Thesis Analysis of Regulation Compliance of Thailand

THESIS

ANALYSIS OF REGULATION COMPLIANCE OF THAILAND‘S

NATIONAL PARK VISITORS

THANAKRIT SANGCHOEY

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Parks, Recreation, and Tourism) Graduate School, Kasetsart University 2019

Thanakrit Sangchoey 2019: Analysis of Regulation Compliance of Thailand‘s National Park Visitors. Doctor of Philosophy (Parks, Recreation, and Tourism), Major Field: Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, Department of Conservation. Thesis Advisor: Associate Professor Noppawan Tanakanjana Phongkhieo, Ph.D. 216 pages.

The objectives of this study were: 1) to study factors associated with regulation compliance of protected area users; 2) to study Thai national park visitors‘ regulation compliance and to compare the differences of compliance behavior across different background of visitors and study areas; 3) to develop the predictive causal model of visitors‘ regulation compliance and to test the model; and 4) to identify predictive variables for visitors‘ regulation compliance. This research used a questionnaire as the data collection tool. Study area consists of five national parks that were selected based on three factors: 1) issues of regulation compliance assessed by park superintendents, 2) number of park visitors, and 3) diversity of recreational activities. On-site survey was conducted and 1,000 park visitors participated in the survey. Meta-analysis and path analysis were used as major analysis tools. The analysis results revealed that the majority of the park visitors complied with the regulations at a high level. The predictive model explained over 62% of the variance in the dependent variable. Persuasive communication and perceived legitimacy of regulation were the most influential situational factors affecting regulation compliance behavior. In addition, media exposure was effective in moderating the relationship between intention to comply and regulation compliance. Once confirmed, factors predictive of regulation compliance can be utilized to develop the message content for persuasive communication to national park visitors, and then suggest that authorities formulate a policy towards publicizing park regulations to increase visitors‘ appropriate behaviors that help encourage regulation compliance in national park.

______Student‘s signature Thesis Advisor‘s signature

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Undertaking this PhD has been a truly life-changing experience for me and it would not have been possible to do without the support and guidance that I received from many people. Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Assoc. Prof. Noppawan Tanakanjana Phongkhieo for the continuous support of my PhD study and related research, for her patience, motivation, and immense knowledge. Her guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis. I could not have imagined having a better advisor and mentor for my Ph.D study. Besides my advisor, I would like to thank Assist Prof. Thawan Nieamsup, the rest of my thesis committee for his insightful comments and encouragement.

I gratefully acknowledge the funding received towards my thesis from the National Research Council of Thailand (Thesis Grant for Doctoral Degree Student FY 2017) and also expanding my thanks to national park superintendents for providing me all supports when ever and where ever required during the field work. A very special thanks to my colleague and friend, Miss Phornthira Sripattanatadakoon, Miss Supalux Sri-samang, and Mr.Prommatr Jindachote for improving the use of English in the manuscript. Lastly, and most importantly, I thank my parents who have sowed so much into my life and my sister for love and support throughout my life.

Thanakrit Sangchoey April 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS i LIST OF TABLES ii LIST OF FIGURES v INTRODUCTION 1 OBJECTIVES 3 DEFINITIONS 3 LITERATURE REVIEW 5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES 36 Conceptual framework 36 Hypotheses 39 MATERIALS AND METHODS 40 Materials 40 Methods 40 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 49 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 128 Conclusion 128 Recommendations 130 LITERATURE CITED 133 APPENDICES 150 Appendix A The results of the assessment to study area selection 151 Appendix B Questionnaire 159 Appendix C Item-objective congruence index 173 Appendix D Cronbach‘s alpha of items 179 Appendix E Testing reliability KR- 20 183 Appendix F Difficulty index testing 193 Appendix G Discrimination power testing 198 Appendix H Research used for meta-analysis 201 CURRICULUM VITAE 216

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 IUCN‘s category system for protected areas 6 2 Matrix of management objectives for various protected areas 7 3 Thailand‘s protected area classification 12 4 Number of protected areas of Thailand 13 5 Number of national park visitors in Thailand during 2008-2017 17 6 Publication of research used in the meta-analysis 50 7 Concepts and theories found in the research used for the meta- analysis 50 8 Research methods applied in the research used for the meta-analysis 52 9 Correlation coefficient estimation obtained from the meta-analysis 53 10 Visitor socio-demographic characteristics 55 11 Visitor travel patterns 56 12 Intention to comply with national park regulation of visitors 59 13 Regulation compliance behavior of visitors 64 14 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior between male visitors and female visitors 67 15 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior between local visitors and non-local visitors 67 16 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior between visitors with a one- night stay and those with a stay of more than one night 68 17 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior among visitors with different ages 68 18 Pairwise mean value comparison of regulation compliance behavior of visitors with different ages 69 19 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior of visitors with different educational levels 69

iii

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page

20 Pairwise mean value comparison of regulation compliance behavior of visitors with different educational levels 71 21 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior among visitors with different group sizes 72 22 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior among visitors with different occupations 72 23 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior among visitors with different group sizes 73 24 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior among visitors with different group sizes 74 25 Knowledge of regulation of visitors 75 26 Regulation enforcement measures as perceived by visitors 78 27 Persuasive Communication Measures as perceived by visitors 80 28 Legal sanction as opinion by visitors 82 29 Regulation legitimacy as opinion by visitors 85 30 Personal morality of visitors 90 31 Awareness of regulation of visitors 96 32 Media exposure of visitors 99 33 Injunctive norm as perceived by visitors 102 34 Measures of central tendency, variability and distribution of variables 111 35 Pearson‘s correlation matrix of variables 113 36 Results of multicollinearity test 114 37 Model fit indices 117 38 Standardized regression weights of variables in path model 120 39 Direct, indirect, and total effects of intention to comply and regulation compliance behavior 121

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page

40 The moderating effect of media exposure 125 41 The results of the hypotheses testing of predictive variable 127

Appendix Table

A The Results of the assessment to study area selection 152 C Item-objective congruence (IOC) index of the questionnaire 174 D Cronbach‘s alpha of items 180 E1 Testing reliability KR 20 formula of knowledge of regulation 184 E2 Testing reliability KR-20 formula of regulation compliance behavior 187 F Difficulty index testing of knowledge of regulation 194 G Discrimination power testing of perceived regulation legitimacy 199 H Research used for meta-analysis 202

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Classification of compliance 30 2 Theoretical perspectives of compliance 34 3 Source of compliance 35 4 A proposed conceptual framework 39 5 Scatter plot of knowledge of regulations and intention to comply 105 6 Scatter plot of awareness of regulation and intention to comply 105 7 Scatter plot of injunctive norm and intention to comply 106 8 Scatter plot of personal morality and intention to comply 106 9 Scatter plot of regulation legitimacy and intention to comply 107 10 Scatter plot of regulation enforcement and intention to comply 107 11 Scatter plot of legal sanction and intention to comply 108 12 Scatter plot of persuasive communication and intention to comply 108 13 Scatter plot of media exposure and intention to comply 109 14 Scatter plot of media exposure and regulation compliance 109 15 Model summary of autocorrelation testing 115 16 Residual scatterplot for homoscedasticity 116 17 Path coefficient of model 118 18 Framework for moderation analysis 123 19 Model for testing the moderation effect 123 20 Moderation effect of media exposure on intention to comply and regulation compliance behavior 125

ANALYSIS OF REGULATION COMPLIANCE OF THAILAND’S NATIONAL PARK VISITORS

INTRODUCTION

Currently, the major protected areas in Thailand comprise of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, non-hunting areas, forest parks, botanical garden and arboretum that cover almost 20.45 percent of the Kingdom‘s territory (Planning and Information Office, 2017). National parks are the natural areas of land / or sea, which are designated to protect a diverse number of plants, animals and ecosystems for present and future generations. In addition, national parks provide a basis for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational activities and visitor opportunities, all of which must be related to environmental and cultural relations (Lausche, 2011). National parks are very attractive setting for the growing demand for outdoor activities in natural environments. Recreational use of national parks has been issued in protected area management, as it is a factor in assessing environmental impacts (McAvoy and Dustin, 1983).

In Thailand, a national park has become a major nature-based visitor attraction. The number of park visitors has been rapidly increasing during the past ten years. This witnessed by national park visitation between 2008-2017 fiscal years which was increased average by 20.45 percent per year (National Parks Office, 2017). Nowadays, Thai national parks have been encountering difficulties of recreational purposes and outdoor activities within the areas. National park visitors are diverse, in term of recreational motivations, attitudes, perceptions, values, desire experiences, travel pattern, sociodemographic, and situational factors that encourage them to implement appropriate and inappropriate behaviors within area. These behaviors create an impact on the environment and have become an issue for many national parks in Thailand.

Regulations are common recreation and tourism management in protected area (Lucas, 1982, 1983; Monz et al., 2000). Therefore, recreational regulation for park

visitor is the most commonly system to measure in visitor management (Manning, 2011). The national park authority in each country has formulated regulations for recreational use under relevant laws. Likewise, the DNP, the Thai governmental authorities, who involved with the management of national park, have imposed regulations and enforcement to serve as guidelines for the visitors. However, the challenge of a national park authority is to encourage visitors to comply with the regulations. Therefore, the compliance with regulations plays a critical role to ensure the effectiveness of visitor management.

The compliance and noncompliance behavior analysis on users of protected areas in Thailand was first published by Tanakanjana and Haas (1996), where nonconforming to national park regulations of local people was analyzed. This analysis was followed by research works on normative behaviors of park visitors (e.g. Charungphan, 2001; Rattanapan, 2003; Jantowat et al., 2011; Poolsawat, 2013; Rueangsut, 2015). All previous researches on compliance of recreation in Thailand national park have largely focused on the problems of violation or noncompliance, whereas study that focusing on regulation compliance behaviors and factors determining such behaviors found to be lacking. Furthermore, all of the previous studies investigated only specific areas and involved comparative analysis. The researcher was interested in investigating the factors that influence compliance of visitors and develop a predictive model for regulation compliance.

This study aims to explore compliance with national park regulations and identify the factors that influence compliance with the regulations. The participants for this study were Thai visitors who engaged in recreational activities in five national parks namely Khao Yai National Park, Kaeng Krachan National Park, Chae Son National Park, Nam Tok Phlio National Park, and Khao Luang National Park. The framework had been developed by adopting different theoretical perspectives on compliance in order to identify variables that related with the compliance behaviors and applied the concept of environmentally-responsible behaviors to develop a predictive model for regulation compliance of park visitors. The finding from this

study has implications for improving visitors‘ regulation compliance to increase appropriate visitors‘ behaviors that provide a sound environment in national park.

OBJECTIVES

1. To study factors associated with regulation compliance of national park and other protected areas users. 2. To study Thai national park visitors‘ regulation compliance and to compare the differences of compliance behavior across different background of visitors and study areas. 3. To develop the predictive causal model of visitors‘ regulation compliance and to test the model. 4. To identify predictive variables for visitors‘ regulation compliance.

DEFINITIONS

―Thailand‘s national park‖ means the land which is determined as national park under National Park Act B.E. 2504. National park is any area of land, the natural features of which are of interest and to be maintained with a view to preserving it for the benefit of public education and pleasure. National park allowing for their use in education and recreation, which in turn brings about enhanced ecological awareness and nature conservation.

―National park visitors‖ refer to Thai people aged 15 years and over who visit a national park as a study area for recreational purpose and overnight-used area.

―National park regulation‖ means restrictions and prohibitions on recreation activities and behavior for the preservation and protection of the natural resources‘ values of the parks within the meaning of the National Park Act B.E. 2504.

―Regulation compliance‖ can be described as decisions of national park visitors to comply with prohibition and protective recommendations, which are imposed by national park authority.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews key areas of relevant literature: 1) Protected area and national park; 2) Thailand‘s protected area and national park; 3) Role of regulation in Thailand national park; 4) Factors influencing regulation compliance in protected area and 5) Basic concept and theoretical perspective of compliance.

1. Protected Area and National Park

1.1 Protected area

Protected areas or conservation areas are locations which receive protection because of their recognized natural, ecological or cultural values. In 1978, the IUCN definition of a protected area is “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”(Dudley, 2008). Further, IUCN established a five-category system of protected areas to clarify the distinction between various objectives for protected areas including national parks.

In 1994, the IUCN modified the classification system of protected areas into six categories: Category I Strict protection [Ia) Strict nature reserve and Ib) Wilderness area]; II Ecosystem conservation and protection (i.e., national park); III Conservation of natural features (i.e., natural monument); IV Conservation through active management (i.e., habitat/species management area); V Landscape/seascape conservation and recreation (i.e., protected landscape/seascape); and VI Managed resource protected area (i.e., protected area with sustainable use of natural resources). (Table 1)

Table 1 IUCN‘s category system for protected areas

Category Terminology and Definitions I Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: Protected area managed mainly for science or wilderness protection Ia Strict Nature Reserve: Protected Area managed mainly for science Ib Wilderness Area: Protected Area managed mainly for wilderness protection II National Park: Protected Area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features III Natural Monument: Protected Area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features IV Habitat/Species Management Area: Protected area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention V Protected Landscape/Seascape: Protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation VI Managed Resource Protected Area: Protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of nature ecosystems

Source: Dudley (2008)

Apart from that the IUCN revised the definitions in order to make each more distinct. This classification system does not work well with cultural sites or historic parks because of the classification‘s underlying emphasis on ecological values. Therefore, historic parks are not included in the United Nations' inventory of national park, even though they are called national historic parks in many countries. In this classification system, all categories are considered equally important, but they imply varying degrees of human intervention through management objectives (Eagles et al., 2002). (Table 2) Accordingly, a standardized set of terminology and definitions was developed by the IUCN Category System for protected Area. Category I have the highest level of ecological integrity, with the least level of human impact. Category I site have people visiting in low numbers with a minimum of infrastructure and a

minimum of technological interference. Category II and III sites allow tourism and recreation infrastructure, such as roads, visitor centers and campgrounds, in a small part of the park. Category IV sites allow consumptive recreation. Category V allows considerable levels of human intervention, such as farming, houses and extensive tourist facilities (Eagles et al., 2002).

Table 2 Matrix of management objectives for various protected areas

Category of protected areas Management objective Ia Ib II III IV V VI Scientific research 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 Wilderness protection 2 1 2 3 3 - 2 Preservation of species and genetic diversity 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 Maintenance of environmental services 2 1 1 - 1 2 1 Protection of specific natural or cultural - - 2 1 3 1 3 features Tourism and recreation - 2 1 1 3 1 3 Education - - 2 2 2 2 3 Sustainable use of resources from natural - 3 3 - 2 2 1 ecosystem Maintenance of cultural or traditional - - - - - 1 2 attributes

Priorities: 1. Primary objective 2. Secondary objective 3. Potentially applicable objective - Not applicable Source: Eagles et al. (2002)

Table 2 show that some kind of recreation and tourism is likely to occur as a management objective in every category of protected areas, save Category IA (the strict nature reserve). It also shows that biodiversity protection though a critically important function of many protected areas, is far from the only purpose and is often

not the primary purpose of a protected area. It is, though, a requirement of the IUCN definition that any protected area should always have a special policy to protect and maintain biodiversity (Eagles et al., 2002).

1.2 Objective of national park

With regard to category II, National park were designed to: 1) Protect natural biodiversity along with its underlying ecological structure and supporting environmental processes, and to promote education and recreation, which is primary objective; 2) Manage the area in order to perpetuate, in as natural a state as possible, representative examples of physiographic regions, biotic communities, genetic resources and unimpaired natural processes; 3) Maintain viable and ecologically functional populations and assemblages of native species at densities sufficient to conserve ecosystem integrity and resilience in the long term; 4) Contribute in particular to conservation of wide-ranging species, regional ecological processes and migration routes; 5) Manage visitor use for inspirational, educational, cultural and recreational purposes at a level which will not cause significant biological or ecological degradation to the natural resources; 6) Take into account the needs of indigenous people and local communities, including subsistence resource use, in so far as these will not adversely affect the primary management objective; and 7) Contribute to local economies through tourism (Dudley, 2008).

1.3 Distinguishing features of national park

Category II areas (National Park) are typically large and conserve a functioning ―ecosystem‖, although to be able to achieve this, the national park may need to be complemented by sympathetic management in surrounding areas as follows: (IUCN, 2019)

1) The area should contain representative examples of major natural regions, and biological and environmental features or scenery, where native plant and

animal species, habitats and geodiversity sites are of special spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational or tourist significance; 2) The area should be of sufficient size and ecological quality so as to maintain ecological functions and processes that will allow the native species and communities to persist for the long term with minimal management intervention; 3) The composition, structure and function of biodiversity should be to a great degree in a ―natural‖ state or have the potential to be restored to such a state, with relatively low risk of successful invasions by non-native species.

