Participant-Driven Videography in Park and Protected Area Research

Abstract

Research on visitor experiences in protected areas is evolving as advancements in new technologies and social trends emerge. We assert that park and recreation research can be further enhanced through the application and coupling of videography and spatial-temporal metadata. This systematic review explores the use of participant-driven videography across park and recreation research and adjacent disciplines (i.e., tourism, natural resource management) to understand the existing use of participant-driven data coupled with spatial-temporal information. Evidence gleaned from this systematic review reveals that participant-driven videography is a powerful tool for park research, yet its application is limited by authorship, scope and context. This research note provides: 1) insight into how videographic techniques are currently being used to gain unique visitor data; 2) insight into the collection, management, and analysis of unstructured video data; and 3) areas of future park and recreation research that may be informed by this unique approach.

Full text

Journal of Park
and Recreation
Administration
Print ISSN: 0735-1968, Online ISSN: 2160-6862
Journal homepage: https://js.sagamorepub.com/jpra/index
© 2020 Sagamore-Venture Publishing
Special Issue
Innovative Methodologies in Park and Recreation
Management
Participant-Driven Videography in Park and Protected Area
Research
Chris A. B. Zajchowski, Jessica P. Fefer, Caitlin Henry, Brendan Kane
To cite this article: Zajchowski, C. A. B., Fefer, J. P., Henry, C., & Kane, B. (2020).
Participant-driven videography in park and protected area research. Journal of Park
and Recreation Administration. doi:10.18666/JPRA-2020-10582
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2020-10582
Published online: 12/7/2020

2
a Department of Human Movement Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
b Department of Horticulture and Natural Resources, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas
Please send correspondence to Jessica Fefer, jfefer@ksu.edu
Research Note
Participant-Driven Videography in Park and Protected
Area Research
Chris Zajchowskia, Jessica P. Feferb, Caitlin Henryb, Brendan Kanea
Abstract
Research on visitor experiences in protected areas is evolving as advancements
in new technologies and social trends emerge. We assert that park and recreation
research can be further enhanced through the application and coupling of
videography and spatial-temporal metadata. is systematic review explores the use
of participant-driven videography across park and recreation research and adjacent
disciplines (i.e., tourism, natural resource management) to understand the existing
use of participant-driven data coupled with spatial-temporal information. Evidence
gleaned from this systematic review reveals that participant-driven videography
is a powerful tool for park research, yet its application is limited by authorship,
scope and context. is research note provides: 1) insight into how videographic
techniques are currently being used to gain unique visitor data; 2) insight into the
collection, management, and analysis of unstructured video data; and 3) areas of
future park and recreation research that may be informed by this unique approach.
Keywords
Participant-drive videography, parks and protected areas, visitor-use management,
systematic review
Introduction
Research on visitor experiences in parks and protected areas (PPAs) is evolving
as advancements in new technologies and social trends emerge. For over 50 years,
researchers used traditional survey and interview techniques to examine the visitor
experience in PPAs, where data elicitation was researcher-driven through pre-
determined questions and scales (refer to Manning, 2011 for an extensive review).
ese eorts built foundational knowledge regarding multiple dimensions of the
visitor experience, yet remain limited in that they sometimes fail to capture the lived
experience of visitors and the context in which experiences occur. Despite these
limitations, this necessary work set the stage for our eld to move beyond self-reported
https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2020-10582
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration

