Satisfaction raw data: Brazilian National Park Trails - PNB_PNCV_PNSO_PNT
Description
Raw data (related to the Satisfaction and Importance/Performance analyses) from the questionnaires with the visitors of four brazilian National Parks trails (PNB - Brasília National Park; PNCV - Chapada dos Veadeiros National Park; PNSO - Serra dos Órgãos National Park ; PNT - Tijuca National Park). Dados brutos (relacionados às análises de satisfação e importância) das respostas dos questionários com os visitantes das trilhas de quatro Parques Nacionais brasileiros (PNB - Parque Nacional de Brasília; PNCV - Parque Nacional da Chapada dos Veadeiros; PNSO - Parque Nacional da Serra dos Órgãos; PNT - Parque Nacional da Tijuca).
Files
Steps to reproduce
The data collection with park visitors used online structured questionnaires (Abdal et al., 2016) created on the free platform GoogleForms. Several scholars inspired our study (Martin et al., 2009; Neiman, 2007; Oishi, 2013; Tonge et al., 2011; Torbidoni, 2011). The questions related to satisfaction and importance used a 5-point Likert scale anchored by “Extremely dissatisfied - Extremely satisfied” and “Extremely unimportant - Extremely important.” In each protected area, the questionnaires were available during 12 months, between November 2020 and December 2021. In order to increase the response rate, we let visitors know that those who completed the survey could enter a raffle for some prizes (Palacio Buendía et al., 2019). We distributed the questionnaires in two ways, both resembling a mail-back questionnaire. We used technological tools to distribute it through social media (Instagram), where we contacted trail visitors through private messages or comments on posts, followed by a private message. In addition, we also handed the questionnaire in person to visitors on the trails. We tabulated the responses received by each distribution method separately to allow comparisons between the results. We wanted to identify any differences between them and test the hypothesis that the Instagram data would adequately represent the target population of the study, i.e., the visitors to the trails of the national parks studied. However, because of COVID-19 travel restrictions, our visits to the study areas were much rarer than initially planned, and almost all responses came from Instagram. We contacted 6,408 visitors on Instagram and 469 in-person. Of the total visitors contacted, 2,041 responses came from Instagram (response rate: 31.85%) and 81 from in-person contact (response rate: 17.27%). We excluded some responses which did not meet the minimum applicability criteria. Of the 2,041 responses from Instagram, we analyzed 1,486 questionnaires, a validation rate of 72.81%. For the in-person questionnaires, we analyzed 59 of the 81 collected, a validation rate of 72.84%. Thus, the results considered 1,545 valid responses. Of these 1,545 responses, 437 refer to the PNCV, 400 to the PNSO, 466 to the PNT and 242 to the PNB.