1.4 Role in the landscape/seascape of national park

National park provides large-scale conservation opportunities where natural ecological processes can continue in perpetuity, allowing space for continuing evolution. They are often key stepping-stones for designing and developing large- scale biological corridors or other connectivity conservation initiatives required for those species (wide-ranging and/or migratory) that cannot be conserved entirely within a single protected area. Their key roles are therefore: (IUCN, 2019)

1) Protecting larger-scale ecological processes that will be missed by smaller protected areas or in cultural landscapes; 2) Protecting compatible ecosystem services; 3) Protecting particular species and communities that require relatively large areas of undisturbed habitat; 4) Providing a ―pool‖ of such species to help populate sustain-ably- managed areas surrounding the protected area; 5) Integrated with surrounding land or water uses to contribute to large- scale conservation plans; 6) Inform and excite visitors about the need for and potential of conservation programs; and 7) Support compatible economic development, mostly through recreation and tourism that can contribute to local and national economies and in particular to local communities.

1.5 Key issues for consideration of national park management

The IUCN propose the issues for consideration in the planning, establishment and management of category II as the following (IUCN, 2019).

1) Concepts of naturalness are developing fast and some areas that may previously have been regarded as natural are now increasingly seen as to some extent cultural landscapes 2) Commercialization of land and water in category II is creating challenges in many parts of the world, in part because of a political perception of resources being ―locked up‖ in national parks, with increasing pressure for greater recreational uses and lack of compliance by tour operators, development of aquaculture and mariculture schemes, and trends towards privatization of such areas. 3) Issues of settled populations in proposed category II protected areas, questions of displacement, compensation (including for fishing communities displaced from marine and coastal protected areas), alternative livelihood options and changed approaches to management are all emerging themes.

According to IUCN that indicates the issues for consideration of national park management which found that the lack of legal compliance is one of the major problems. Therefore, management of visitor behavior in national park is critical for the success of both conservation efforts and the provision of high quality visitor experiences. These can be compromised when visitors choose to not comply with regulations. Visitor impacts in national parks are often unintended, but occur from lack of awareness or knowledge of the results of their behavior (Marion and Reid, 2007). Managing visitor impacts can employ ‗direct approaches‘ that mitigate undesired behavior (such as enforcement, regulations, zoning and closing areas for certain uses), or ‗indirect approaches‘ aimed at influencing rather than regulating visitor behavior, through interpretation, visitor education and information programs (Dawson and Hendee, 2009). Indirect approaches are thought to be cost effective, ‗softer‘ and usually more consistent with leisure experiences than ‗harder‘ direct approaches. However, deciding the most appropriate management response depends

in part on an understanding of why visitors decide to comply or not comply with park regulations.

2. Thailand’s Protected Area and National Park

Thailand‘s protected area system was inaugurated in the 1960s following enactment of the Wild Animals Reservation Act, B.E. 2503 (1960) and the National Park Act, B.E. 2504 (1961). Protected area agencies in Thailand have well-developed protected area system which increased rapidly during the 1980s and 90s. The objectives of establishment of protected areas in Thailand summarized are as follows: (Chettamart, 2004). A major protected area in Thailand consists of the national park, wildlife sanctuary, non-hunting area, forest park, botanical garden and arboretum which are under the taking responsibility of the DNP (Chettamas, 2004). (Table 3)

1) Sample ecosystem – To maintain large areas in unchanged natural conditions and represent the country's important biosphere; 2) Ecological diversity – To maintain different characteristics of society, nature, landscape, and land features to protect diversity, which is representative of the country and unique; 3) Genetic resource – To maintain genetic resources which are composition of natural society and prevent the loss of flora and fauna genes; 4) Education and research – To provide areas to facilitate, and provide opportunities for, learning, education, research, and environmental monitoring; 5) Water and soil conservation – To maintain and manage watershed areas to ensure optimal quality and quantity of water flows and control and prevent soil erosion and sedimentation; 6) Wildlife management – To maintain and manage fishery and wildlife resources to allow them to play a role in environmental control and serve as resources for the industrial, sport, recreational and tourism sectors; 7) Recreation and tourism – To provide creative recreational and tourist areas for the general public;

8) Timber – To maintain and develop timber resources for household use, construction and other necessary activities in a sustainable manner; 9) Cultural heritage – To protect objects and structures of cultural, historical, and anthropological places; 10) Scenic beauty – To protect and manage resources and scenery and maintain environmental quality; 11) Option for the future – To maintain and manage large areas under land use methods which can conserve natural processes and serve as an option for future change in land use to respond to social needs; 12) Integrated development – To maintain conservation areas to help support rural development activities, especially income distribution and employment of local people.

Table 3 Thailand‘s protected area classification

Class name Definition National park Area with beautiful landscapes, important history, rare plant or animal species and preserved in its natural state for public education and enjoyment Wildlife Conservation areas declared for the preservation of wildlife so sanctuary they can freely breed in a natural environment Non-hunting area designated for the protection of specific wildlife species but smaller than wildlife sanctuaries Forest park Area with attractive scenery developed for public recreation, but is too small to be a national park Botanical garden Collections of indigenous and exotic species with economic value, planted for research purposes and ex-situ conservation Arboretum Smaller than botanical gardens and established to collect various plant species, especially economically useful flowering plants

Source: Chettamart, 2004

In 2017, Thailand has 458 protected areas with a total area of 110,975 square kilometers. These areas include 131 national parks, 60 wildlife sanctuaries, 79 non- hunting areas, 114 forest parks, 55 arboretums, and 18 botanical gardens. In this regard, during the past 6 years (2012-2017), it was found that protected areas tend to increase. Tables 4 show the distribution of protected areas by type and year (ONEP, 2019).

Table 4 Number of protected areas of Thailand

Year Protected 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 area Area Area Area Area Area Area (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) National 127 127 127 127 129 131 park (64,334) (64,334) (64,334) (64,334) (64,624) (65,312) Wildlife 58 58 58 58 59 60 sanctuary (37,036) (37,036) (37,036) (37,036) (37,135) (37,377) Non- 67 67 67 67 70 79 hunting (5,479) (5,479) (5,479) (5,479) (6,209) (6,854) area Forest park 105 105 114 114 114 114 (1,182) (1,182) (1,364) (1,364) (1,364) (1,364) Arboretum 55 55 55 55 56 56 (32.1) (32.1) (32.1) (32.1) (32.2) (32.2) Botanical 18 18 18 18 18 18 garden (34) (34) (34) (34) (34) (34) 430 430 439 439 446 458 Total (108,098) (108,098) (108,280) (108,098) (109,402) (110,975)

Source: ONEP (2019)

The important protected areas in Thailand are national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, no-hunting areas, forest parks, biosphere reserves, areas in watershed class 1 and watershed class 2, botanical gardens, arboretums and various experimental areas such as species, provenance and progeny trials. For the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, there are specific laws and regulations stipulated for the protection, control and management (Royal Forest Department, 2009). The overviews of various problems in the protected area are as follows: (Suksawang, 2014).

1) Pressure on ecosystem (development, tourism, illegal harvesting, alien species invasion etc.); 2) Significant gaps in protection of key ecosystems, habitats and species Especially in the marine environment; 3) Weak policy, regulatory and institutional framework; 4) Weak human and financial capacity to effectively manage existing Protected Areas; 5) Inadequate consideration to livelihoods issues resulting in variable and at times antagonistic relations between local communities and protected areas; 6) Poor awareness and appreciation of the values and benefits of protected areas and biodiversity corridors; 7) Need for increasing conservation attention to transboundary.

National park as one type of protected areas in Thailand are primarily managed and established under this National Park Act (1961) where Khao Yai National Park was the first national park of this country in 1962. According to the National Park Act, B.E. 2504 (1961) in the Royal Thai Government (2004) a national park is defined as "any land or natural feature which is of interest to be maintained with a view to preserving it for the benefit of public education and pleasure, with the provision that such land is not owned or legally possessed by any person other than a public body. " Principles of national park management are as follows (Suksawang and Setbubpha, n.d.).

1) Formulation of measures and guidelines for implementation in relation to the protection and maintenance of natural resources and the environment in park areas to ensure ecological and environmental sustainability – They focus on ecological management principles to maintain ecosystem security, rehabilitate degraded natural resources in the ecosystem, allow for activities which meet the targets of conservation for existing and future generations of people, define the patterns of park area use in line with the objectives of national park establishment, and define areas for national park management. 2) Formulation, and implementation of, the measures/guidelines for designating national parks to serve as natural tourist attractions and recreational areas for the general public through the management of tourism, visitors, and park area use patterns in compliance with the National Park Act, 1961, the objectives of national park establishment, and the principles of sustainable tourism development. 3) Formulation, and implementation of, the measures/guidelines for addressing the impacts of local communities on natural resources and the environment in national parks. 4) Formulation, and implementation of, the measures/guidelines for designating national parks to serve as areas for learning and research and raise public awareness of the value of natural resources and the environment 5) Good governance-based management. 6) Utilization of tools and mechanisms to ensure effective and efficient management, including law and regulation enforcement, provision of relevant knowledge and understanding to raise awareness of the value of national parks, e.g. through interpretation design, participation of local people and related groups, geographic information technology and remote data, and economic mechanisms.

Presently, all Thai national parks are administered by the National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department (DNP). The DNP (2006) defines a national park as "an area that contains natural resource of ecological importance or unique beauty such as beautiful scenery, waterfall, caves, and mountains, or flora and fauna of special importance", is established for basic functions including the

"preservation of biodiversity and ecosystems; research and education; recreation and tourism."

As for definitions and functions, the national park provides comprehensive resources for the following purposes: the preservation of biodiversity and the ecosystem; and the provision of recreation, tourism, and education for visitors. In 2017, Thailand has a total of 132 national parks, both terrestrial and marine that have been established and announced in the Government Gazette, covering approximately 63,973.18 square kilometers or 12.32 percent of the total area of Thailand, which is located in each region of the country (Planning and Information Office, 2017). The objectives of park management in Thailand are conservation, education and recreation, the responsibilities of the DNP as a park supervising agency are included as follows.

1) Regulating the management and the use of parks to meet code, restriction and method under National Park Act 1961. 2) Conducting planning activities to evaluate and develop park system with regard to the objectives of park management. 3) Managing the natural resources of parks to maintain, rehabilitate and support their value. 4) Provide appropriate activities and facilities necessary for park recreation and administration. 5) Introducing and conducting interpretative programs in all parks to create understanding and appreciating of park value and their resources.

As major nature-based visitor attractions, Thailand's national parks encounter challenging factors that influence the rapid growth of visitors within the area. Over the years, the number of park visitors has growth because of the government policy and tourism demand (Emphandu and Chettamart, 2003). This confirmed by national park visitors‘ statistics between 2008-2017 fiscal years which were roughly 10.4 million visitors in 2008, which had increased to 18.7 million visitors in 2017, which was increased average by 20.45 percent per year (National Parks Office. 2017). (Table

5) The demand of recreational activities is a significant part of the environmental impacts such as soil erosion, root exposure, tree damage, broken tree branches, wildlife disturb, vegetation cover, trash, social trail, turbidity, and suspended solids (Phumsathan, 2011).

Table 5 Number of national park visitors in Thailand during fiscal years 2008-2017

Fiscal year Number of visitors Growth rate 2008 10,418,898 - 2009 11,288,893 8.35 2010 10,648,387 2.20 2011 9,494,807 -8.86 2012 9,941,469 -4.58 2013 11,275,874 8.22 2014 11,845,289 13.69 2015 12,981,235 24.59 2016 16,688,999 60.18 2017 18,786,534 80.31 Average 12,337,039 20.45

Source: National Parks Office (2017)

3. Recreational Regulation in Thailand National Park

3.1 Role of recreational regulation in Thailand national park

Management controls and conditions must be established for all park uses to ensure that park resources and values are preserved and protected for the future. Regulation are common tourism and recreation management practice in protected area (Lucas, 1982, 1983; Monz et al., 2000; Manning, 2011). Common applications of regulations in outdoor recreation include group size limits, assigned campsite and/or travel itineraries, area closures, length of stay limitations, and restrictions or

prohibitions on recreation activities and behaviors that have substantive resources and/or experiential impacts (Leung et al., 2015). Regulations for park visitor has become one of the measures to ensure balance between recreation resource protection and recreation resource utilization.

Regulations of park visitor have the objective of controlling the nature of visitor behavior in terms of what is and what is not allowed (Anderson et al., 1998). Beside the restrictions or prohibitions on recreation activities, regulations about park visitor ensure safety and quality experience (Duzgunes and Demirel, 2016; Eagles et al., 2002). The national park authority in each country has formulated recreational regulations under relevant laws. Despite regulations established by protected area authority, one concern among protected area managers is compliance (Dudley, 2008). This issue has become an indicator of the efficiency of protected area management at the international level (Bragagnolo et al., 2016; Read et al., 2015). For this reason, compliance with regulations is a key issue for protected area management effectiveness in most parts of the world.

In general, regulations of visitor use usually appear in three forms (Eagle et al., 2002), i.e. direct regulations of visitor behaviors, directive measures, and indirect measures. As for direct regulations of visitor behaviors, they must be prescribed in reference to laws and be enforced with sanctions. An important factor in efficient regulation enforcement is a firm policing approach. Directive measures include design features which gently guide people, which have the objective to guide visitors to preferred behaviors, e.g. signage guides and layout design of nature trails. Concerning indirect measures, their objective is to create visitor awareness by providing information, interpretation, and various learning opportunities to ensure suitable behavior among visitors.

Thailand‟s National parks are administered by the DNP, of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE). The national park was declared in accordance with the National Park Act B.E .2504 (1961) and defined as an area that contains natural resources of ecological importance or unique beauty, or flora and

fauna of special importance (Suksawang and McNeely, 2015). At present, national parks are natural recreational areas that have popular among local visitors and foreign tourists. With this high level of visitor use thereby left DNP have to cope with problems of visitor impact; consequently, the DNP has set recreational regulations follow the National Park Act to serve as guidelines for recreational users.

The National Park Act, B.E. 2504 (1961) prescribes that individuals shall not do the following within the national parks: 1) Hold or occupy land, or construct, clear or burn forests; 2) Collect, remove, or do anything that is harmful or causes deterioration to, wood, resin, wood oil, turpentine, mineral, or other natural resources. 3) Remove animals or do anything that is harmful to animals; 4) Do anything that is harmful or causes deterioration to soil, rocks, gravel, or sand; 5) Change water routes or make streams, creeks, or swamps either flood or dry up; 6) Close or block water routes or land routes; 7) Collect, remove, or do anything that is harmful or causes deterioration to, orchids, honey, lac, charcoal, bark, or bat excrement; 8) Collect or do anything that is harmful to, flowers, leaves or fruits; 9) Take vehicles in and out, or drive in a manner that is not appropriate for the purpose, unless permitted by authorities; 10) Fly the aircraft from, or land the aircraft to, the area that is not provided for the purpose, unless permitted by authorities; 11) Bring or release livestock; 12) Bring pets or vehicles, unless complying with regulations prescribed by the Director General with the Minister‟s approval; 13) Do anything to seek benefits, unless permitted by authorities; 14) Post announcements or advertisements or leave any form of graffiti; 15) Bring gear for hunting or catching animals or any weapon, unless permitted by authorities (individuals shall comply with terms defined by authorities); 16) Shoot a gun, cause explosives to explode, or light fireworks; 17) Make loud noise or do anything that causes disturbance or nuisance to people or animals; 18) Litter; and 19) Leave inflammable fuel.

Furthermore, the DNP issued notifications and orders appropriately in line with current situations to attain the goal of conservation. For example, in 2003, the DNP issued a notification to ban bringing styrofoam containers into national parks, in order to protect natural resources, ecosystems, and the environment in the national

parks. Those violating the regulation will be charged under the National Park Act, B.E. 2504 (1961). In 2010, the DNP issued a notification prohibiting bringing or selling all types of alcoholic beverages, in order to maintain order and peace in the national parks, prevent loud noise, disturbance or nuisance to tourists and wild animals, and support government policies to control alcoholic beverages. Those violating the regulation will be charged under the National Park Act, B.E. 2504 (1961). Although national parks in Thailand have laws to control and regulate resources and manage visitors, based on relevant documents, there are no work plans or action plans to enforce tourists or national park visitors in a tangible way.