Participant-Driven Videography in Park and Protected Area Research 3
visitor information and to explore avenues for determining actual behaviors in unique
and complex recreation contexts (e.g., Abrams et al., 2020; Kidd et al., 2015; Zajchowski
et al., 2020). As such, participatory techniques have emerged following a general trend
in social research toward more “bottom up” approaches (Brown, 2015a, 2015b), where
participants share their stories using images —or less commonly videos—and can
convey social experiences beyond linguistic and purely cognitive dimensions (Brown,
2008).
Within the past decade, several methodological innovations for in-depth
qualitative inquiry (e.g., participant-generated images; Fefer et al., 2020) and spatial-
temporal visitor tracking (e.g., GPS tracking; Riungu et al., 2018) emerged to provide
rich, granular insights to the visitor experience that assist in manager decision-
making. For example, participant-generated images have been coupled with a social
value mapping technique (solVES) to develop an ecosystem service assessment for an
urban greenspace in China (Sun et al., 2019). However, while participant-generated
image (PGI) techniques are useful in capturing static images, the use of participant-
driven videos—rather than still images—creates the potential to capture seamless
footage documenting specic activities and experiences (Mackenzie & Kerr, 2012). For
instance, the eld of criminal justice has recognized the utility of video-stream data for
law enforcement, courtroom strategies, and assessing violent behaviors in criminals,
where videos from body-cams or courtroom recordings (Forston, 1970; Joh, 2016),
interrogations (Baldwin, 1992), and prerecorded ghts posted online (Larkin & Dwyer,
2016) are used to explore situational behaviors and experiences of both parties.
Participant-driven videography is a qualitative research technique that places the
video camera in the hands of the participants (Smith & Dunkley, 2018) as a means
of capturing experiences within context and with sensory information unavailable to
more common textual analyses. We assert that video data can provide similar seamless,
real-time information for PPA managers and researchers, where videos can be used to
highlight the realities of the visitation experience. Additionally, coupling videography
techniques with spatial-temporal information allows for the integration of visual and
audio content documenting visitor perceptions and attitudes during experiences with
information from metadata detailing where park visitors go and when. Participant-
driven videography techniques are already applied in several other disciplines,
including criminal justice (Maxeld & Babbie, 2014) and tourism (Bolanños et al.,
2015), yet there is little knowledge regarding their application in PPA research.
To address this knowledge gap, this systematic review explores the use of
participant-driven videography across PPA research and adjacent disciplines to
understand the existing use and applicability of video methods for management
eorts. Evidence gleaned from this systematic review provides: 1) awareness of how
videographic techniques are currently being used to gain unique visitor experience
data; 2) insights into the collection, management and analysis of unstructured park
research video data; and 3) next steps for future PPA research that may be informed
by this unique approach. In short, this research note answers the following driving
research question: How have PPA researchers used participant-driven videography to
understand the visitor experience?
Methods
To answer this question, we employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol (e.g., Moher et al., 2015) to guide this

Zajchowski et al.
4
eort. e PRISMA-P was used for determining information sources, search strategies,
study inclusion and exclusion criteria, selection, analysis and reporting techniques
(Booth et al., 2016). PRISMA-P is the standard for systematic literature reviews across
the social sciences, and has been used to guide previous inquiry within leisure studies
(Lackey et al., 2019), adventure recreation (Boudreau et al., 2020), and protected area
management research (Barros et al., 2014).
Following the identication of the driving research question, a series of search
terms and subsequent Boolean search strings were created (Table 1). Search strings
were composed of four categories: population, context, lm, and socio-psychological
construct. Population phrases included, but were not limited to, visit*, touris*,
stakeholder*, recreat*, or manage*. ese terms were chosen to demonstrate the
range of potential participants interacting with PPA resources and outdoor recreation
opportunities. A sample of context terms was chosen from the International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected area categories; however, given the
interest in visitor use, biodiversity-specic designations were removed (i.e., habitat or
species management area). Additionally, other common recreational designations (i.e.,
waterway, trail) were included, as well as historical distinctions (i.e., world heritage,
battleeld). Next, terms relating to lm were gathered; examples included lm* or
video* or camera*. Finally, social and psychological constructs employed in previous
research (e.g., Zajchowski et al., 2019) were utilized to understand the theoretical
thrust of each research project. ese 44 search terms allowed for combinations such as
[visit*] AND [National Park*] AND [Film*] AND [attitude*] that populated Boolean
search strings used within the following databases: Web of Science, PyschNet, and
EBSCOhost (Appendix A).
Table 1
Phrases Used to Create Boolean Search Strings
Next, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established (Table 2). First, we did not
include abstracts from conferences or dissertations, rather only used peer-reviewed
articles due to the additional scrutiny these products receive to evaluate their scientic
merit. Articles querying PPA stakeholders were included, and a range of individuals
PARTICIPANT-DRIVENVIDEOGRAPHY:RESEARCHNOTE

