Gå til innholdScholarGate
BibliotekMitt bibliotekPultenReview StudioAssistent
Logg inn
Crowding Norm Curve Analysis/Bevis
Metodebevisregister

Crowding Norm Curve Analysis

Crowding norm curve analysis is a field-survey pipeline for measuring how crowded recreationists feel and for translating their evaluations of density into management standards. Its measurement backbone is the standard single-item 9-point crowding question introduced in Shelby and Heberlein's 1986 book Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings, on which visitors rate how crowded a setting felt from 'not at all crowded' (1-2) to 'extremely crowded' (8-9). Perceived crowding is a normative evaluation, not a raw density: it is the negative judgment people make about the number of people or encounters they experienced. Vaske and Shelby's 2008 synthesis of thirty years and more than 180 studies showed that this single item behaves consistently, that respondents scoring 3 or higher are conventionally classified as feeling crowded, and that several ways of summarizing the scale correlate above .90. Paired with acceptability evaluations of different densities, the method yields social norm curves that locate the use level at which conditions become unacceptable — a basis for capacity standards.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Kilderegister

Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.

Crowding Norm Curve Analysis (Perceived Crowding and Density-Acceptability Norms)
Taksonomisk metoderegister · process-pipeline / sport-leisure-studies
  • Shelby, B., & Heberlein, T. A. (1986). Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. · ISBN 9780870714269
  • Vaske, J. J., & Shelby, L. B. (2008). Crowding as a Descriptive Indicator and an Evaluative Standard: Results from 30 Years of Research. Leisure Sciences, 30(2), 111-126. · DOI 10.1080/01490400701881341
Åpne full metode

Kuraterte påstander

Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.

Ingen kuraterte påstander ennå

Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.

Relaterte metoder

Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.

Taxonomic bucketEncounter Norm Analysismachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyRecreation Conflict and Coping Assessmentmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyRecreation Specialization Continuummachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyRecreation Substitutability Analysismachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Bevisstatus

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Kilder

2 registrerte siteringer, kopiert fra metodens kilderegister.

Handlinger

Åpne metodeside
ScholarGate

Et innholdsfokusert oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder — hva hver metode er, hvordan den fungerer, og hvor den kommer fra.

Åpne data (CC-BY)

Oppdag

  • Bibliotek
  • Søk i metoder…
  • Bla etter fagfelt
  • Fagfelt
  • Reise
  • Sammenlign
  • Hvilken metode?

Referanse

  • Fagområder
  • Atlas
  • Ordliste
  • Metodikk
  • Filosofi

Arbeidsområde

  • Mitt bibliotek
  • Pulten
  • Chat

Selskap

  • Om
  • Priser
  • Kontakt
  • Foreslå en metode

Oppføringene er sammenstilt fra publiserte kilder til referansebruk. Å kontrollere at informasjonen er korrekt og egnet for ditt eget bruk, er fremdeles ditt eget ansvar.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Et oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder
  • Personvern
  • Informasjonskapsler
  • Vilkår
  • Slett konto