These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
232 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29908477)
21. Was it really different? COVID-19-pandemic period in long-term recreation monitoring - A case study from Polish forests. Ciesielski M; Tkaczyk M; Hycza T; Taczanowska K J Outdoor Recreat Tour; 2023 Mar; 41():100495. PubMed ID: 37521271 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Measuring recreational visitation at U.S. National Parks with crowd-sourced photographs. Sessions C; Wood SA; Rabotyagov S; Fisher DM J Environ Manage; 2016 Dec; 183(Pt 3):703-711. PubMed ID: 27641652 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Trucks versus treks: The relative influence of motorized versus nonmotorized recreation on a mammal community. Gump KM; Thornton DH Ecol Appl; 2023 Oct; 33(7):e2916. PubMed ID: 37635645 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Effects of mountain biking versus hiking on trails under different environmental conditions. Evju M; Hagen D; Jokerud M; Olsen SL; Selvaag SK; Vistad OI J Environ Manage; 2021 Jan; 278(Pt 2):111554. PubMed ID: 33129028 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas. Tenkanen H; Di Minin E; Heikinheimo V; Hausmann A; Herbst M; Kajala L; Toivonen T Sci Rep; 2017 Dec; 7(1):17615. PubMed ID: 29242619 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Wildfire effects on hiking and biking demand in New Mexico: a travel cost study. Hesseln H; Loomis JB; González-Cabán A; Alexander S J Environ Manage; 2003 Dec; 69(4):359-68. PubMed ID: 14680897 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the popularity of protected areas for mountain biking and hiking in Australia: Insights from volunteered geographic information. Smith I; Velasquez E; Norman P; Pickering C J Outdoor Recreat Tour; 2023 Mar; 41():100588. PubMed ID: 37521257 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The Associations Between Visitation, Social Media Use, and Search and Rescue in United States National Parks. Lu ZN; Briggs A; Saadat S; Algaze IM Wilderness Environ Med; 2021 Dec; 32(4):463-467. PubMed ID: 34629292 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Where have all the people gone? Enhancing global conservation using night lights and social media. Levin N; Kark S; Crandall D Ecol Appl; 2015 Dec; 25(8):2153-67. PubMed ID: 26910946 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. More than A to B: Understanding and managing visitor spatial behaviour in urban forests using public participation GIS. Korpilo S; Virtanen T; Saukkonen T; Lehvävirta S J Environ Manage; 2018 Feb; 207():124-133. PubMed ID: 29156435 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Valuing setting-based recreation for selected visitors to national forests in the southern United States. Sardana K; Bergstrom JC; Bowker JM J Environ Manage; 2016 Dec; 183(Pt 3):972-979. PubMed ID: 27687633 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. The nature of the pandemic: Exploring the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic upon recreation visitor behaviors and experiences in parks and protected areas. Ferguson MD; Lynch ML; Evensen D; Ferguson LA; Barcelona R; Giles G; Leberman M J Outdoor Recreat Tour; 2023 Mar; 41():100498. PubMed ID: 37521260 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Assessing the validity of mobile device data for estimating visitor demographics and visitation patterns in Yellowstone National Park. Liang Y; Yin J; Pan B; Lin MS; Miller L; Taff BD; Chi G J Environ Manage; 2022 Sep; 317():115410. PubMed ID: 35751247 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Visitor Preferences for Visual Changes in Bark Beetle-Impacted Forest Recreation Settings in the United States and Germany. Arnberger A; Ebenberger M; Schneider IE; Cottrell S; Schlueter AC; von Ruschkowski E; Venette RC; Snyder SA; Gobster PH Environ Manage; 2018 Feb; 61(2):209-223. PubMed ID: 29273996 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Interacting coastal based ecosystem services: recreation and water quality in Puget Sound, WA. Kreitler J; Papenfus M; Byrd K; Labiosa W PLoS One; 2013; 8(2):e56670. PubMed ID: 23451067 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The influence of use-related, environmental, and managerial factors on soil loss from recreational trails. Olive ND; Marion JL J Environ Manage; 2009 Mar; 90(3):1483-93. PubMed ID: 19062152 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The Recreational Trail of the El Caminito del Rey Natural Tourist Attraction, Spain: Determination of Hikers' Flow. Gea-García GM; Fernández-Vicente C; Barón-López FJ; Miranda-Páez J Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 Feb; 18(4):. PubMed ID: 33673288 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Social media influences National Park visitation. Wichman CJ Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2024 Apr; 121(15):e2310417121. PubMed ID: 38557173 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Toward the improvement of trail classification in national parks using the recreation opportunity spectrum approach. Oishi Y Environ Manage; 2013 Jun; 51(6):1126-36. PubMed ID: 23615956 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Recreational stream crossing effects on sediment delivery and macroinvertebrates in southwestern Virginia, USA. Kidd KR; Aust WM; Copenheaver CA Environ Manage; 2014 Sep; 54(3):505-16. PubMed ID: 25037482 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]