6
Table 1.
Phrases Used to Create Boolean Search Strings
Categories
Population
Context
Film
Socio-psychological
construct
Visit*
National Park*
Film*
Attitud*
Manage*
Historic Park*
Video*
Belie*
Communit*
Waterway
Camera*
Opinion*
Touris*
Urban Park*
Footage*
Emotion*
Leisure*
Trail*
Idea*
Usage*
Forest*
View*
Outdoor*
Protected area*
Preference*
Recreat*
World Heritage*
Value*
Stakeholder*
Battlefield*
Norm*
Wilderness*
Behavior*
Intent*
Decision*
Choice*
Heuristic*
Bias*
Mental Model*
Next, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established (Table 2). First, we did not
include abstracts from conferences or dissertations, rather only used peer-reviewed articles due
to the additional scrutiny these products receive to evaluate their scientific merit. Articles
querying PPA stakeholders were included, and a range of individuals were identified in this
category; the inclusion of diverse individuals reflects the wealth of different distinctions (i.e.,
managers, visitors, tourists) who could be the subject of social science research in these settings.
If these individuals were not the subjects in the research design, the article was pruned from our
analysis. Location of interest includes protected and natural areas, park distinctions, as well as
outdoor recreation and historical sites. This included municipal park designations and urban or
urban-proximate parks. However, if outdoor recreation occurred outside of a designated
recreation corridor (i.e., running on a sidewalk in a commercial district, bicycle commuting on
suburban streets) these articles were pruned from our analysis. Film was included if it was

Participant-Driven Videography in Park and Protected Area Research 5
were identied in this category; the inclusion of diverse individuals reects the wealth
of dierent distinctions (i.e., managers, visitors, tourists) who could be the subject of
social science research in these settings. If these individuals were not the subjects in the
research design, the article was pruned from our analysis. Location of interest includes
protected and natural areas, park distinctions, as well as outdoor recreation and histor ical
sites. is included municipal park designations and urban or urban-proximate parks.
However, if outdoor recreation occurred outside of a designated recreation corridor
(i.e., running on a sidewalk in a commercial district, bicycle commuting on suburban
streets) these articles were pruned from our analysis. Film was included if it was
gathered by the stakeholders and if it gathered continuous footage. As previously
mentioned, static photography collected through the range of photographic methods
(i.e., visitor employed photography, photovoice, photo elicitation) was excluded from
our analysis due to the wealth of literature that documents these methods (e.g., Little
et al., 2020). If authors of articles employed social-psychological constructs to examine
the recreational, visitor or manager experience within the aforementioned contexts,
their articles were considered included. Articles were also screened for duplication
across multiple databases. Finally, relevant references from included articles were
reviewed and included based on the previously mentioned inclusion criteria.
Table 2
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Our original database search yielded 4,447 manuscripts to be screened based
on title and abstract. Databases searched include PsychInfo, EbscoHost and Web
of Science, as each is well known and the discipline scope is broadly dened. Aer
assessing title and abstract eligibility and removing duplicates, the process yielded
nine manuscripts that t the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two authors divided the
nine manuscripts to download, read in full, and input into a shared coding database.
e database captured source metadata (citation information), study purpose, video
camera(s) details, video analysis technique(s), key study ndings related to the topic,
PARTICIPANT-DRIVENVIDEOGRAPHY:RESEARCHNOTE

8
Table 2.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Category
Included if…
Excluded if…
PPA Stakeholders
Visitors, recreationists,
tourists, or managers are at
least one population of
interest in the study
Visitors, recreationists,
tourists, or managers are not a
population of interest in the
study
PPAs
The location(s) of interest is
classified as a park or
protected area or recreation
site
The location(s) of interest is
not classified as a park or
protected area or recreation
site
Film
Film or footage gathered by
stakeholders is a variable or
phenomenon of interest
within the study
Film or footage gathered by
stakeholders is not a variable
or phenomenon of interest
within the study
Social-psychological
constructs
Social-psychological
constructs are used as part of
empirical social science
research
Social-psychological
constructs are absent or study
is not empirical social science
research
Our original database search yielded 4,447 manuscripts to be screened based on title and
abstract. Databases searched include PsychInfo, EbscoHost and Web of Science, as each is well
known and the discipline scope is broadly defined. After assessing title and abstract eligibility
and removing duplicates, the process yielded nine manuscripts that fit the inclusion and
exclusion criteria. Two authors divided the nine manuscripts to download, read in full, and input
into a shared coding database. The database captured source metadata (citation information),
study purpose, video camera(s) details, video analysis technique(s), key study findings related to
the topic, and key study findings related to the video camera use and video image analysis.
Intercoder reliability measures were employed to minimize discrepancies among data entries
(Saldaña, 2015), with the first and second authors performing secondary checks on the work of