The National Park Act, B.E. 2504 (1961) is characterized by criminal law. The Criminal Code prescribes that “the penalties for the offenders are: 1) Execution, 2) Imprisonment, 3) Detainment, 4) Fine, and 5) Property forfeiture....” Fines are enforced on offenders in cases when the offence causes minor damage, which aims to give them a warning not to re-offend and provide them with another chance to behave beneficially for society. The National Park Act, B.E. 2504 (1961) states that persons who enter the national parks must comply with the authorities‟ order to comply with the regulations prescribed by the Director-General. This aims to enable the authorities to control and prevent any action that causes damage or destruction to natural resources. The National Park Act, B.E. 2504 (1961) imposes imprisonment or fine, or both, and prescribes that the authorities can fine. It is evident that the law provides the officers with criminal and administrative authority to take action against offenders. Therefore, it is credible that when visitors commit an offence in a national park, the authorities will have full authority to take action against offenders to enforce the law sacredly.

Visitor management in terms of regulations in Thailand‘s national parks, two forms of ‗direct regulations of visitors‘ are identified. The first consists of regulations pertaining to visitor activities (requirements concerning allowed and non- allowed activities), and the second is law enforcement, fines and penalties under the National Park Act, B.E. 2504 (1961). With regard to ‗directive measures,‘ two forms are identified. The first is warning signs (signs that contain regulation-related

messages to request visitors‘ cooperation to comply), and the second is symbols (symbols that illustrate non-allowed activities, e.g. ‗Don‘t make loud noise‘ and ‗Don‘t pick plants or flowers.‘) As for ‗indirect measures,‘ they are found in three forms – information service within visitor centers, interpretation service by park rangers, and self-study via media, e.g. interpretive signs, wayside exhibitions, brochures, or nature guide book, which aim to create an understanding about regulations and persuade visitors to comply with regulations.

3.2 Regulation compliance in Thailand‘s national park

The importance of encouraging visitors to comply with regulations was emphasized in a study of the Thailand national park system that found that Thai visitors who did not follow the regulations caused extensive damage (Luanchawee, 2004). Many studies had attempted to understand more about regulation compliance and related issues. The first published by Tanakanjana and Haas (1996), where nonconformance to national park regulations of local people was analyzed. This analysis was followed by research studies on regulation compliance behavior of park visitors (e.g. Charungphan, 2001; Jantowat et al., 2011; Poolsawat, 2013; Rueangsut, 2015).

Charungphan (2001) conducted survey research on noncompliance with visitors to Erawan National Park, Kanchanaburi province, in which samples were Thai visitors. Some reported noncompliant behaviors were as follows: 1) Feeding fish, 2) Discharging waste into water bodies or in the forest, 3) Collecting twigs or branches to use as firewood or fuel, 4) Washing containers in water bodies, 5) Breaking or picking twigs or branches, leaves or flowers along the trail or other places, 6) Making bonfires, lighting fires to burn grass, leaves, or garbage, 7) Littering, 8) Bringing pets, 9) Writing graffiti or engraving names on rocks, tiers of waterfalls, trees, or other areas, 10) Picking flowers, leaves, seeds, or parts of plants as mementos, and 11) Catching fish or aquatic animals in water bodies.

Further, Charungphan (2001) classified reasons for national park visitors‟ noncompliance. The noncompliant behaviors were classified into five groups:

1) Unintentional acts, 2) Acts as a result of attractions or noticeable traces, 3) Acts as a result of a lack of information, 4) Acts refusing responsibility, and 5) Serious intentional violations. Noncompliance by over half of the visitors was characterized as unintentional acts, followed by acts refusing responsibility, acts as a result of a lack of information, acts as a result of attractions or noticeable traces, and serious intentional violations, respectively.

Jantowat et al., (2011) conducted survey research on the response to regulations and measures for dealing with recreational users among visitors to Doi Suthep National Park, Chiang Mai. The samples were Thai and foreign tourists. The negative behaviors of most visitors consisted of: 1) Singing and playing music, 2) Bringing alcoholic beverages, and 3) Making loud noise along the trails. The negative behaviors that most foreign visitors exhibited consisted of: 1) Buying forest products sold by local people, 2) Singing and playing music, 3) Bringing pets, and 4) Off-trail hiking. Overall, foreign visitors were responsive to regulations and measures for dealing with recreational users more positively than Thai tourists.

Moreover, Jantowat and colleagues observed visitors‟ behaviors at different times, by estimating the frequency of 16 responsive behaviors to national park regulations. The most frequent negative behaviors identified consisted of: 1) Bringing alcohol beverages to drink in a group, 2) Singing and playing music, 3) Making noise, and 4) Bringing pets. The less frequent negative behaviors consisted of: 1) Keeping leaves as mementos, 2) Engraving names on trees, 3) Making loud noise when seeing wild animals, 4) Feeding wild animals, 5) Taking photos close to wild animals using flash, 6) Setting tents outside provided areas, 7) Bringing vehicles into restricted zones, 8) Buying forest products from local people, and 9) Leaving food waste on the ground. The researcher compared two sets of data and detected their differences. Most visitors responded that they implemented more positive behavior than negative behavior, while data collected based upon observations identified that the visitors implemented more negative behavior than positive behavior. Thus, the researcher noted that most visitors possessed an incorrect

misunderstanding about the national park regulations, so they believed that their behavior did not break the regulations.

Poolsawat (2013) carried out survey research on the normative behavior in recreational areas among visitors to Khao Yai National Park, Nakhon Ratchasima province. The samples were Thai and foreign visitors. The research identified the following Thai visitors‟ negative behaviors: 1) Moving close to wild animals, 2) Taking photos close to wild animals, 3) Breaking or picking twigs or branches, or leaves along the trail, 4) Bringing pets, 5) Touching wild animals, 6) Writing graffiti or symbols on rocks or trees, 7) Washing kitchen utensils/containers in natural water bodies, 8) Washing hair or the body in natural water bodies, 9) Washing clothes in natural water bodies, 10) Entering into restricted areas, 11) Feeding wild animals, 12) Collecting natural products, 13) Making loud noise, 14) Playing music/singing in a group, and 15) Bringing alcohol beverages.

The negative behaviors among foreign visitors consisted of: 1) Playing music/singing in a group and making loud noise, 2) Feeding wild animals, 3) Entering into restricted areas, 4) Washing clothes in natural water bodies, 5) Washing hair or the body in natural water bodies, 6) Washing kitchen utensils/containers in natural water bodies, 7) Writing graffiti or symbols on rocks or trees, 8) Touching wild animals, 9) Bringing pets, 10) Breaking or picking twigs or branches, leaves, or flowers, 11) Taking photos close to wild animals, and 12) Moving close to wild animals. Overall, Thai visitors had more negative behavior than foreign visitors. In addition, the researcher interviewed visitors about other visitors‟ negative behavior. Thai visitors indicated that they had seen a lot of negative behavior by other visitors, such as bringing alcoholic beverages, taking photos close to wild animals, playing music/singing in a group, and feeding wild animals. Foreign tourists said that they had seen various negative behaviors of other tourists, such as taking photos close to wild animals, moving close to wildlife, and feeding wild animals.

Rueangsut (2015) conducted survey research on deviant behavior of visitors to Khao Yai National Park, in which Thai visitors were samples. The

researcher studied their violation of prohibitions or regulations of the national park, e.g. making loud noise, littering, bring pets, feeding wild animals, off-trail hiking, destroying trees, making bonfires directly on the ground, collecting plants and twigs and branches, destroying facilities, and violating other regulations. It was revealed that more than half of the visitors implemented 1-5 deviant behaviors, which were noncompliant behaviors. Their typical deviant behaviors consisted of: 1) Taking photos at cliffs despite warning signs, 2) Drinking alcohol at campsites, in which there are “no-alcohol drinking” signs, and 3) Making bonfires directly on the ground to cook or warm the body, whereas the campsites are equipped with signs that give warnings about making bonfires directly on the ground.

4. Factors Influencing Regulation Compliance in Protected Area

As national parks are in a protected area system, studies that investigated protected area users‘ regulation compliance in Thailand and other countries were reviewed to classify variables associated with regulation compliance. The overall analysis results found that protected area users‘ regulation compliance is associated with factors as follows.

4.1 Knowledge

Knowledge is an understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning. Regulation-related knowledge is a prerequisite to compliance (Winter and May, 2001). Knowledge is a factor that is studied in relation to the influence on protected area users‘ regulation compliance (e.g., Heinen and Shrivastava, 2009; Keane et al., 2011; Lancaster et al., 2015; Leisher et al., 2012; Sesabo et al., 2006). For example, a study in Canada, conducted by Lancaster et al. (2015), found that recreational fishers‘ knowledge about fishing regulations influenced their compliance. In Thailand, regulation-related knowledge is a factor that influences regulation compliance of visitors to Erawan National Park and Doi Suthep-Pui National Park (Charungphan, 2001; Jantowat et al., 2011). The

research results of Marion and Reid (2007) explain that the impact on resources and inappropriate behavior in national parks is caused by lack of knowledge and understanding about regulations. 4.2 Awareness

Awareness involves attention, interest, or action that shows that there is perception and knowledge of something or some events, experiences, or objects. Awareness of regulations is a potential contributing factor to compliance in nature conservation context (Martin 1995; Pierce and Tomcko 1998; Schill and Kline 1995). The results of many studies indicate that protected area users‘ regulation compliance have a relationship with their awareness of regulations (Heinen and Shrivastava, 2009; Slater et al., 2014; Sterl et al., 2008). For example, the research by Slater et al. (2014), which was conducted on factors affecting regulation compliance in protected marine areas among fishery operators in Tanzanian coastal communities, revealed that regulation noncompliance partly resulted from the fact that fishery operators lacked awareness of regulations pertaining to the fishery industry.

4.3 Norms

The normative component is particularly important for determining compliance (Tyler, 1990), and it deserves special attention considering that people typically behave in accordance to norms. Cialdini et al. (1991) distinguish three types of norms: personal, descriptive, and injunctive. Personal norms are the moral obligations for engaging or not in a behavior, with internal sanctions and rewards for doing so (Schwartz, 1973). Descriptive and injunctive norms are social norms that rely on sensed external cues. Descriptive norms are what most others do, whereas injunctive norms are what most others approve or disapprove. So descriptive norms inform behaviors while injunctive norms prescribe and proscribe them (Cialdini et al., 1990). Norm-oriented models of compliance highlight two salient classes of norms; namely social norms, and moral or personal norms. personal norms are principles (or morals) that have been internalized by an individual; so, that they influence behavior even in the absence of external factors (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Hatcher and Pascoe, 2006; Posner, 1997).

4.4 Legitimacy

Legitimacy refers to a general acceptance of political or administrative authority, which ultimately leads to an obligation to comply with rules enacted by the authority (Tyler, 1990; Tyler and Jost, 2007). This obligation is suggested to depend on the process (procedures that the authority applies in law-making and decision- making) (Nielsen, 2003; Tyler, 1990) and the outcome (effects of enacted decisions and laws) (Nielsen, 2003). Process legitimacy concerns satisfaction with the law- making process, and includes variables such as participation, openness and accountability. Outcome legitimacy, on the other hand, concerns satisfaction with the content and outcomes of the decisions made by the authority. It includes variables such as distributional effects and general consistency of regulation (Nielsen, 2003). The drivers that contribute to perceived legitimacy consist of: 1) Content of regulations and goals, 2) Distributional effects of regulations, and 3) Procedural fairness (Jentoft, 1989; Hanna, 1998; Kuperan and Sutinen, 1998; Nielsen, 2003; Nielsen and Mathiesen, 2003).

4.5 Enforcement

Enforcement implies an active effort of surveillance, patrolling, apprehension of violators and their processing through an administrative justice system. However, Sutinen (1992) argued that enforcement is only one of many factors that influence compliance. Regulation enforcement in national park involves two popular methods (Anderson et al., 1998). The first method is providing signs, which aims to deter regulation noncompliance and protect against the impacts of national park visitors. They are usually regulatory and warning signs, which focus on informing national park visitors of regulations, prohibitions, and practices when they visit national parks. The second method is providing personnel. Uniformed personnel that are stationed in park areas conduct inspections and deter bad behaviors that potentially lead to regulation noncompliance, which can stimulate visitors‘ perceived risks and adverse impacts of regulation violation. This method can provide relatively-

efficient deterrence (Gorzelany, 2004; Jett and Thapa, 2010; Samdahl and Christensen, 1985; Vande Kamp et al., 1994; Widner and Roggenbuck, 2000).

4.6 Sanctions

In the original sense of the word, a sanction is a penalty or punishment provided as a means of enforcing obedience to a law. The role of sanction threats in deterring people from offending derives from the utilitarian philosophy of the classical school of criminology and underlies deterrence theory (Pauwels et al., 2011). Sanctions for park visitors who engage in noncompliance behavior can be considered both a direct and an indirect management tactic. Legal sanctions are punishments or the threat of punishments, which are levied upon visitors who engage in noncompliance behavior (Anderson et al., 2008). When visitors know that legal sanctions are a real possibility, they will be more likely to avoid noncompliance behavior either out of a sense of doing what is right or because of a fear of the consequences, or both (Anderson et al., 2008). The research result about fishers‘ compliance in marine protected areas found that afraid of sanctions were factor considered by respondents to influence compliance (Arias et al., 2015). A case study from Africa found that effectiveness to conserve biodiversity significantly correlated with the level of punishments of illegal activities in the national park (Bruner et al., 2001).

4.7 Persuasive communication

Persuasion is a symbolic process in which communicators try to convince other people to change their attitudes or behavior regarding an issue through the transmission of a message, in an atmosphere of free choice (Perloff, 2003).Persuasive communication is an indirect and light-handed management tool. This measure is designed to persuade protected area users to adjust their attitudes and behavior in line with objectives of protected area management (Manning, 2003). Research on protected areas has suggested that persuasion can be effective in national park management. Its important outcomes consist of national park visitors‘ upgraded knowledge, altered attitudes, and lowered level of destructive behavior (Bright et al.,

1993; Oliver et al., 1985). For example, most hikers in Mt. Rainier National Park, Washington, who were exposed to a short interpretative program offered by park rangers to clarify the reasons, effects, and significance of deterrence of off-trail hiking, were compliant (Kernan and Drogin, 1995).

4.8 Media exposure

Media exposure may be defined as ―the extent to which audience members have encountered specific messages or classes of messages/media content‖ (Slater et al., 2004). Media is a key factor in indicating and representing environmental problems to the public (Schoenfeld et al., 1979). The results of many studies have identified that media exposure have an influence on creating awareness and regulation compliance among protected area users (Saypanya et al., 2013; Swaroop, 2015). For example, the research by Saypanya (2013) found that mass media campaigns affected changes in attitudes, knowledge, and behavior of local people around the Nam Et Phou Louey National Protected Area in Laos, which reduced wildlife threatening factors. In Thailand, only one study has investigated this topic, which identified that receiving information from mass media has no influence on Thai visitors‘ compliance with national park regulations (Niyomsilp, 2006).

5. Basic Concept and Theoretical Perspectives of Compliance

5.1 Basic concept of compliance

Most of the literature reviewed discusses compliance with explicit rules or agreements, often of a legal character or of normative import, and noncompliance with the demands of an adversary. In the context of regulatory compliance study can be proposed to the meaning and concept of compliance as follows.

Generally, compliance means conforming to a regulatory, such as a specification, policy, standard, rule or law. Regulatory compliance describes the goal that organizations aspire to achieve in their efforts to ensure that they are aware of and

take steps to comply with relevant laws, policies, and regulations (Lin, 2016). In psychology, compliance refers to a particular kind of response—acquiescence—to a particular kind of communication—a request (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004).

Compliance can be defined as all behavior by subjects or actors that conform to the requirements of behavioral prescriptions (Young, 1979). In addition, he also suggested that compliance occur when the actual behavior of a given subject conforms to prescribed behavior, and noncompliance or violation occurs when actual behavior departs significantly from prescribed behavior. Compliance in this sense is characterized by more than a use of legal action and is closely allied to the adoption of informal practices, such as persuasion rather than a use of punishment per se (Amodu, 2008).

Fischer and Wiswede (1997) stated that compliance is classified into two major categories – external compliance and internal compliance. External compliance consists of two levels, which consist of obedience and assimilation. Internal compliance also comprises two levels, which consist of acceptance and internalization. In addition, these four levels of compliance develop and influence each other sequentially. That is, obedience influences assimilation and acceptance, and finally, it becomes internalized, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Compliance implies the target population‘s obedience to regulations. There are many conditions required for the compliance. First, the target population must be aware of, and understand, regulations. A lack of understanding of regulations may lead to unintentional noncompliance. Second, the target population must be willing to comply – a strong enforcement program can effectively deter noncompliance. Third, the target group must be able to comply. For example, policy implementation should include different activities, such as providing necessary information and other technical supports. These conditions are fundamental factors in the formulation of the policy to promote the compliance with regulations issued by agencies (OECD, 2000).

