10, 2005) at:
http://www.gorving.ca/mediasection/press/rvers.html
Hardy, A., Gretzel, U., Kutzner, D., Simic, J., K.H. Yoo, L., Rasch, M. Purifoy and K.
Lee (2007). RV Travelers Study. Research Report, Laboratory for Intelligent Systems in
Tourism. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.
Pembina Institute (no date). LifeStyle: where to Sleep? Climate Change Resource Centre.
Accessed online (May 13, 2008) at:
http://www.greenlearning.ca/climate/solutions/lifestyle/4#rec