Zajchowski et al.
6
and key study ndings related to the video camera use and video image analysis.
Intercoder reliability measures were employed to minimize discrepancies among
data entries (Saldaña, 2015), with the rst and second authors performing secondary
checks on the work of the remaining two authors by reading and coding each article
and checking for alignment among the research team.
Following the team’s entry of the nine relevant references into the database, the
resulting dataset was coded and analyzed. is analysis was led by one author with
assistance from the rest. Five attributes of database entries were qualitatively coded
into key themes within each attribute (Patton, 2002; Saldaña, 2015): research context
and discipline, video camera details (placement and type), data collection method,
video analysis, and key ndings related to videography. Other database categories
(e.g., publication year, publication journal, eld of study) lent themselves to purely
quantitative analysis. Four themes emerged and comprise our qualitative results.
Descriptive statistics were also generated to comprise our quantitative results.
Results
Descriptive
All nine articles were published between 2008-2019. Of these studies, 89% (n = 8)
were published in a unique journal. Studies stemmed from four main elds of research:
resource management (44%, n = 4), geography (22%, n = 2), sociology (22%, n = 2), and
environmental education (22%, n = 2), wherein one article combined sociology and
environmental education. Table 3 compares key information from each manuscript,
such as publication information, analytic method, and important ndings related to
videography.
Emergent Themes
Following the qualitative thematic coding process employed by Zajchowski
and colleagues (2019), four themes emerged from the data set aer implementing
inferential, inductive analyses of all documents, including: 1) paradigm potential,
2) power dynamics, 3) limited scope, and 4) missing information. Each theme and
representative articles are described below.
Paradigm Potential
Although analyses evidenced multiple similarities, a wide array of theoretical
frameworks and research paradigms were implemented within the studies. For
example, articles utilized grounded theory (Petheram et al., 2011), sociocultural
theory (McClain, 2018; McClain & Zimmerman, 2016), constructivism (Petheram et
al., 2011), and positivism (Brown et al., 2008). Methodologically, video ethnography
was particularly popular. is method is a form of participatory research that aims
to understand the entire context of the research problem by showing the reality of
the participants as they go about their activities (Brown & Spinney, 2009). erefore,
videography can be used for micro-analysis of the surrounding context because it
captures the participants actions and conversations within the surrounding landscape
(Brown, 2015a, 2015b; Smith et al., 2019; Smith & Dunkley, 2018). Video ethnography
also allows the researchers to collect large amounts of data within relatively small
periods of time compared to traditional ethnographies (Smith & Dunkley, 2018; Smith
et al., 2019; McClain & Zimmerman 2016).

Participant-Driven Videography in Park and Protected Area Research 7
Table 3
Summary of Article Information
PARTICIPANT-DRIVENVIDEOGRAPHY:RESEARCHNOTE