Compliance

External Compliance Internal Compliance

Obedience Assimilation Acceptance Internalization

Figure 1 Classification of compliance

Source: Fischer and Wiswede (1997)

Visitor behavior, particularly compliance, is a central component of national park visitor management programs. The role of compliance in national park is critical for effective conservation, and compliance constantly affirm the desired outcomes of the world‘s protected areas. Many international institutions and conventions share a common aim of establishing and strengthening authorities and mechanisms that deliver effective compliance programs and enforcement (Campbell et al., 2014). A key success by management at national parks is the compliance behavior of visitors who conform protective regulations such as no feeding wildlife, no pet, and, in doing so; place themselves and others at secure. For this research, the term „compliance behavior‟ described as decisions of national park visitor to comply with protective recommendations of park management agency takes to improve or prevent behavior that fails to obey the regulation.

5.2 Theoretical perspectives of compliance

The behavioral social scientists generally propose two majors theoretical of compliance: the instrumental and the normative perspective (Gezelius, 2003; Zaelke et al., 2005; Kuperan and Sutinen, 1998, Bova et al., 2017).

The ―instrumental perspective‖ in its purest form is rooted in rational choice theory and neo-classical economics, and it views agents as maximizers of expected material gain (Becker, 1968). Compliance is thus determined by the likelihood of sanctions, i.e. “being caught”, and the severity of such sanctions (Schwartz and Tullock, 1975; Sutinen and Andersen, 1985; Clarke et al., 1993; Sutinen and Kuperan, 1999). Compliance is elicited mainly through enforcement, which encompasses monitoring, detection and punishment of infractions, i.e. through coercive measures; that is the use of power or the threat of doing so (deterrence) (Young, 1979; Hønneland, 1999). Further, compliance may be elicited though inducement, i.e. rewards that raise the expected value of compliance (Young, 1979).

For example, natural resource managers have categorized recreational fishers as instrumental actors, and their compliance is thought to be primarily determined as a trade-off between the financial incentive to comply and the chance of detection if free-riding (Keane et al., 2008). Becker‟s (1968) seminal paper on the economics of crime, deterrence and punishment suggests that the likelihood of a criminal committing an offence is determined by an assumed “cost” measured by the expected penalties: the probability of being punished, multiplied by the subjective disutility of the punishment. Increased expected punishments, such as higher monetary fines, longer imprisonment terms or greater probability of detection, will decrease the likelihood of an offence due to a higher perceived “cost” to the criminal. Basic economic principles would argue that when the “costs” increase, criminals will substitute out of crime and into other (legal) activities. This model became known as the “deterrence effect.”

Recreation resource managers have typically held the view that compliance can be improved by either increasing the level of enforcement (Hatcher et al., 2000) or by increasing the penalties for breaking the regulations (Keane et al., 2008). For example, deterrence is the type of enforcement activities which increase the perceived likelihood of getting caught, while promoting the severity of the sanctions imposed on those who are caught. However, increasing penalties, while theoretically possible, may also result in an aggravation of poor behavior as the

resource users in protected area begin to rebel against regulations (Keane et al., 2008). Therefore, it is doubtful that increasing the levels of coercion is a sustainable, long- term option in many recreational and alternatives to the instrumental approach are crucial (Bova et al., 2017).

The ―normative perspective‖ is foundation in sociological and psychological literature, encompassing behavioral (Carrol, 1987; Jolls et al., 1998) and normative dimensions of human behavior and action (Cialdini and Trost, 1998; Elster, 1989). This concept suggests that an individual‟s decision is to comply with regulations that are based on morality, legitimacy, and social and cultural norms which stem from a general sense of duty and which do not rest on explicit calculations of costs and benefits (Young, 1979; Hauck, 2008).

The normative perspective emphasizes the role of (i) norms (social and personal norms, or morality) and (ii) legitimacy in determining compliance (Posner, 1997; Tyler, 1990). Norms can be defined as commonly accepted rules that prescribe desirable behavior, and forbid behavior that is considered undesirable (Cialdini and Trost, 1998). Behavior is guided by external factors, such as peer pressure and disapproval; or internal factors, such as feeling of guilt or shame (Posner, 1997). Examples of norms include reciprocity, fairness, and cooperation. Norms are obeyed without the force of formal law. Norms are not static; as noted by Elster (1989), norms such as fairness and cooperation critically depend on the behavior of others. As suggested by Hønneland (1999) and Sutinen et al. (1990), compliance based on norms may quickly erode, if it is realized that other members of the peer group are not complying.

One of the primary normative interventions that has attempted to improve compliance behavior has been educational campaigns to enhance recreationist awareness (Page and Radomski, 2006) and public attitudes towards conservation (Matthews and Riley, 1995). These interventions assume that education will drive changes in attitude and ultimately human behavior. There is empirical evidence suggesting that these cognitive have been successful. For example, the study in

Western Australia found that education campaigns targeting the importance of complying with the regulations and the promotion of sustainable marine resource use have effect on voluntary compliance (Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, 2018).

A normative intervention, it can be applied to recreational visitor‘s compliance behavior, is the manipulation of social norms. Individual behavior is often shaped by what people around them consider to be appropriate or desirable. A social norm has to do with beliefs about others, that is, social expectations within some reference group that are maintained by social approval, disapproval or influence. People, therefore, generally conform to social norms to avoid the disapproval of others (Elster, 1989). Heberlein (2012) felt that these norms are the key to influencing behavior as they explicitly involve a social and not a personal component.

Understanding why people comply with regulations is essential to the design of regulations. Researchers have employed a variety of perspective, and have explored the factors of regulation compliance. Various compliance models have been suggested where instrumental and normative perspectives of compliance are integrated, e.g. the enriched model of compliance (Sutinen and Kuperan, 1999), and the bio-economic model of compliance (Sutinen and Andersen, 1985; Sutinen et al., 1990). Such models also include various contextual factors that have an indirect influence on compliance. None of these models have been applied in forestry contexts. Yet, there are a number of studies on forest law compliance suggesting contextual factors, including:flawed policy and legal framework, poor law and policy implementation capacities, insufficient data and information, corruption, lack of transparency, livelihood needs and poverty (Contreras-Hermosilla and Peter, 2005). These factors influence compliance decisions by altering the above-given instrumental and normative factors (Ramcilovic-Suominen and Epstein, 2012). Figure 2 presents a summary of compliance theory illustrating the instrumental and normative factors.

Theoretical Perspectives of Compliance

Instrumental factors Normative factors

Enforcement level Legitimacy Norms/morals

Level of sanctions Group behavior Process Outcome Expected gain Social pressure Participation Distribution

Inducement Tradition/culture/ Accountability Coherence religion Effectiveness

Figure 2 Theoretical perspectives of compliance

Source: Ramcilovic-Suominen and Epstein (2012)

The compliance literature suggests yet other factors which do not refer specifically to the instrumental or normative perspective. First, actors may comply with behavioral prescriptions which stem from other external actors than public authorities, e.g. customary rules or conventions, social pressure, habit (North,1990; Ostrom, 1990; Young, 1979).

Young (1979) offers six sources at the root of personal decisions concerning compliance. Initially is ―self-interest‖: Acquiescence may often arise as a selected option even without outside pressure. Individuals could simply decide that obeying rules or regulations is better than disobeying them. Second, ―enforcement‖ includes efforts by the system actors to influence the cost-benefit estimates among subjects, mainly by risk of penalties in cases of suspected disobedience. Third, ―inducement‖ involves any effort to increase the anticipated value of compliance instead of lowering the anticipated value of disobedience. This is typically done by offering some form of reward. Fourth, the actions of subordinates may be influenced

by ―social pressure‖, which comes from other outside factors more than public establishments. Fifth, the decisions and actions of individuals may be affected by an overt ―sense of obligation‖, regardless of origin (i.e. relating to individuals). Sixth, choices by subjects in terms of compliance vs. disobedience are usually affected by intuitive and unintentional factors; the words ―habit‖ or practice could be used to signify examples of behavior, generally gained through repeated action (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Source of compliance

Source: Adapted from Young (1979)

Further, Bottoms (2002) there are four types of explanation for compliance with authority in general and with the criminal law in particular: 1) prudential or self-interested calculations about the potential costs and benefits of punishment, which take into account the risks and costs of punishment; 2) normative considerations about the ‗rights and wrongs‘ of noncompliance; 3) the impact of obstructive strategies, such as locking up offenders to prevent their reoffending, as well as locking up the targets of criminal attention, literally or metaphorically; and 4) habit. In the specific case of forest law compliance, Ramcilovic-Suominen and Epstein (2012) suggest three generic causes leading to compliance:1) instrumental factors (fear of sanction), 2) norm (fairness, tradition and religion, peer pressure), and 3) contextual factors (regulatory context, socio-economics context).

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES

1. Conceptual Framework

Based on the literature review and meta-analysis (show in the results section), the factors with an effect on regulation compliance of protected-area users were divided into two groups – cognitive factors and situational factors. Cognitive factors can have a trigger impact on the compliance. These factors are attributes related to individuals‘ cognition, knowledge, understanding and perception that have an effect on regulation compliance, namely knowledge of regulations, awareness of regulations, personal morality, perceived regulation legitimacy, perceived injunctive norms, and media exposure. As for situational factors, they are temporary conditions that trigger visitors‘ regulation compliance, which have a direct connection with measures utilized by protected area authorities for user management, namely legal sanctions, regulation enforcement, and persuasive communication. These are factors that often depend on external situational triggers rather than by internal traits.

In addition, accumulating evidence suggests that ‗intention to comply‘ are considered sufficient predictors of environmental responsible behavior including regulation compliance behavior in protected area (Brown et al., 2010; Jett et al., 2013; Lee and Moscardo, 2005; Montes et al., 2018; Vagias et al., 2014). In accordance with Theory of environmentally responsible behavior (ERB) was proposed by Hines, Hungerford and Tomera (Hines et al.,1987). Hines and colleagues conducted a meta- analysis of the relationships between pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. They viewed „intention to act‟ as a determinant of pro-environmental behavior.

In the proposed predictive model, the ‗intention to comply‘ played a role as a mediator between cognitive variable and situation variables and regulation compliance. While little is known about the effects of media exposure in explaining the park visitors‘ behavior, this study investigates the effectiveness of media exposure in predicting intention to act and regulation compliance. This leads to the notion that media exposure can play a moderating role in the relationships between the intention

to comply and regulation compliance behavior. This study aimed to develop a proposed predictive model for regulation compliance and investigated the influence of cognitive and situational factors on regulation compliance of visitors in Thailand‘s national parks. (Figure 4)

Knowledge of regulations

Awareness of regulations

H2 Media exposure Personal morality H3 H10 Perceived injunctive norm H4 Intention to comply Regulation compliance behavior

Perceived regulation legitimacy H9 H5

Regulation enforcement H6

Legal sanctions H7

H8 Persuasive Communication

Figure 4 A proposed conceptual framework

2. Hypotheses

This study proposed of 10 hypotheses as follow as indicated on the proposed predictive model above. H1: Knowledge of regulation has a positive effect on regulation compliance by intention to comply as mediator. H2: Awareness of regulation has a positive effect on regulation compliance by intention to comply as mediator. H3: Personal morality has a positive effect on regulation compliance by intention to comply as mediator. H4: Perceived injunctive norm has a positive effect on regulation compliance by intention to comply as mediator. H5: Perceived regulation legitimacy has a positive effect on regulation compliance by intention to comply as mediator. H6: Regulation enforcement has a positive effect on regulation compliance by intention to comply as mediator. H7: Legal sanction has a positive effect on regulation compliance by intention to comply as mediator. H8. Persuasive communication has a positive effect on regulation compliance by intention to comply as mediator. H9: Intention to comply has a positive effect on regulation compliance by intention to comply as mediator. H10: Media exposure has moderated the positive effect of intention to comply on regulation compliance behavior.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This section describes the materials and methods of the research contained within this thesis. The research materials consisted of various tools of collecting primary and secondary data. The research methods, including the research process, research instrument, selection of the study areas, data collection, selection of the sample size and the data analysis.

Materials

The equipment used in conduction the research was as follow: 1) a questionnaire on national park superintendents‘ opinions about problems associated with regulation compliance, 2) an evaluation form for study area selection, 3) a questionnaire on regulation compliance analysis, 4) a data extraction form for meta-analysis, 5) computer and statistical package programs and 6) documents and data related to study areas.

Methods

1. Selection of Study Areas

This research explored the overall picture of regulation-related behavior of park visitors. Thus, study areas were selected in a systematic manner based on three factors: 1) Issues of regulation noncompliance of park visitors (assessed based on results of the opinion survey of national park superintendents from 119 national parks), 2) Number of park visitors (assessed based on the statistics of park visitors from the DNP), and 3) Diversity of recreational activities (assessed based on the variety of recreational activities in national parks from the DNP). This used an analytic scoring rubric. After the assessment and scoring were completed, national parks that had the potential to serve as study areas were chosen from those that obtained high scores in each region. (Appendix A) Finally, they were randomly selected by lot drawing to serve as representative parks for each region. The selected

national parks were as follows: Chae Son National Park (Northern region), Khao Yai National Park (Northeastern region), Kaeng Krachan National Park (Central region), Nam Tok Phlio National Park (Eastern region), and Khao Luang National Park (Southern region).

2. Research Instruments

The research instrument consists of secondary and primary data collection. For collection of secondary data used data extraction form for meta-analysis in order to identify related factors. This research used a questionnaire as the primary data collection instrument. Items in this questionnaire were designed in reference to relevant theoretical literature. It was composed of twelve parts: (Appendix B)

2.1 The first section comprised general information about travelling patterns, which aims to analyze visitor travel patterns; 2.2 The second section was a self-checklist which comprised regulation compliance-related statements; 2.3 The third section was a list of true or false questions concerning park regulations-related knowledge, which were aimed at gaining an understanding about the knowledge among the respondents; 2.4 The fourth section was a list of questions about regulation enforcement and persuasive communication, which were asked to learn about the respondents‘ sightings of regulation enforcement measures and persuasive communication measures; 2.5 The fifth section contained questions about legal sanction, which were asked to understand the respondents‘ opinions about perceived legal sanction; 2.6 The sixth section was comprised of regulation legitimacy questions, which were asked to learn about the respondents‘ opinions about legitimacy of regulation. 2.7 The seventh section included questions about personal morality, which were asked to understand the reasons for complying with the park regulations among the respondents;

2.8 The eighth section contained questions about awareness of regulations, which aimed to gain an insight into the respondents‘ awareness of park regulation compliance; 2.9 The ninth section was related to media exposure by park visitors. The questions in this section were asked to learn about visitor media exposure; 2.10 The tenth section consisted of questions about perceived injunctive norms, which were asked to understand the respondents‘ perception of injunctive norms; 2.11 The eleventh section included questions about the intention to comply with park regulations; 2.12 The twelfth section included dichotomous and multiple-choice questions covering the demographic characteristics of respondents, i.e. gender, age, educational levels, occupation, and place of residence.

These items went through expert judgment to check content validity, which was based on the values of the index of item-objective congruence (Rovinelli and Hambleton, 1977). (Appendix C) The analysis results found that the values ranged from 0.60 to 1.00. To check the quality of this instrument, a try out was undertaken with 70 park visitors at Khao Yai National Park, who served as pilot samples. The Cronbach‘s alpha reliability coefficient of acquired data was checked against the rating-scale variables (Cronbach, 1951). (Appendix D) As for dummy variables, the formula of Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR-20) was employed to check their reliability (Guilford and Fruchter, 1978). (Appendix E) An analysis was carried out on the difficulty of the items (p) of questions used for measuring the knowledge about national park regulations (Crocker and Algina, 1986). (Appendix F) Furthermore, item discrimination was examined for the variable ‗perceived regulation legitimacy‘ (Kline, 2000) with the objective to test the questions‘ power of discrimination of respondents based on their opinions about the legitimacy of regulations using the t-test statistics. (Appendix G) After the tool quality examination was completed, the questionnaire was improved to produce an official questionnaire to be used for collecting data in the study areas.

3. Operational Definition and Measurement

3.1 Regulation compliance behavior

The regulation compliance behavior in this research referred to the behavior in line with the regulations of the DNP defined for national park visitors. The quality of the items as a whole indicated a reliable Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR-20) value of 0.59. The respondents had to report if, during their national park visit, they complied or did not comply with national park regulations. There were 20 mixed items, including inappropriate behavior statements, e.g. ―Buying food packed in styrofoam containers for a picnic.‖ (0 = I did and 1 = I didn‘t) and appropriate behavior statements, e.g. ―I used natural material containers to contain food.‖ (0 = I did and 1 = I didn‘t).