5
Table 3.
Summary of Article Information
Author and Year
Journal
Study Site
Sample
Population
Who is
Recording
Placement
of Camera
Analysis Method
Key Findings Related to
Videography
Brown, 2015a
Landscape
Research
Cairngorms National
Park, Scotland
Multiple user
groups and
Stakeholders
(25
participants)
Mix of
Researcher
and
Participants
Hand held
Thematic coding of
transcriptions
Videography allows for human and
non-human interactions to be
analyzed within the surrounding
landscape; Videography allows for
analysis of non-verbal interactions.
Brown, 2015b
Cultural
Geographies
Cairngorms National
Park, Scotland
17 Walkers
and 17
Mountain
Bikers
Mix of
Researcher
and
Participants
Hand held
and head
cameras
Thematic analysis and
coding
Videography is useful for
understanding problems surrounding
contested landscapes, social
constructs, and user groups; Video
ethnography gives agency to
participants and their contexts.
Brown, Dilley,
& Marshall,
2008
Sociological
Research
Online
Aberdeenshire and
the Cairngorms
National Park
Walkers and
Mountain
Bikers
Participants
Head
camera
Mobile Ethnographic
analysis
Use of headcams allow for the
researchers to better
understand/experience the 'reality' of
the participants recreational
experience.
Brown &
Spinney, 2009
Mobile
Methodologies
(textbook)
London and
Cairngorms National
Park, Scotland
Leisure
Cyclists
(BMX, on-
road, etc.)
Participants
Head
cameras
Mobile Ethnographic
analysis
Videography captures the context
that participants exist within and the
non-verbal moments otherwise
missed; Videography allows for
more positive researcher-participant
interactions; “Headcam” video
placement provides the “view of”
perspective, yet may be invasive;
Post-outing interviews are
necessary; Allows for both mundane
and peak experiences to be analyzed.
McClain &
Zimmerman,
2016
International
Journal of
Science
Education, Part
B
Communication
and Public
Engagement
Shaver’s Creek
Environmental
Center, Penn State
University, United
States
Day camp
Participants,
ages 8-11 (83
children)
The researcher
Does not
specify
Line by line coding
and thematic analysis
No description of technology used or
why there was a need for the
researcher to follow along; No
explanation as to why videography
was employed in the study.

Zajchowski et al.
8
Table 3 (cont.)
PARTICIPANT-DRIVENVIDEOGRAPHY:RESEARCHNOTE

6
McClain, 2018
Visitor Studies
Shaver’s Creek
Environmental
Center, Penn State
University, United
States
31 families
(105
individuals)
BUT only one
family
reviewed in
case study
Does not
clarify if
researcher
followed the
family or if
the
participants
were
recording
Does not
specify
Thematic analysis
Although used in the methods, there
are no research findings about
videography outside of it being a
useful approach when studying
parent facilitation roles.
Petheram,
High,
Campbell, &
Stacey, 2011
Journal of
Environmental
Management
Remote PPAs in
Australia and
Vietnam
Indigenous
Communities
Mix of
Researcher
and
Participants
Does not
Specify
Substantive and
theoretical coding,
constant comparison
method
Implements multiple visual
techniques as tools to represent the
perspectives of Indigenous
communities; Visual techniques are
meant to complement interview and
workshop data; Video statements
were considered one of the most
effective visual techniques;
Implementation of technology may
cause anxiety for some participants.
Smith &
Dunkley, 2018
Children's
Geographies
Craig Y Nos Country
Park within Brecon
Beacons National
Park, Wales
Children aged
4-11 at a
summer club
at the national
park
Pairs of
participants
Hand held
camera
Ethnomethodology
and conversation
analysis (EMCA)
Videography employed to reduce
power imbalance between children
and researchers; Videography able to
capture body language/movements
otherwise unknown; GPS trackers
were employed to align the videos
with geographic locations.
Smith, Laurier,
Reeves,
Dunkley, 2019
Transactions of
the Institute of
British
Geographers.
Brecon Beacons
National Park,
Wales
8 groups
ranging from
2-4
participants
The
participants
Chest
harnesses
Ethnomethodology
and conversation
analysis (EMCA)
Videography was necessary to
understand the participants' actions
directly related to the surrounding
landscape (especially to capture
nonverbal social cues); Issues
associated with limited perspectives
from the chest harness that required
more than one camera per group.