3.2 Intention to comply

The intention to comply was defined as behavioral intention to comply with the regulations of the DNP defined for national park visitors. This variable consisted of 20 items, which were consistent with those used for measuring regulation compliance (Cronbach‘s α = 0.926). Some items under this variable included ―Avoiding bring alcoholic beverage into the national park.‖ The responses were measured on a 6-point scale (1 = Definitely do not intend; 6 = Definitely intend).

3.3 Knowledge of regulation

Knowledge of regulation referred to visitors‘ understanding about regulations of the DNP defined for national park visitors. Statements under this variable were a 12-item test on correct and incorrect regulations. The quality of these items as a whole indicated a reliable Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR-20) value of 0.77, and level of difficulty of the items (p) was equal to 0.37 - 0.88, and both values were at a suitable level. The respondents had to answer if the statements provided were right or wrong, which were binary answers – 0 and 1. Examples of the statements were ―A car

with an exhaust pipe over 100 dB is not allowed to enter the national park.‖ (0 = If the respondents responded that this is wrong; 1 = If the respondents responded that this is right) or ―The national park allows the visitors to leave food waste onto the ground to feed wildlife (0 = If the respondents responded that this is wrong; 1 = If the respondents responded that this is right).

3.4 Awareness of regulation

Awareness of national park regulation was defined as attaching great importance to regulation compliance, valuing regulation compliance, and positive belief in regulation compliance. This included five items (Cronbach‘s α = 0.874), one example of which was ―You believe that one cause of environmental issue in the national park is visitors‘ regulation noncompliance.‖ The responses were measured on a 6-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 6 = Strongly agree).

3.5 Personal morality

Personal morality means rationalizing regulation compliance, which consists of adhering to the principles of legal compliance, the rights of human beings and other living organisms in the ecosystem, and environmental values. Reasons reflecting personal morality for compliance with national park regulations were specified, which referred to the post-conventional morality level (Kohlberg, 1971). Under this variable, there were three items, each showing three reasons for actions (Cronbach‘s α = 0.914). Some examples included ―I‘ll drive into the national park with a limited speed and and will not increase the speed to make lound noise because this is a park regulation‖ For each reason, the respondents have to specify their reason based upon a 6-point scale (1 = Quite unimportant; 6 = Very important).

3.6 Perceived injunctive norm

As for perceived injunctive social norm , it was defined as an awareness as to which behavior should be implemented within national parks. This included ten

items (Cronbach‘s α = 0.929). Two examples were ―Avoiding singing, playing the guitar, or singing karaoke in natural areas‖ or ―Avoiding writing on, or engraving, a tree or rock.‖ The responses were measured on a 6-point scale (1 = Negligible; 6 = Very high).

3.7 Perceived regulation legitimacy

Perceived Regulation Legitimacy refers to opinions about the acceptance or rejection of the regulations of the DNP defined for national park visitors. This included eleven items (Cronbach‘s α =0.630), which revealed that the average scores of the high-score group were higher than the low-score group at a statistical significance level of (p < 0.05). Some examples included: ―Visitors should not be prohibited from drinking alcohol in the national park because this the infringes on personal rights‖ or ―Feeding wildlife may be harmful to visitors, so prohibition is sensible.‖ The responses were measured on a 6-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 6 = Strongly agree).

3.8 Regulation enforcement

Regulation enforcement referred to the enforcement of laws and regulations to visitors, consisting of installation of regulation signs, prohibition signs, and warning signs which indicate sanctions; patrol by officers; and providing warnings to non-compliant visitors. This included four items (Cronbach‘s α = 0.643). Examples included ―Park officers carry out patrol at different locations where visitors carry out recreational activities‖ or ―Parks officers give warning to visitors who are noncompliance with park.‖ The responses were measured on a 4-point scale (1 = Rarely.; 4 =Always).

3.9 Legal sanctions

Legal sanctions was defined as perceived legal sanction measures for national park visitors, which consist of perceived severity of sanctions, perceived

possibility of sanctions, and perceived swiftness of imposing sanctions. This included four items (Cronbach‘s α = 0.734), e.g. ―The national park regulations indicate that visitors are prohibited from littering and bringing Styrofoam containers into the park area. The violation is subject to a 500-100 baht fine, You feel that this penalty is severe‖ and “If visitors bring things into the national park that violate park regulations, it is possible that they will be subjected to park officer inspection.‖ The responses were measured on a 6-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 6 = Strongly agree).

3.10 Persuasive communication

Persuasive communication was defined as a method used by national parks to persuade national park visitors to have the intention to comply with regulations, which consist of signs that request cooperation in regulation compliance and signs that provide reasons for prohibition, as well as clarification of regulations from officers. This included three items (Cronbach‘s α = 0.812), e.g. ―Sign with text requesting cooperation to comply with regulations (For example, You are in a natural area. Please help to keep it clean).‖ The responses were measured on a 4-point scale (1 = Rarely; 4 =Always).

3.11 Media exposure

As for media exposure, it was defined as an interest in, and exposure to, news on the environment and environmental situations in national parks from different media. This included three items (Cronbach‘s α = 0.843), e.g. ―You are interested in news about environmental issues in national parks via from different media, e.g. newspaper, magazine, journal, radio, television, film, and the internet.‖ or ―You‘ve learned about situations related to environmental issues in the national park via different media, e.g. newspaper, magazine, journal, radio, television, film, and the internet.‖ The responses were measured on a 6-point scale (1 = Never; 6 = Very frequently).

4. Population and Sampling Design

The populations of this study were visitors who visited the five national parks. The number of samples was determined using the program G*Power 3 (Faul et al., 2007). The effect size equated to 0.30 at a statistical significance level of 0.05, the power of test was 0.80, and the degree of freedom of the model was 55. Based on a calculation, the minimum number of samples for the research model analysis equated to 350 samples. As this research studied a nation-wide picture, the determined number of participants for the research was 1,000 samples, with 200 in each of the five areas. The convenience sampling technique was utilized to collect data in the respective study areas from both week-end and weed-day. The questionnaires survey were distributed to Thai male and female visitors aged 15 years or over who participated in recreational activities and stayed overnight in any of the five national parks. The research objectives were clarified, and group representatives were asked to provide their data. Data collection was conducted for all 1,000 samples and the data obtained was checked for completeness.

5. Data Analyses

5.1 Meta-Analysis

The content analysis for this research featured analyzing publications of research, concepts and theories, and research methods, which used frequency and percentage. The meta-analysis used coefficients (r) as the standard index for estimating the correlation or the effect size of relevant variables by converting statistics from respective research results, e.g. t, F, and 2or statistical significance (p) to ‗r‘ values based on Rosenthal's method (Rosenthal, 1984).

5.2 Predictive Model Analysis

The descriptive analysis undertaken in this research involved descriptive statistics to detail frequencies, mean values, and percentages of socio-demographic

characteristics, travel pattern, regulation compliance and factors related to regulation compliance of the respondents using SPSS software. With regard to the analysis of influence of independent variables on the dependent variable, path analysis was conducted by means of AMOS software. The statistical criteria were as follows: 1) The chi-square must have a p-value greater than 0.05; 2) The RMSEA must be lower than 0.05; 3) The GFI must be greater than 0.95; and 4) The AGFI must be greater than 0.95 (Hooper et al., 2008). In addition, moderation analysis (media exposure) was carried out by means of regression analysis using SPSS software.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of this research are presented, based on its objectives, in four parts: 1) Meta-analysis results, 2) National park visitors‘ regulation compliance, 3) Predictive variables and testing statistical assumptions, 4) Path model analysis, moderation analysis, and hypothesis testing.

1. Meta-Analysis Results

According to the Objective No. 1 of this research, a meta-analysis on studies of regulation compliance behavior of national park and other protected areas users aimed to study factors associated with compliance. It consisted of the synthesis of their characteristics and the estimation of the size of variable correlations in these studies. The analysis results are presented in four parts: 1) publication of research, 2) concepts and theories, 3) research methods, and 4) estimation of the correlation coefficients.

1.1 Publication of research

The period with the highest number of relevant studies published was 2012-2016 (28 studies, 45.16 percent), followed by 2006-2010 (16 studies, accounting for 25.80 percent), 2000-2005 (9 studies, 14.51 percent), and 1987-1998 (9 studies, 614.51 percent), respectively. In 1999, no relevant research existed. Most of the studies were as research articles in academic journals (38 studies, 61.29 percent), followed by theses or independent study projects (14 studies, 22.58 percent), research reports (7 studies, 11.29 percent), and conference proceedings (3 studies, 4.83 percent), respectively. (Table 6) (Appendix H)

Table 6 Publication of research used for the meta-analysis n = 62 Publication Percentage Number Published (Year) 1987-1998 14.52 9 2000-2005 14.52 9 2006-2010 25.80 16 2011-2016 45.16 28 Types of publications Research article 61.29 38 Thesis or independent study project 22.58 14 Research report 11.29 7 Conference proceeding 4.83 3

1.2 Concepts and theories

The content synthesis revealed that there were 19 concepts and theories reviewed in these studies, the top five of which were the compliance and noncompliance theory (27 studies, representing 43.54 percent), followed by the persuasive communication theory (12 studies, 19.35 percent), the theory of planned behavior (11 studies, 17.74), the norm theory (10 studies, 16.12 percent), and the norm-activation theory (nine studies, 14.51 percent), respectively. (Table 7)

Table 7 Concepts and theories found in the research used in the meta-analysis n=62 Concepts and Theories Number Percentage Persuasive communication 12 19.35 Elaborative likelihood model 4 6.45 Theory of planned behavior 11 17.74 Theory of reason action 2 3.22 Norm-activation theory 9 14.51

Table 7 (Continued)

Concepts and Theories Number Percentage Value-belief-norm 2 3.22 Compliance and noncompliance 27 43.54 Regulatory enforcement 8 12.90 Knowledge, attitude, belief, and practice model 5 8.06 Behavioral intention 2 3.22 Deterrence 4 6.45 Legitimacy 5 8.06 Legal sanction and penalty 5 8.06 Morality and moral development 2 3.22 Interpretative signage design 5 8.06 Depreciative, deviance, and vandalism behavior 3 4.83 Norm (injunctive, descriptive, and subjective norm) 10 16.12 Media exposure 2 3.22 Interpretation and education 6 9.67

Remark: Each research has more than one concept and theory.

1.3 Research methods

Concerning research methods, most of these studies were comparative research (24 studies, representing 38.70 percent), followed by correlational research (17 studies, 27.41 percent), experimental research (15 studies, 24.19 percent), and causal relationship research (6 studies, representing 9.70 percent), respectively. In terms of population and sampling, most of them studied visitors (41 studies, 66.12 percent), followed by local people (16 studies, 25.80 percent) and tour operators (5 studies, 8.06 percent), respectively. As for research instruments for data collection, almost more than half of them employed questionnaires (35 studies, 56.45 percent), followed by behavioral observation (17 studies, 27.42 percent), structured interviews (9 studies, 14.51 percent), and mail surveys (1 study, 1.61 percent). Concerning

statistical hypothesis testing, almost two thirds of them used bivariate statistics (39 studies, 62.90 percent) and the rest (23 studies, 37.10 percent) used multivariate statistics. (Table 8)

Table 8 Research methods applied in the research used for the meta-analysis n=62 Method Number Percentage Research design Correlational research design 17 27.42 Comparative research design 24 38.72 Experimental research design 15 24.19 Causal relationship research design 6 9.67 Population and sampling Visitor 41 66.13 Tour operator 5 8.07 Local people 16 25.80 Research instrument Observation of behavior 17 27.42 Structured interview 9 14.51 Mail survey 1 1.62 Questionnaire 35 56.45 Statistical hypothesis testing Bivariate statistics 39 62.90 Multivariate statistics 23 37.10

1.4 Estimation of the correlation coefficients

Because each study used a different set of statistics, the research converted these statistics into correlation coefficients (r) to provide the same standard index values for the correlation estimation by means of Rosenthal‘s method (Rosenthal, 1984). The estimation showed that the correlation coefficients of all the variables

ranged from 0.310 to 0.821, with the mean values of 0.526. It also showed that their correlation coefficient weights ranged between 0.310 and 0.824, which slightly changed, with the mean values of 0.528. The Cohen‘s threshold was employed to interpret the correlation coefficients (Cohen, 1992), which involved the Cohen‘s impression-based guidelines of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 for small, medium, and large correlations. Under this threshold, the variables with large correlations consisted of persuasive communication, regulation enforcement, awareness of regulation, and perceived injunctive norm. They had a high-level effect on regulation compliance behavior of protected area users. The variables with medium correlations consisted of legal sanction, knowledge of regulation, perceived regulation legitimacy, personal morality, and media exposure, respectively. (Table 9)

Table 9 Correlation coefficient estimation obtained from the meta-analysis

Correlation Correlation Effect Variable Coefficient Coefficient Size Weights Knowledge of regulation 0.352 0.356 Medium Regulation enforcement 0.713 0.715 Large Persuasive communication 0.821 0.824 Large Legal sanction 0.427 0.427 Medium Perceived regulation legitimacy 0.310 0.310 Medium Personal morality 0.326 0.328 Medium Awareness of regulation 0.595 0.595 Large Perceived injunctive norm 0.670 0.670 Large Media exposure 0.450 0.450 Medium Intention to comply 0.602 0.602 Large

The estimation of correlation coefficients of variables related to regulation compliance behavior of protected area users revealed that the variable which had the largest correlations was persuasive communication (0.824), followed by regulation enforcement (0.715), perceived injunctive norm (0.670), intention to comply (0.602),

awareness of regulation (0.595), media exposure (0.450), legal sanction (0.427), knowledge of regulation (0.356), personal morality (0.328), and perceived regulation legitimacy (0.310), respectively. The results of this study were used to develop research models and research hypotheses.

2. National Park Visitors’ Regulation Compliance

From the objective No. 2 of this research, the researcher wanted to study national park visitors‘ regulation compliance and to compare the differences of compliance behavior across areas and different background of visitors. The analysis results consist of three main parts: 1) The samples‘ socio-demographic characteristics and their travel patterns, 2) Intention to comply with national park regulation and regulation compliance behavior, and 3) Comparing the differences of compliance behavior across different background of visitors and study areas.

2.1 Visitor socio-demographic characteristics and their travel patterns

2.1.1 Visitor socio-demographic characteristics

This data was derived from the survey of park visitors who carried out recreational activities at one of the following five study areas – Kaeng Krachan National Park, Khao Yai National Park, Chae Son National Park, Nam Tok Phlio National Park, and Khao Luang National Park. Two-hundred samples were studied in each of the parks, so the total number of samples was 1,000. The survey results showed that over half of the samples were female (50.6 percent), were 21-30 years old (38.3 percent), held a bachelor‘s degree (51.9 percent), were company employees (25.3 percent), and came from provinces that were not home to the national parks that comprised the study areas (66.5 percent). (Table 10)

Table 10 Visitor socio-demographic characteristics n=1,000 Sociodemographic Characteristics Number Percentage Gender Male 494 49.4 Female 506 50.6 Age (years) 15-20 167 16.7 21-30 383 38.3 31-40 251 25.1 41-50 128 12.8 51-60 54 5.4 > 60 17 1.7 (Mean=31.60; S.D.=1.16) Education Elementary school 45 4.5 Junior high school 62 6.2 Senior high school 125 12.5 Vocational certificate 67 6.7 Diploma/high vocational certificate 92 9.2 Bachelor degree 519 51.9 Graduate degrees 90 9.0 Occupation Government service 140 14.0 State enterprise employee 55 5.5 Company employee 220 22.0 Private business 117 11.7 Farmers/livestock/fisheries 28 2.8 Student 253 25.3 Contractors 116 11.6

Table 10 (Continued)

Sociodemographic Characteristics Number Percentage Retired civil servant 17 1.7 Freelance 54 5.4 Place of residence The same provinces as the national park (local visitor) 335 33.5 Other provinces (non-local visitor) 665 66.5

2.1.2 Visitor travel patterns

The visitor travel pattern survey consisted of information about the number of nights for stay, travel group size, and experience in visiting the park. The survey results suggested that most of the samples stayed at the park for a night (81.5 percent), traveled in a small group, consisting of 2-5 members (52.8 percent), and had visited the national park more than one time (44.7 percent). (Table 11)

Table 11 Visitor travel patterns n=1,000 Patterns Number Percentage Overnight stays 1 night 815 81.5 > 1 night 185 18.5 (Mean=1.19; S.D.=0.40; Min=1; Max=3) Group size (members) Alone 11 1.1 2-5 (Small group size) 528 52.8 6-10 (Medium group size) 292 29.2 > 10 (Large group size) 169 16.9 (Mean=8.85; S.D.=0.77; Min=1; Max=60)

Table 11 (Continued)

Patterns Number Percentage Experience in visiting the national park First visit 413 41.3 Visited 1 time 140 14.0 Visited more than 1 time 447 44.7 (Mean=2.34; S.D.=0.92; Min=1; Max=30)

2.2 Intention to comply with national park regulation and regulation compliance behavior

This part presents results of the analysis of the intention to comply with national park regulation and regulation compliance behavior of the sampled visitors. The content of each sub-part is the levels of their intention to comply with national park regulation and the regulation compliance behavior, along with their responses to the survey‘s individual statements which were used to measure these variables.