Participant-Driven Videography in Park and Protected Area Research 9
Power Dynamics
Many authors used participant-driven video methods to illuminate and reduce
power imbalances between participants and other groups or the research team.
Ethnography is oen employed for “understanding of deeper social forces that shape
society,” and video ethnography and other participant-driven videography methods
build on this foundation to illuminate and reduce power dynamics (Hammersley,
2006, p. 7). Researchers employed this method when studying groups of children
with authority gures like parents or virtual trail guides (McClain, 2018; McClain &
Zimmerman, 2016). Smith and Dunkley (2018) employed videography techniques to
understand the power dynamic created when children bring technology into natural
settings and found that technology does not hinder the roaming children, but rather
it can be used to create an anity for nature. By using videography as a research tool,
the researchers gained insight into the children’s minds as they explored (Smith &
Dunkley, 2018). Likewise, Brown (2015b) stated that employing videography allowed
the study participants to contextualize themselves within the action of cycling or
walking within contested areas. Video ethnography was also employed to provide
stakeholders with a more holistic understanding of controversial topics like letting
dogs o leash in national parks (Brown, 2015a) and indigenous people’s preferences
on natural resource management (Petheram et al., 2011). Videography appears to be
a useful tool for both facilitating access within action-based research that relies on the
context and linguistics of why people participate in the activity, and for research where
participants experience unequal power dynamics that rely on place-based contexts
(Brown & Spinney, 2009).
Limited Scope
Despite the emancipatory potential for video methods, videography scholarship
is relatively nascent in PPA scholarship. An unusually high level of overlap within
researchers, study sites, and study samples existed across included articles. ree
researchers published eight of the nine documents, with one researcher—Katrina M.
Brown—publishing four articles (Brown, 2015a, 2015b; Brown et al., 2008; Brown &
Spinney, 2009; McClain, 2018; McClain & Zimmerman, 2016; Smith et al., 2019; Smith
& Dunkley, 2018 ). In conjunction with the limited group of researchers who employ
video ethnography, study locations are mainly limited to Cairngorms National Park,
Scotland (Brown, 2015a, 2015b; Brown et al., 2008; Brown & Spinney, 2009), Brecon
Beacons National Park, Wales (Smith et al., 2019; Smith & Dunkley, 2018), and Shaver’s
Creek Environmental Center, Penn State University, United States (McClain, 2018;
McClain & Zimmerman, 2016). While the variables measured in the studies varied,
the two most common sample groups were leisure cyclists (Brown, 2015b; Brown et
al., 2008; Brown & Spinney, 2009) and children using technology for environmental
education (McClain, 2018; McClain & Zimmerman, 2016; Smith & Dunkley, 2018).
Missing Information
Few of the articles reported important information such as camera make,
sampling strategy, or their data analyses. Brown et al.(2008) were the sole authors who
provided information on what camera they utilized within their study. Oentimes,
authors would state a video or digital camera was implemented (Smith et al., 2019;
Smith & Dunkley, 2018). In other articles, there was no mention of what technological
instrumentation was utilized outside of “video-based qualitative methods” (McClain,

Zajchowski et al.
10
2018, p. 266; McClain & Zimmerman, 2016). Some articles did not clarify who within
the group was holding the video camera (Brown, 2015b; Brown et al., 2008; McClain,
2018). Moreover, almost none of the articles specied their sampling strategies
(Brown, 2015a; Brown et al., 2008; Brown & Spinney, 2009; McClain & Zimmerman,
2016; Petheram et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2019). is lack of information may make it
dicult to replicate specic methods in similar contexts, and could discourage other
researchers from implementing participant-driven videography due to the lack of
guidance in method implementation.
Conclusions
is systematic review explored the use of participant-driven videography across
PPA research and the applicability of video methods to PPA management eorts. Our
review of this emerging literature illustrates the potential of videography to provide
useful information to PPA managers and researchers focused on understanding the
multiple dimensions of the visitor experience. To guide future inquiry in this area, we
close this short note with suggested recommendations for those seeking to employ
videography in their research eorts.
First, it is evident that the participant-driven videography in PPA research is in
its nascent stage, with few researchers employing videography in a limited number
of settings to investigate a limited number of recreational activities and resource
management issues. An expansion in the authors, geographies, activities, questions,
and individuals recruited for participant-driven videography will aid in understanding
the applicability of video methods beyond these initial inquiries. Second, PPAs exist
in a world of dynamic power struggles, where the use of limited natural and cultural
resources is regularly contested (e.g., Barros et al., 2015; Brown, 2015b). Videography
methods have great potential to address these complex landscapes through a transfer
of power to research participants, enabling their in situ experiences to drive ndings.
at said, the potential for participants and bystanders to object due to anxiety
(Petheram et al., 2011) ethical issues (Sandbrook et al., 2018) are present, and calls
researchers to employ robust protocols to engender trust and maintain condentiality
of both participants and those not involved in the research process. ird, while initial
scholarship has laid a solid foundation to evidence the importance of these emergent
methods, greater attention attention to evidencing trustworthiness and preparing for
potential replicability is warranted. Regardless of the paradigm in which a researcher
operates, the reporting of analytic strategies, technologies and soware types and use,
consistency in terminology, and video “audit trails” (Miles et al., 2014) for qualitative
analyses of unstructured data are all necessary. Additionally, studies included in this
review largely used qualitative methods, and the potential for quantitative analyses of
unstructured data mirroring those in other elds are prudent (Forston, 1970; Larken
& Dwyer, 2016).
We conclude this review by suggesting that PPA research may be further enhanced
through the mixed-methods application of videography and spatial-temporal
metadata contained within participant videos. is combination of methodologies
has the potential to shed light on not only the emergent, in situ, visitor experience, as
individuals navigate PPAs, but also understand spatiotemporal elements aggregated
across participants’ experiences. For example, crowding studies that traditionally use
photo panels (e.g., Manning, 2011), could be augmented by video data that details the
actual number of people at one time encountered by a participant as she traverses a