2.2.1 Intention to comply with national park regulation

The analysis showed that these samples‘ intention to comply with national park regulation was at a high level (Mean= 5.19; S.D.=0.75). Given individual statements in the questionnaire, the regulation compliance behavior which the majority of the samples intended to implement the most was avoiding writing on, or engraving a text on, a tree or rock (57.1 percent), followed by avoiding leaving food waste, water bottles, and other waste in non-designated areas (55.9 percent), avoiding picking plants, insects, rocks, and other things and bringing them out of the national park (54.3 percent), avoiding bringing a weapon into the national park (53.7 percent), avoiding making loud noise along natural trails or forest areas (53.6 percent), avoiding using dried branches or twigs to make a fire at the campsite or housing area (53.3 percent), avoiding bringing insecticide or pesticide into the

national park (53.0 percent), washing containers and utensils in a designated area (51.9 percent), avoiding going off-trail hiking to get closer to natural surroundings (51.9 percent), separating waste and disposing of it in separate bins provided (51.2 percent), avoiding feeding wildlife animals or fish in water bodies (50.8 percent), setting up a tent in a designated area (50.6 percent), avoiding bringing pets into the national park (50.1 percent), taking waste out of the national park for disposal (49.5 percent), avoiding taking cooking utensils outside designated areas (45.8 percent), avoiding bringing alcoholic beverages into the national park (45.5 percent), avoiding bringing styrofoam food containers into the national park (45.1 percent), using food containers made with natural materials (42.6 percent), avoiding singing, opening music, playing the guitar, or singing karaoke in the housing area (42.2 percent), and avoiding bringing plastic bags, plastic bottles, and beverage cans into the national park (39.2 percent), respectively. (Table 12)

Table 12 Intention to comply with national park regulation of visitors

Definitely Definitely Quite Quite not Intend Not Intend Do Not Intend Intend Intend Intention to comply Intend Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 1) Avoiding bringing styrofoam food 45.1 31.2 16.2 5.2 1.8 0.5 5.11 1.02 containers into the national park. (451) (312) (162) (52) (18) (5) 2) Avoiding bringing alcoholic 45.5 32.2 13.9 5.3 1.8 1.3 5.10 1.08 beverages into the national park. (455) (322) (139) (53) (18) (13) 3) Avoiding bringing a weapon into the 53.7 28.4 12.0 3.9 1.3 0.7 5.27 0.98 national park. (537) (284) (120) (39) (13) (7) 4) Avoiding bringing insecticide or 53.0 26.8 13.7 3.9 2.0 0.6 5.23 1.02 pesticide into the national park. (530) (268) (137) (39) (2) (6) 5) Avoiding bringing plastic bags, 39.2 32.7 17.8 7.3 2.4 0.6 4.97 1.08 plastic bottles, and beverage cans (392) (327) (178) (73) (24) (6) into the national park. 6) Using food containers made with 42.6 28.7 17.8 7.3 2.7 0.9 4.99 1.13 natural materials. (426) (287) (178) (73) (27) (9)

Table 12 (Continued)

Definitely Definitely Quite Quite not Not Intend Do Not Intend Intend Intend Intend Intention to comply Intend Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 7) Avoiding bringing pets into the 50.1 27.8 15.4 4.8 1.4 0.5 5.19 1.00 national park. (501) (278) (154) (48) (14) (5) 8) Setting up a tent in a designated area. 50.6 29.0 14.3 4.7 1.1 0.3 5.22 0.96 (506) (290) (143) (47) (11) (3) 9) Avoiding singing, opening music, 44.2 27.4 20.6 5.9 1.2 0.7 5.05 1.05 playing the guitar, or singing karaoke in (442) (274) (206) (5.9) (1.2) (0.7) the housing area. 10) Avoiding taking cooking utensils 45.8 31.2 15.7 5.6 1.4 0.3 5.14 0.99 outside designated areas. (458) (312) (157) (56) (14) (03) 11) Avoiding feeding wildlife animals 50.8 28.0 14.6 4.6 1.8 0.2 5.21 0.99 or fish in water bodies. (508) (280) (146) (46) (18) (02)

Table 12 (Continued)

Definitely Definitely Quite Quite not Not Intend Do Not Intend Intend Intend Intend Intention to comply Intend Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 12) Avoiding picking plants, insects, 54.3 29.0 11.9 3.0 1.5 0.3 5.31 0.93 rocks, and other things and bringing (543) (290) (119) (30) (15) (3) them out of the national park. 13) Avoiding writing on, or engraving 57.1 25.3 12.7 3.5 1.0 0.4 5.33 0.94 a text on, a tree or rock. (571) (253) (127) (35) (10) (4) 14) Washing containers and utensils in 51.9 30.6 12.5 3.6 0.8 0.6 5.27 0.93 a designated area. (519) (306) (125) (36) (8) (6) 15) Avoiding making loud noise along 53.6 26.1 14.5 4.3 1.2 0.3 5.26 0.97 natural trails or forest areas. (536) (261) (145) (43) (12) (3) 16) Avoiding using dried branches or 53.3 27.4 13.5 4.4 1.0 0.4 5.26 0.97 twigs to make a fire at the campsite (533) (274) (135) (44) (10) (4) or housing area.

Table 12 (Continued)

Definitely Definitely Quite Quite not Not Intend Do Not Intend Intend Intend Intend Intention to comply Intend Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 17) Avoiding walking off-trail hiking 51.9 28.2 14.0 4.2 1.4 0.3 5.24 0.97 (519) (282) (140) (42) (14) (3) to get closer to natural surroundings. 18) Avoiding leaving food waste, water 55.9 27.7 11.1 3.9 1.0 0.4 5.32 0.93 bottles, and other waste in non- (559) (277) (111) (39) (10) (4) designated areas. 19) Separating waste and disposing of 51.2 28.4 14.6 4.2 1.1 0.5 5.23 0.97 it in separate bins provided. (512) (284) (146) (42) (11) (5) 20) Bringing waste out of the national park 49.5 27.8 14.4 5.3 2.1 0.9 5.15 1.07 for disposal. (495) (278) (144) (53) (21) (9)

Remark: Mean scores were classified into 3 levels (three equal intervals of 1.66 points ([6-1]/3=1.66), which were calculated as follows: - Mean score 4.34-6.00 = High - Mean score 2.67-4.33 = Moderate - Mean score 1.00-2.66 = Low

2.2.2 Regulation compliance behavior

These samples‘ regulation compliance behavior was at a moderate level (Mean=11.42; S.D.=1.94). Based on their responses to the statements pertaining to positive behavior (appropriate behavior) and negative behavior (inappropriate behavior), the positive behavior which the majority of them implemented the most was separating waste and disposing of it in separate bins provided (71.0 percent), followed by putting waste into a bag and disposing of it outside the national park area (67.7 percent), avoiding using plastic bottles or plastic bags as food containers (57.8 percent), and bringing food containers made with natural materials (49.5 percent). The negative behavior which most of them implemented was buying food packed in styrofoam containers for a picnic (32.4 percent), followed by making noise during walks along natural trails (28.5 percent), taking cooking utensils outside of the campsite for convenience (23.0 percent), drinking alcoholic beverages (22.5 percent), setting up a tent outside a designated campsite for privacy (20.2), washing containers and utensils beside the campsite (20.0 percent), feeding wild animals or fish in water bodies for fun (17.3 percent), playing music, singing, and playing the guitar at the campsite (16.4 percent), using chemicals for repelling ants or other insects at the campsite (15.5 percent), going off-trail hiking to get closer to natural surroundings (13.8 percent), using dried branches or twigs to make a fire for cooking or creating a boisterous atmosphere (11.6 percent), bringing pets to expose them to natural surroundings (9.5 percent), bringing a weapon for protection in case of unexpected incidents (8.2 percent), picking beautiful flowers, leaves, stones, or forest products as souvenirs (8.0 percent), disposing of food waste or other waste in a spot that is not a trash bin because the bin is placed too far away (7.4 percent), and engraving a tree to symbolize your visit (7.2 percent), respectively. (Table 13)

Table 13 Regulation compliance behavior of visitors

Never Done It. Done It. Behavior Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) 1) Buying food packed in styrofoam containers for a picnic. (-) 32.4 67.6 (324) (676) 2) Eating and drinking alcoholic beverages as part of a group 22.5 77.5 party. (-) (225) (775) 3) Bringing a weapon for protection in case of unexpected 8.2 91.8 incidents. (-) (82) (918) 4) Using chemicals for repelling ants or other insects at the 15.5 84.5 campsite. (-) (155) (845) 5) Avoiding using plastic bottles or plastic bags as food 57.8 22.2 containers. (+) (578) (222) 6) Bringing food containers made with natural materials. (+) 49.5 50.5 (495) (505) 7) Bringing pets to expose them to natural surroundings. (-) 9.5 90.5 (95) (905) 8) Setting up a tent outside a designated campsite for privacy. (-) 20.2 79.8 (202) (798) 9) Taking cooking utensils outside of the campsite for 23.0 77.0 convenience. (-) (230) (770) 10) Washing containers and utensils beside the campsite. (-) 20.0 80.0 (200) (800) 11) Playing music, singing, and playing the guitar at the 16.4 83.6 campsite. (-) (164) (836) 12) Taking selfie photos and making noise during walks along 28.5 71.5 natural trails. (-) (285) (715)

Table 13 (Continued)

Never Done It. Done It. Behavior Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number)

13) Using dried branches or twigs to make a fire for cooking 11.6 88.4 or creating a boisterous atmosphere. (-) (116) (884) 14) Feeding wild animals or fish in water bodies for fun. (-) 17.3 82.7 (173) (827) 15) Picking beautiful flowers, leaves, stones, or forest products 8.0 92.0 as souvenirs. (-) (80) (920) 16) Going off-trail hiking to get closer to natural surroundings. 13.8 86.2 (-) (138) (862) 17) Engraving a tree to symbolize your visit. (-) 6.2 93.8 (62) (938) 18) Disposing of food waste or other waste in a spot that is 7.4 92.6 not a trash bin because the bin is placed too far away. (-) (74) (926) 19) Separating waste and disposing of it in separate bins 71.0 29.0 provided. (+) (710) (290) 20) Putting waste into a bag and disposing of it outside the 67.7 32.3 national park area. (+) (677) (323)

Remark: *Inappropriate behavior = (-); Appropriate behavior = (+) Mean scores were classified into 3 levels (three equal intervals of 6.66 points ([20-0]/3=6.66), which were calculated as follows: - Mean score 13.34-20.00 = High - Mean score 6.67-13.33 = Moderate - Mean score 0.00-6.66 = Low

The aforementioned study results demonstrated that the samples separated waste before disposing of it or brought waste out of the national park for disposal. This might result from the fact that the DNP developed campaigns for conserving the environment in the national parks and used social media as a PR channel for the campaigns and that national parks established environmental campaign projects under the DNP‘s polices, e.g. Returning the Trash Project, Green National Park Project, and the Waste-to-Gift Project, in which park visitors were invited to participate in their activities. In addition, various national parks communicated via signs to encourage visitors to be aware of the benefits of waste separation in the national parks.

The study found that styrofoam containers were taken to the national parks by visitors although park authorities-imposed regulations, forbidding styrofoam inside the national parks and applying legal penalties in case of violation. Most visitors often purchased food packed in styrofoam containers from local shops outside of the national parks to picnic in the parks, which was characterized by “situationism,” which is a psychological theory. In this theory, it is believed that human behavior is influenced by external, situational factors rather than internal traits or motivations (Bowers, 1973). Thus, national park authorities should inform local shop owners about their operations so that they comply with the DNP‘s styrofoam container free policy.

2.3 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior across study areas and different background of visitors.

The analysis on the difference in regulation compliance behavior across study areas and different background of visitors involved two methods. The t-test was used to compare the mean values of the independent variables: gender, current address, and the number of nights for stay, between two groups of visitors. As for the one-way ANOVA, it was used to compare the mean values of the independent variables: age, educational level, occupation, group size, experience in visiting the park, and study areas. Once a statistically significant difference was detected, Scheffe‘s pairwise test was performed.

The independent-sample analysis revealed that male visitors and female visitors had a moderate level of regulation compliance behavior (Mean= 11.44 and Mean= 11.41, respectively). The t-test revealed that t = 0.19 and p = 0.81, which were greater than the statistical significance level of 0.05. This suggested that there was no difference between these two groups in terms of the regulation compliance behavior level. (Table 14)

Table 14 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior between male visitors and female visitors

Gender n Mean S.D. t p Male 494 11.44 1.98 0.19 0.84 Female 506 11.41 1.91

The analysis demonstrated that local visitors and non-local visitors had a moderate level of regulation compliance behavior (Mean= 11.48 and Mean= 11.40, respectively). The t-test showed that t = 0.61 and p = 0.15, which were higher than the statistical significance level of 0.05. This suggested that level of regulation compliance behavior between these two groups was not different. (Table 15)

Table 15 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior between local visitors and non- local visitors

Type of Visitors n Mean S.D. t p Local visitors 337 11.48 1.88 0.61 0.15 Non-local visitors 663 11.40 1.97

The analysis showed that the visitors with a one-night stay and those with a stay of more than one night in the national park had a moderate level of regulation compliance behavior (Mean= 11.42 and Mean= 11.44, respectively). The t-test showed that t = -1.12 and p = 0.89, which were higher than the statistical significance level of 0.05. This

suggested that level of regulation compliance behavior between these two groups was not different. (Table 16)

Table 16 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior between visitors with a one- night stay and those with a stay of more than one night

Overnight stays n Mean S.D. t p 1 night 815 11.42 1.98 -1.12 0.89 > 1 night 179 11.44 1.79

Six age groups of visitors were studied to compare their regulation compliance behavior – Group 1: Aged 15-20 years, Group 2: Aged 21-30 years, Group 3: Aged 31-40 years, Group 4: 41-50 years, Group 5: Aged 51-60 years, and Group 6: Aged over 60 years. The one-way ANOVA showed that F =2.66 and p < 0.05, which suggested that visitors with different ages had statistically significantly different regulation compliance behavior. (Table 17)

Table 17 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior among visitors with different ages

Source of variation Mean n Mean F p squares Between groups 49.123 5 9.843 Within groups 3675.603 994 3.698 2.662 0.021 Total 3724.816 999

The results from Scheffe‘s pairwise test demonstrated that the mean values of regulation compliance behavior of visitors aged 15-20 years (Group 1) (Mean=10.96, S.D.=2.02) and those aged 21-30 years (Group 2) (Mean=11.56, S.D.=1.91) was statistically significantly different (p=0.048). (Table 18)

Table 18 Pairwise mean value comparison of regulation compliance behavior of visitors with different ages

Age p-value n Mean S.D. Group (years) 1 2 3 4 5 6 15-20 167 10.94 2.07 1 - 0.048* 0.147 0.381 0.966 0.687 21-30 383 11.56 1.91 2 - - 1.000 1.000 0.948 0.998 31-40 251 11.51 1.93 3 - - - 1.000 0.978 0.995 41-50 128 11.48 1.84 4 - - - - 0.991 0.993 51-60 54 11.25 1.85 5 - - - - - 0.953 > 60 17 11.82 1.77 6 ------

The visitors were divided into six groups according to educational levels – Group 1: Elementary school, Group 2: Junior high school, Group 3: Senior high school, Group 4: Vocational certificate, Group 5: High vocational certificate/Diploma, Group 6: Bachelor‘s degree, and Group 7: Higher than bachelor‘s degree. The one-way ANOVA showed that F=2.910 and p < 0.05, which suggested that visitors with different educational levels had statistically significantly different regulation compliance behavior. (Table 19)

Table 19 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior of visitors with different educational levels

Sum of Mean Source of variation df F p squares squares Between groups 64.353 6 10.725 Within groups 3660.463 993 3.686 2.910 0.008 Total 3724.816 999

The results from Scheffe‘s pairwise test demonstrated that the mean values of regulation compliance behavior of visitors with elementary education (Group 2)

(Mean=10.564, S.D.=1.963) and those with a bachelor‘s degree (Group 6) (Mean=11.543, S.D.=1.915) were statistically significantly different (p=0.048). (Table 20)

Table 20 Pairwise mean value comparison of regulation compliance behavior of visitors with different educational levels

p-value Education n Mean S.D. Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1) Elementary school 45 11.22 1.95 1 - 0.801 1.000 1.000 0.998 0.979 0.939 2) Junior high school 62 10.53 2.05 2 - - 0.408 0.582 0.226 0.026* 0.051 3) Senior high school 125 11.29 1.69 3 - - - 1.000 0.999 0.955 0.910 4) Vocational certificate 67 11.30 1.93 4 - - - - 0.999 0.987 0.953 5) Diploma/High voc.cert. 92 11.46 2.20 5 - - - - - 1.000 0.996 6) Bachelor degrees 519 11.54 1.91 6 ------0.998 7) Graduate degrees 90 11.69 1.90 7 ------

The visitors were classified into four groups according to their group size – Group 1: Travel alone, Group 2: Small group (2-5 members), Group 3: Medium group (6- 10 members), and Group 4: Big group (over 10 members). The one-way nova analysis showed that F=1.209 and p> 0.05, which suggested that visitors with a different group size were similar in terms of regulation compliance behavior. (Table 21)

Table 21 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior among visitors with different group sizes

Sum of Mean Source of variation df F p squares squares Between groups 13.515 3 4.505 Within groups 3711.301 996 3.726 1.209 0.305 Total 3724.816 999

The visitors were classified into nine groups according to their occupations – Group 1: Government service, Group 2: State enterprise employee, Group 3: Company employee, Group 4: Private business, Group 5: Farmers/livestock/fisheries, Group 6: Student, Group 7: Contractors, Group 8: Retired civil servant; and Group 9: Freelance. The one-way ANOVA showed that F=1.724 and p> 0.05, which suggested that visitors with different occupations were similar in terms of regulation compliance behavior. (Table 22)

Table 22 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior among visitors with different occupations

Sum of Mean Source of variation df F p squares squares Between groups 44.766 7 6.395 Within groups 3680.050 992 3.710 1.724 0.100 Total 3724.816 999

The visitors were classified into three groups by their experience in visiting the park – Group 1: First time visit, Group 2: Second time visit, and Group 3: Third time visit or more. The one-way ANOVA showed that F=0.672 and p> 0.05, which suggested that visitors with different experience in visiting the park were similar in terms of regulation compliance behavior. (Table 23)

Table 23 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior among visitors with different group sizes

Sum of Mean Source of variation df F p squares squares Between groups 13.515 3 4.505 Within groups 3711.301 996 3.726 1.209 0.305 Total 3724.816 999

It can be concluded that visitors with different ages and educational levels were different in terms of regulation compliance behavior. However, the difference in other sociodemographic characteristics, i.e. gender, occupation, and place of residence, travel pattern, number of nights for stay, group size, and experience in visiting the park did not result in difference in their regulation compliance behavior.

The study areas of this research consist of five areas - Chae Son National Park (Northern region), Khao Yai National Park (Northeastern region), Kaeng Krachan National Park (Central region), Nam Tok Phlio National Park (Eastern region), and Khao Luang National Park (Southern region). The one-way nova analysis showed that F=1.18 and p> 0.05, which suggested that visitors with a different of study areas were similar in terms of regulation compliance behavior. (Table 24)

Table 24 Comparison of regulation compliance behavior among visitors with different group sizes

Sum of Mean Source of variation df F p squares squares Between groups 17.890 4 4.473 Within groups 3744.485 995 3.763 1.188 0.314 Total 3762.375 999

3. Predictive Variables and Testing Statistical Assumptions

This part is dedicated to the analysis results for predictive variables in relation to regulation compliance behavior and testing statistical assumptions, which were corresponds to the third objective of this research.

3.1 Predictive variables and testing statistical assumptions

3.1.1 Knowledge of regulations

The knowledge of national park regulations of these samples was at a high level (Mean=8.20; S.D.=2.19). The top three national park regulations on which they gave correct answers consisted of the prohibition of high driving speeds in the national park (79.5 percent), the prohibition of high loudness levels of exhaust pipes from cars in the national park (72.7 percent), and allowance of gas canister use for cooking (53.5 percent). The top three national park regulations on which they gave incorrect answers were fishing in natural water bodies in the national park (86.3 percent), followed by leaving food waste on the ground to feed wildlife animals (85.8 percent) and using dry branches and twigs to make a fire (83.7 percent), respectively. Most of them understood that they could do such things without park regulation violation. (Table 25)

Table 25 Knowledge of regulation of visitors

Right Wrong Statement Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) 1) The national park makes an announcement to allow visitors to bring alcoholic beverages only during the New 82.7 17.3 Year festival. () (827) (173) 2) Playing the guitar in the national park is allowed if it does not disturb or annoy other people. () 47.4 52.6 (474) (526) 3) In very cold weather, visitors are allowed cut dry branches or twigs in the forest to make a fire. () 83.7 16.3 (837) (163) 4) Plastic bags, soda beverage cans, and glass bottles are not allowed in the national park. () 48.2 51.8 (482) (518) 5) Cars with exhaust pipes with loudness exceeding 100 decibels are not allowed in the national park. () 72.7 27.3 (727) (273) 6) Food containers made with tapioca starch are not allowed to be brought into the national park, and if they will 64.8 35.2 be subject to fines if they violate this regulation. () (648) (352) 7) Visitors are allowed to collect fallen leaves as souvenirs by showing evidence to park officers. () 73.0 27.0 (730) (270)

Table 25 (Continued)

Right Wrong Statement Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) 8) Visitors are allowed to do fishing for pleasure in natural water bodies in the national park. () 86.3 13.7 (863) (137) 9) Visitors are not allowed to use fireworks or floating lanterns in the national park except for small fireworks. () 50.0 50.0 (500) (500) 10) Visitors are not allowed to use canned gas as a fuel for cooking, and they will be subject to fines if they violate 46.5 53.5 this regulation. () (465) (535) 11) Driving at a speed exceeding 60 km/hour is considered to be a violation of national park regulations. () 79.5 20.5 (795) (205)

Remark: Right = (); Wrong = () Mean scores were classified into 3 levels (three equal intervals of 4 points ([12-0]/3=4), which were calculated as follows: - Mean score 8.02-12.00 = High - Mean score 4.01-8.01 = Moderate - Mean score 0.00-4.00 = Low

3.1.2 Regulation enforcement

These sampled visitors were exposed to the regulation enforcement measures at a moderate level (Mean=2.87; S.D.=0.75). The responses to each of the statements in the questionnaire were: 1) Regulations and sanction signs – The majority of the samples indicated that they saw this often (37.9 percent), followed by very often (33.7 percent), sometimes (23.9 percent), and rarely (4.5 percent), respectively; 2) Prohibition and warning signs – Most of them indicated they saw this often (41.2 percent), followed by very often (33.7 percent), sometimes (20.8 percent), and rarely (4.3 percent), respectively; 3) Patrol of park officers – Most of them indicated they saw this often (39.5 percent), followed by sometimes (25.5 percent), very often (24.3 percent), and rarely (10.7 percent), respectively; and 4) Park officers‘ warning to visitors who were not compliant with regulations – Most of them indicated they saw this often (32.5 percent), followed by sometimes (29.8 percent), very often (24.0 percent), and rarely (13.7 percent), respectively. (Table 26)

Table 26 Regulation enforcement measures as perceived by visitors

Always Very Often Sometimes Rarely Statement Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Mean S.D. (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 1) Clearly visible national park signs to provide information 33.7 37.9 23.9 4.5 3.01 0.87 about regulations for visitors and legal sanction. (337) (379) (239) (45) 2) Prohibition and warning signs at different spots to indicate 33.7 41.2 20.8 4.3 3.04 0.84 actions which violate regulations and legal sanction they (337) (412) (208) (43) are subject to (e.g. ―Littering is prohibited; it is subject to a fine.”). 3) Park officers carry out patrol at different locations where 24.3 39.5 25.5 10.7 2.77 0.93 visitors carry out recreational activities. (243) (395) (255) (107) 4) Park officers give warnings to visitors who are 24.0 32.5 29.8 13.7 2.67 0.98 noncompliance with park regulations. (240) (325) (298) (137)

Remark: Mean scores were classified into 3 levels (three equal intervals of 1 points ([4-1]/3=1), which were calculated as follows: - Mean score 3.02-4.00 = High - Mean score 2.01-3.01 = Moderate - Mean score 1.00-2.00 = Low

3.1.3 Persuasive communication

The sampled visitors were exposed to persuasive communication measures at a moderate level (Mean=2.88; S.D.=0.76). The responses to each of the statements in the questionnaire were: 1) Persuasive communication measures which involve park officers in informing visitors of park regulations – Most of the samples indicated they saw this often (33.9 percent), followed by very often (24.8 percent), sometimes (27.0 percent), and rarely (14.3 percent), respectively; 2) Persuasive communication measures which use signs with text requesting cooperation to comply with park regulations – Most of them indicated they saw this often (42.7 percent), followed by very often (32.3 percent), sometimes (20.8 percent), and rarely (4.2 percent), respectively; and 3) Persuasive communication measures which use signs with text providing reasons for prohibitions – Most of them indicated they saw this often (43.2 percent), followed by very often (27.2 percent), sometimes (22.6 percent), and rarely (7.0 percent), respectively. (Table 27)

Table 27 Persuasive Communication Measures as perceived by visitors

Always Very Often Sometimes Rarely Statement Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Mean S.D. (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 1) Park officers declare regulations and emphasized the 24.8 33.9 27.0 14.3 2.69 0.99 prohibition or give instructions to park visitors. (248) (339) (270) (143) 2) Signs with statements which request cooperation to comply 32.3 42.7 20.8 4.2 3.03 0.83 with regulations (For example, "You are in a natural area. (323) (427) (208) (42) Please help to keep clean). 3) Signs with statement explaining the reason for the 27.2 43.2 22.6 7.0 2.91 0.87 prohibition and telling the consequences in the case of (272) (432) (226) (70) regulation noncompliance (For example, “Wildlife animals may be dangerous. For your safety, please don‘t feed wildlife animals.”)

3.1.4 Legal sanction

These sampled visitors‘ positive responses to legal sanction measures were at a high level (Mean=4.48; S.D.=1.01). The responses to each of the statements in the questionnaire were: 1) The severity of legal sanction – Most of them indicated that they strongly agreed (31.8 percent), followed by agreed (25.6 percent), slightly agreed (18.6 percent), slightly disagreed (10.2 percent), disagreed (7.9 percent), and strongly disagreed (5.9 percent), respectively; 2) The possibility to be monitored by park officers – Most of them indicated that they agreed (32.5 percent), followed by slightly agreed (26.6 percent), strongly agreed (24.5 percent), slightly disagreed (9.9 percent), disagreed (4.5), and strongly disagreed (2.4 percent), respectively; 3) The possibility to receive legal sanction in case of regulation violation – Most of them indicated that they agreed (32.5), followed by slightly agreed (23.4 percent), strongly agreed (22.9 percent), slightly disagreed (11.6 percent), disagreed (6.4 percent), and strongly disagreed (3.2 percent), respectively; 4) Speed of legal sanction – Most of them indicated that they agreed (31.4 percent), followed by slightly agreed (28.1 percent), strongly agreed (22.4 percent), slightly disagreed (10.1 percent), disagreed (5.4 percent), and strongly disagreed (2.6 percent), respectively. (Table 28)

Table 28 Legal sanction as opinion by visitors

Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Statement Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 1) The national park regulations indicate that 31.8 25.6 18.6 10.2 7.9 5.9 4.46 1.50 litter and styrofoam containers are (318) (256) (186) (102) (79) (59) prohibited into the park area. The violation is subject to a 500-1,000 baht fine. “You feel that the penalty is severe.” 2) If visitors bring prohibited items, e.g. 24.5 32.5 26.2 9.9 4.5 2.4 4.55 1.22 alcoholic beverages or pets into the (245) (325) (262) (99) (45) (24) national park. “You think that there is a chance that this is found by park officers.”

Table 28 (Continued)

Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Statement Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 3) In the case when any visitors do something 22.9 32.5 23.4 11.6 6.4 3.2 4.44 1.30 which is against the national park (229) (325) (234) (116) (64) (32) regulations, e.g. littering or singing aloud. “You think that it is possible that offenders will be subject to legal sanction.” 4) A group of park visitors litters in 22.4 31.4 28.1 10.1 5.4 2.6 4.48 1.24 recreational areas and this is seen by an (224) (314) (281) (101) (54) (26) officer. “You think that the park officer will give them warning immediately.”

3.1.5 Perceived Regulation legitimacy

The samples‘ opinions characterized by acceptance of national park regulations were at a moderate level (Mean=3.48; S.D.=1.13). Given positive statements in the questionnaire, which are characterized by opinions supporting park regulations, most of the samples totally agreed with the statement ―Feeding wildlife animals may be harmful to visitors, so its prohibition is sensible.‖ (38.5 percent). Most of them totally agreed with the statement ―Prohibition of vehicles with a loud-noise engine and black exhaust smoke into the national park is a regulation which should be supported.‖ (41.5 percent). (Table 29)

With regard to negative statements, characterized by opinions which do not support park regulations, most of the samples agreed with the statement “Visitors‘ loud noise is a small issue, so its prohibition is immoderate.‖ (21.4 percent). Most of them strongly disagreed with the statement “Visitors should not be prohibited from drinking alcohol in the national park because this infringes on personal rights.” (29.8 percent). Most of them strongly disagreed with the statement “The national park is a public area, so a pet should be allowed in the national park.” (30.7 percent). Most of them strongly disagreed with the statement “Styrofoam foam boxes are daily-used items, so, there is no reason to prohibit their use in the national park.” (27.3 percent). Most of them strongly disagreed with the statement “The ban on using firewood, cutting wood to make firewood, and making a fire prevents visitors from having fun.” (25.5 percent). Most of them strongly disagreed with the statement “Engraving names on a tree and rock shows memories of the place, so there is no need to prohibit it.” (39.3 percent). Most of them strongly disagreed with the statement “There are a lot of plants in the national park, so the prohibition of taking them out of the national park isn‘t reasonable.” (32.4 percent). Most of them strongly disagreed with the statement “Sorting waste before putting it in the bin is an inappropriate regulation because it causes visitors difficulty.” (28.8 percent). Most of them strongly agreed with the statement “Requesting cooperation to take waste for disposal outside of the on national park is a burden visitors.” (20.5 percent). (Table 29)

Table 29 Regulation legitimacy as perceived by visitors

Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Statement Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 1) Visitors‘ loud noise is a small issue, 13.4 21.4 16.6 14.6 15.0 19.0 3.53 1.17 so its prohibition is immoderate. (-) (134) (214) (166) (146) (150) (190) 2) Visitors should not be banned from 12.8 15.8 15.6 12.6 13.4 29.8 3.87 1.80 drinking alcohol in the national park (128) (158) (156) (126) (134) (298) because this violates personal rights. (-) 3) The national park is a public area, so a 11.6 14.7 14.3 14.4 14.6 30.7 3.97 1.77 pet should be allowed in the national (116) (147) (143) (144) (146) (307) park. (-) 4) Styrofoam foam boxes are daily-used 10.2 17.3 16.3 14.6 14.3 27.3 3.87 1.73 items, so, there is no reason to prohibit (102) (173) (163) (146) (143) (273) their use in the national park. (-) 5) Feeding wildlife animals can be 38.5 22.5 17.6 9.6 6.4 5.4 4.61 1.49 dangerous to visitors, so banning it is (385) (225) (176) (96) (64) (54)

appropriate. (+)

Table 29 (Continued)

Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Statement Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 6) The ban on using firewood, cutting wood 17.7 17.8 15.2 11.4 12.4 25.5 3.60 1.85 to make firewood, and making a fire (177) (178) (152) (114) (124) (255) prevents visitors from having fun. (-) 7) Engraving names on a tree and rock 13.7 13.1 12.4 8.0 13.5 39.3 4.12 1.89 shows memories of the place, so there is (137) (131) (124) (80) (135) (393) no need to prohibit it. (-) 8) There are a lot of plants in the national 16.2 15.6 13.4 9.2 13.2 32.4 3.85 1.90 park, so the prohibition of taking them (162) (156) (134) (92) (132) (324) out of the national park isn‘t reasonable. (-) 9) Sorting waste before putting it in the bin 15.2 16.0 14.5 9.8 15.7 28.8 3.81 1.85 is an inappropriate regulation because it (152) (160) (145) (98) (157) (288) causes visitors difficulty. (-)

Table 29 (Continued)

Remark: Question in support of regulation = (+); Question in not support of regulation = (-) Mean scores were classified into 3 levels (three equal intervals of 1.66 points ([6-1]/3=1.66), which were calculated as follows: - Mean score 4.34-6.00 = High - Mean score 2.67-4.33 = Moderate - Mean score 1.00-2.66 = Low

3.1.6 Personal morality

The personal morality of these samples was measured based on moral reasoning in relation to regulation compliance, consisting of 1) Legal compliance 2) Respect for the rights of humans and living beings in the ecosystem, and 3) Valuing the environment. The study results showed that the level of personal morality of the majority of the samples was high (Mean=5.29; S.D.=0.67).