Participant-Driven Videography in Park and Protected Area Research 11
specic setting, and then compare her experience with others traveling through the
same space at dierent times. Similar to research that employs static photo panels,
attitudinal data can continue to be collected, however, the addition of actual conditions
yields increased external validity. ese types of research eorts further evidence the
importance of participant-driven videography to yield actionable information for
researchers and managers seeking to understand the visitor experience, and we look
forward to the future studies reecting these developments.
Disclosure Statement: e authors have no disclosures or competing interests to declare.
Funding: No external funding was received.
References
Abrams, K. M., Leong, K., Melena, S., & Teel, T. (2020). Encouraging safe wildlife
viewing in National Parks: Eective communication campaign on visitors’
behaviors. Environmental Communication, 14(2), 255–270.
Baldwin, J. (1992). Videotaping police interviews with suspects: An evaluation. Home
Oce Police Department.
Barros, A., Monz, C., & Pickering, C. (2015) Is tourism damaging ecosystems in the
Andes? Current knowledge and an agenda for future research. AMBIO, 44, 82–98.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0550-7
Bolaños, M., Dimiccoli, M., & Radeva, P. (2015). Towards storytelling from visual
lifelogging: An overview. Journal of Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, July,
1–17.
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful
literature review (2nd ed.). Sage.
Boudreau, P., Houge-Mackenzie, S., & Hodge, K. (2020). Flow states in adventure
recreation: A systematic review and thematic synthesis. Psychology of Sport &
Exercise, 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101611
Brown, K. M. (2015a). Leave only footprints? How traces of movement shape
the appropriation of space. Cultural Geographies, 22(4), 659–687. doi:
10.1177/1474474014558987
Brown, K. M. (2015b). e role of landscape in regulating (ir)responsible conduct:
Moral geographies of the ‘proper control’ of dogs. Landscape Research, 40(1), 39–
56. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2013.829811
Brown, K. M., Dilley, R., & Marshall, K. (2008). Using a head-mounted video camera
to understand social worlds and experiences. Sociological Research Online, 13(6),
31–40.
Fefer, J. P., Hallo, J. C., Dvorak, R. G., Brownlee, M. T. J., Collins, R. H., & Baldwin,
B. D. (2020). Pictures of polar bears: Using visitor employed photography to
identify experience indicators in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Journal of
Environmental Management, 260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110779
Forston, R. F. (1970). Judge's instructions: A quantitative analysis of jurors' listening
comprehension. Communication Quarterly, 18(4), 34–38.
Hammersley, M. (2006). Ethnography: Problems and prospects. Ethnography and
Education, 1(1), 3–14.
Joh, E. E. (2016). Beyond surveillance: Data control and body cameras. Surveillance &
Society, 14(1), 133–137.

Zajchowski et al.
12
Kidd, A. M., Monz, C., D’Antonio, A., Manning, R. E., Reigner, N., Goonan, K. A.,
& Jacobi, C. (2015). e eect of minimum impact education on visitor spatial
behavior in parks and protected areas: An experimental investigation using GPS
based tracking. Journal of Environmental Management, 162(1), 53–62.
Lackey, N. Q., Tysor, D. A., McNay, D., Joyner, L., Baker, K. H., & Hodge, C. (2019).
Mental health benets of nature-based recreation: A systematic review. Annals of
Leisure Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2019.1655459
Larkin, A., & Dwyer, A. (2016). Fighting like a girl… or a boy? An analysis of videos
of violence between young girls posted on online ght websites. Current Issues in
Criminal Justice, 27(3), 269–284.
Little, C. L., Perry, E. E., Fefer, J. P., Brownlee, M. T. J., & Sharp, R. L. (2020). An
interdisciplinary review of camera image collection and analysis techniques, with
considerations for environmental conservation social science. Data, 5(51). http://
dx.doi.org/10.3390/data5020051
Mackenzie, S., & Kerr, J. (2012). Head-mounted cameras and stimulated recall in
qualitative sport research. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 4,
51–61.
Manning, R. E. (2011). Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for satisfaction
(3rd ed.). Oregon State University Press.
Maxeld, M. G., & Babbie, E. R. (2014). Research methods for criminal justice and
criminology. Cengage Learning.
Mcclain, L. R. (2018). Parent roles and facilitation strategies as Inuenced by a mobile-
based technology during a family nature hike. Visitor Studies, 21(2), 260–286. doi:
10.1080/10645578.2018.1548844
Mcclain, L. R., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2016). Technology-mediated engagement with
nature: sensory and social engagement with the outdoors supported through an
e-Trailguide. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 6(4), 385–399. doi:
10.1080/21548455.2016.1148827
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P.,
Stewart, P., & PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic
review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic
Reviews, 4(1), 1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory
and practice. Sage.
Petheram, L., High, C., Campbell, B., & Stacey, N. (2011). Lenses for learning:
Visual techniques in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental
Management, 92(10), 2734–2745. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.013
Saldaña, J. (2015). e coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage publications.
Sandbrook, C., Luque-Lora, R., & Adams, W. (2018). Human bycatch: Conservation
surveillance and the social implications of camera traps. Conservation and Society,
16(4), 493. doi: 10.4103/cs.cs_17_165
Smith, T. A., & Dunkley, R. (2018). Technology-nonhuman-child assemblages:
Reconceptualising rural childhood roaming. Children's Geographies, 16(3), 304–
318.
Smith, T. A., Laurier, E., Reeves, S., & Dunkley, R. A. (2019). “O the beaten map”:
Navigating with digital maps on moorland, Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 1-26.

Participant-Driven Videography in Park and Protected Area Research 13
Sun, F., Xiang, J., Tao, Y., Tong, C., & Che, Y. (2019). Mapping the social values for
ecosystem services in urban green spaces: Integrating a visitor-employed
photography method into SolVES. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 105–113.
Zajchowski, C. A. B., Brownlee, M., & Rose, J. (2018) Air quality and the visitor
experience in parks protected areas. Tourism Geographies, 21(4), 613–634.
Zajchowski, C. A. B., Brownlee, M. T. J., Blacketer, M. J., Peterson, B., Cra, K., &
Bowen, B. B. (2020). Rapid resource change and visitor use management: Social-
ecological connections at the Bonneville Salt Flats. Environmental Management,
66, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01309-1.
Appendix A
(Visit* OR Manage* OR Communit* OR Touris* OR Leisure* OR Usage* OR Outdoor*
OR Recreat* OR Stakeholder*)
(National Park* OR Historic Park* OR Waterway* OR Urban Park* OR Trail* OR
Forest* OR Protected area* OR World Heritage* OR Battleeld* OR Wilderness*)
(Film* OR Video* OR Camera* OR Footage*)
(Attitud* OR Belie* OR Opinion* OR Emotion* OR Idea* OR View* OR Preference*
OR Value* OR Norm* OR Behavior* OR Intent* OR Decision* OR Choice* OR
Heuristic* OR Bias* OR Mental Model*)