The moral reasons for park regulation compliance adhering to the legal compliance principle which were considered to be very important by most of the samples consisted of: “While taking a rest in the national park, I won‘t pick flowers as souvenirs because I‘m aware that observing regulations is good visitors‘ obligation.” (53.7 percent), followed by “I‘ll drive into the national park with a restricted speed and won‘t increase the speed so as to make loud noise because this is a park regulation.‖ (49.0 percent) and “When I see wildlife animals, I won‘t feed them to attract them or take their photos because feeding wildlife animals is regulation noncompliance.” (46.2 percent). (Table 30)

The moral reasons for park regulation compliance focusing on the respect for the rights of humans and living beings in the ecosystem which were considered to be very important by most of the samples consisted of: “While taking a rest in the national park, I won‘t pick flowers as souvenirs because doing this shows no respect for nature.” (51.0 percent), followed by “I‘ll drive into the national park with a restricted speed and won‘t increase the speed so as to make loud noise because I don‘t want to disturb wildlife animals living in natural areas.” (48.8 percent) and “When I see wildlife animals, I won‘t feed them to attract them or take their photos because I don‘t want to be a bad role model.” (46.1 percent). (Table 30)

The moral reasons for park regulation compliance valuing the environment which were considered to be very important by most of the samples consisted of: “While taking a rest in the national park, I won‘t pick flowers as souvenirs because I want the national park to maintain its beauty.” (56.6 percent), “When I see wildlife animals, I won‘t feed them to attract them or take their photos because I want them to live

in a natural environment.” (55.4 percent), and “I‘ll drive into the national park with a restricted speed and won‘t increase the speed so as to make loud noise because I want to avoid creating noise pollution in the national park area.” (48.0 percent). (Table 30)

Table 30 Personal morality of visitors

Very Quite Quite Very Important Unimportant Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Statement Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) Legal compliance 1) While taking a rest in the 53.7 31.7 11.6 2.0 0.4 0.6 5.27 0.90 national park, I won‘t pick (537) (317) (116) (20) (4) (6) flowers as souvenirs because I‘m aware that observing regulations is good visitors‘ obligation. 2) I‘ll drive into the national 49.0 34.8 11.8 3.0 0.9 0.5 5.30 0.82 park with a restricted speed (490) (348) (118) (30) (9) (5) and won‘t increase the speed to make loud noise because this is a park regulation.

Table 30 (Continued)

Very Quite Quite Very Important Unimportant Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Statement Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 3) When I see wildlife 46.2 34.0 14.0 3.5 1.7 0.6 5.27 0.85 animals, I won‘t feed (462) (340) (140) (35) (17) (6) them to attract them or take their photos because feeding wildlife animals is regulation noncompliance. Respect for the rights of humans and living beings in the ecosystem 1) While taking a rest in the 51.0 32.7 12.7 2.3 1.1 0.2 5.33 0.92 national park, I won‘t pick (510) (327) (127) (23) (11) (2) flowers as souvenirs because doing this shows no respect for nature.

Table 30 (Continued)

Very Quite Quite Very Important Unimportant Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Statement Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 2) I‘ll drive into the national 48.8 35.8 12.3 2.6 0.5 0.0 5.18 0.98 park with a restricted speed (488) (358) (123) (26) (5) (0) and won‘t increase the speed to make loud noise because I don‘t want to disturb wildlife animals living in natural areas. 3) When I see wildlife animals, 46.1 35.1 13.1 4.3 0.7 0.7 5.20 0.95 I won‘t feed them to attract (461) (351) (131) (43) (7) (7) them or take their photos because I don‘t want to be a bad role model.

Table 30 (Continued)

Very Quite Quite Very Important Unimportant Important Important Unimportant Unimportant Statement Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) Valuing the environment 1) While taking a rest in the 56.6 30.5 10.3 2.0 0.4 0.2 5.35 0.86 national park, I won‘t pick (566) (305) (103) (20) (4) (2) flowers as souvenirs because I want the national park to maintain its beauty. 2) When I see wildlife 55.4 29.4 10.1 3.4 1.4 0.3 5.40 0.80 animals, I won‘t feed them (554) (294) (101) (34) (14) (3) to attract them or take their photos because I want them to live in a natural environment.

Table 30 (Continued)

3.1.7 Awareness of regulation

The samples had a high level of awareness of park regulations (Mean=5.23; S.D.=0.76). The analysis results for the individual statements are as follows: 1) “You believe that one cause of environmental issues in the national park is visitor regulation noncompliance.” – Most of the samples strongly agreed (51.2 percent); 2) “You think that visitor regulation noncompliance needs to be urgently addressed.” – Most of them strongly agreed (41.4 percent); 3) “If visitors comply with park regulations, this will maintain the beauty of the environment in the national park.‖ – Most of them strongly agreed (54.8 percent); 4) ―In the future, this national park may have environmental issues if visitors ignore regulation compliance.‖ – Most of them strongly agreed (47.0 percent); and 5) Visitors‘ participation in the conservation of the environment in the national park shows strict regulation compliance – Most of them strongly agreed (50.6 percent). (Table 31)

Table 31 Awareness of regulation of visitors

Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Statement Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 1) You believe that one cause of 51.2 30.3 13.8 3.4 0.7 0.6 5.26 0.93 environmental issues in the national (512) (303) (138) (34) (7) (6) park is visitor regulation noncompliance. 2) You think that visitor regulation 41.4 34.7 17.6 4.4 1.6 0.3 5.09 0.97 noncompliance has to be urgently (414) (347) (176) (44) (16) (3) addressed. 3) If visitors comply with park 54.8 30.1 11.0 3.5 0.5 0.1 5.35 0.85 regulations, this will maintain the (548) (301) (110) (35) (5) (1) beauty of the environment in the national park. 4) In the future, this national park may 47.0 32.6 15.1 4.1 0.8 0.3 5.20 0.93 have environmental issues if visitors (470) (326) (151) (41) (8) (3) ignore regulation compliance.

Table 31 (Continued)

3.1.8 Media exposure

The samples had a moderate level of exposure to news and information about environmental issues in national parks (Mean=4.47; S.D.=0.93). The results of the analysis on the individual statements were: 1) ―You are interested in news and information about environmental issues in national parks via different media, e.g. newspaper, magazine, journal, radio, television, film, and the Internet.” – Most of the samples indicated ‗frequently‘ (37.2 percent); 2) “You expose yourself to news and information about environmental issues in national parks via different media, e.g. newspaper, magazine, journal, radio, television, film, and the Internet.” – Most of them indicated ‗frequently‘ (36.2 percent); and 3) You learn about situations related to environmental issues in national parks via different media, e.g. newspaper, magazine, journal, radio, television, film, and the Internet.” Most of them indicated ‗frequently‘ (37.3 percent). (Table 32)

Table 32 Media exposure of visitors

Very Very Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never Frequently Rarely Statement Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 1) You are interested in news and 29.9 37.2 22.5 8.0 1.7 0.7 4.84 1.04 information about environmental (299) (372) (225) (80) (17) (7) issues in national parks via different media, e.g. newspaper, magazine, journal, radio, television, film, and the Internet. 2) You expose yourself to news and 24.3 36.2 27.2 9.2 2.7 0.4 4.69 1.05 information about environmental (243) (362) (272) (92) (27) (4) issues in national parks via different media, e.g. newspaper, magazine, journal, radio, television, film, and the Internet.

Table 32 (Continued)

Very Very Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never Frequently Rarely Statement Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 3) You learn about situations related 25.4 37.3 24.3 9.1 2.7 1.2 4.70 1.10 to environmental issues in national (254) (373) (243) (91) (27) (12) parks via different media, e.g. newspaper, magazine, journal, radio, television, film, and the Internet.

100

101

3.1.9 Perceived injunctive norm

The samples were aware of behavior which should be implemented during a park visit at a high level (Mean = 5.06; S.D.= 0.87). The results of the analysis of individual statements were as follows: 1) Avoiding singing, playing the guitar, or singing karaoke in natural areas – Most of them perceived that this behavior should be implemented at a very high level (40.7 percent); 2) Avoiding bringing pets into the national park – Most of them perceived that this behavior should be implemented at a very high level (44.2 percent); 3) Using environmentally-friendly containers instead of styrofoam containers – Most of them perceived that this behavior should be implemented at a very high level (45.3); 4) Avoiding feeding wildlife animals or fish in water bodies – Most of them perceived that this behavior should be implemented at a very high level (46.0 percent); 5) Avoiding collecting plants, insects, stones, and other things from natural areas – Most of them perceived that this behavior should be implemented at a very high level (49.2 percent); 6) Avoiding writing on, or engraving a text on, a tree or rock – Most of them perceived that this behavior should be implemented at a very high level (52.0 percent); 7) Avoiding drinking all types of alcoholic beverages in the national park – Most of them perceived that this behavior should be implemented at a very high level (45.5 percent); 8) Avoiding bringing non-degradable waste, e.g. plastic bags, plastic bottles, and beverage cans into the national park – Most of them perceived that this behavior should be implemented at a very high level (44.3 percent); 9) separating waste and disposing of it in separate bins provided – Most of them perceived that this behavior should be implemented at a very high level (47.8 percent); and 10) Bringing waste out of the national park for disposal – Most of them perceived that this behavior should be implemented at a very high level (45.1 percent). (Table 33)

101

Table 33 Injunctive norm as perceived by visitors

Very High Medium Low Very Low Negligible High Statement Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 1) Avoiding singing, playing the guitar, or 40.7 30.3 18.0 6.3 3.2 1.5 4.95 1.16 singing karaoke in natural areas. (407) (303) (180) (63) (32) (15) 2) Avoiding bringing pets into the national 44.2 30.6 16.0 0.7 1.3 0.9 5.07 1.06 park. (442) (306) (160) (7) (13) (9) 3) Using environmentally-friendly 45.3 30.1 15.2 6.3 1.9 1.2 5.07 1.10 containers instead of styrofoam (453) (301) (152) (63) (19) (12) containers. 4) Avoiding feeding wildlife animals or fish 46.0 29.9 15.4 6.2 1.9 0.6 5.10 1.05 in water bodies. (460) (299) (154) (62) (19) (6) 5) Avoiding collecting plants, insects, 49.2 29.0 15.0 4.9 1.0 0.9 5.18 1.02 stones, and other things from natural (49.2) (29) (150) (49) (10) (9) areas. 6) Avoiding writing on, or engraving a text 52.0 28.1 12.7 4.3 1.8 1.1 5.21 1.05 on, a tree or rock. (520) (281) (127) (43) (18) (11)

102

Table 33 (Continued)

Very High Medium Low Very Low Negligible High Statement Mean S.D. Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) 7) Avoiding drinking all types of alcoholic 45.5 27.9 15.2 6.6 2.6 2.2 5.01 1.20 beverages in the national park. (455) (279) (152) (66) (26) (22) 8) Avoiding bringing non-degradable 44.3 27.6 15.9 7.7 2.3 2.2 4.97 1.21 waste, e.g. plastic bags, plastic bottles, (443) (276) (159) (77) (23) (22) and beverage cans into the national park. 9) Separating waste and disposing of it in 47.8 28.3 14.4 5.8 2.4 1.3 5.09 1.12 separate bins provided. (478) (283) (144) (58) (24) (13) 10) Bringing waste out of the national park 45.1 26.7 16.1 6.7 3.5 1.9 4.98 1.22 for disposal. (451) (267) (161) (67) (35) (19)

103

104

3.2 Testing statistical assumptions

The path model is an extension of the multiple linear regression model (MLR Model). Thus, the examination of statistical characteristics for path model analysis required a preliminary agreement on multivariate analysis, i.e. linear relationship, normality, multicollinearity, autocorrelation, and homoscedasticity. The examination results are as follows:

3.2.1 Linear relationship

The examination of the linear relationship involved the scatter plot method to identify the shape of the relationship between two variables. Based on the scatter diagram, all pairs of independent variables and dependent variables had a linear relationship. The examination of the direction of the linear relationship or the slope showed that almost all pairs of the independent variables and dependent variables had a positive linear relationship, which was witnessed through the rising line on the right along the straight line, which means that when the independent variable (X) rose, the dependent variable (Y) was more likely to rise. The exception was regulation legitimacy, which had a negative linear relationship. That is, when the independent variable (X) rose, the dependent variable (Y) was more likely to decline. In addition, the linear relationship between media exposure and regulation compliance, despite having a relatively low slope, was a linear relationship. It could be concluded all the independent variables and dependent variables in all models in the research had a linear relationship, which was in line with the preliminary statistical agreement. (Figure 5 to Figure 14)

104

105

Figure 5 Scatter plot of knowledge of regulations and intention to comply

Figure 6 Scatter plot of awareness of regulation and intention to comply

105

106

Figure 7 Scatter plot of injunctive norm and intention to comply

Figure 8 Scatter plot of personal morality and intention to comply

106

107

Figure 9 Scatter plot of regulation legitimacy and intention to comply

Figure 10 Scatter plot of regulation enforcement and intention to comply

107

108

Figure 11 Scatter plot of legal sanction and intention to comply

Figure 12 Scatter plot of persuasive communication and intention to comply

108

109

Figure 13 Scatter plot of media exposure and intention to comply

Figure 14 Scatter plot of media exposure and regulation compliance

109

110

3.2.2 Normality

The examination of data normality aims to reveal the efficiency of the estimation of values of variables which are used in the t and F tests, with a preliminary agreement that the variables need to have normality (Hair et al., 2010). In this research, the normality was investigated through the examination of the coefficient of variation, along with skewness and kurtosis values. This examination revealed that the coefficients of variation of the variables were lower than 1, which demonstrated low variance. The examination also showed that the distribution was mostly left skewed distribution (negative skewness values), which meant the scores of these variables were greater than the mean values (skewness values ranging from -0.30 to -1.23).

However, there were some variables characterized by right skewed distribution (positive skewness values), which showed that most of their scores were lower than the mean values (skewness values ranging from 0.12 to 0.23). With regard to the kurtosis values, they were mostly positive values or were greater than the kurtosis values of normal curves. This suggested that the scores of these variables had kurtosis of curves which was higher than that of normal curves (kurtosis values ranging from 0.15 to 1.72). However, some of the variables had negative values, which showed that the kurtosis of curves was lower than that of normal curves (kurtosis values ranging from -0.57 to -0.92). Overall, the skewness and kurtosis values ranged between -2 and +2, which were acceptable levels (George and Mallery, 2010; Gravetter and Wallnau, 2014). It could be concluded that the data had normal distribution, which was in accordance with the statistical agreement. Thus, it was suitable for the path analysis. (Table 34)

110

111

Table 34 Measures of central tendency, variability and distribution of variables

Statistic Variables Mean S.D. MIN MAX C.V. SK KU Knowledge of regulation (KOR) 8.20 2.19 0.00 12.00 0.26 -0.72 0.60 Awareness of regulation (AOR) 5.23 0.76 1.60 6.00 0.14 -1.11 1.36 Personal morality (PMR) 5.28 0.67 2.33 6.00 0.12 -1.07 1.35 Perceived injunctive norm (PIN) 5.06 0.87 1.00 6.00 0.17 -1.23 1.72 Perceived regulation legitimacy 3.48 1.13 1.00 6.00 0.32 0.23 -0.92 (PRL) Regulation enforcement (REN) 2.87 0.75 1.00 4.00 0.26 -0.30 -0.68 Legal sanction (LST) 4.48 1.01 1.00 6.00 0.22 -0.63 0.15 Persuasive communication (PER) 2.88 0.76 1.00 4.00 0.26 -0.34 -0.57 Media exposure (MES) 4.74 0.92 1.00 6.00 0.19 -0.63 0.15 Intention to comply (INC) 5.19 0.75 1.00 6.00 0.14 -1.12 1.45 Regulation compliance behavior 11.42 1.94 4.00 18.00 0.16 0.12 0.40 (RCB)

Remark: C.V. = Coefficients of variation; SK = Skewness value; KU = kurtosis value

3.2.3 Multicollinearity

Multivariate analysis is the study of the relationship between many independent variables and one dependent variable, whereby a preliminary agreement is there must be no excessively high intercorrelations between the independent variables. The multicollinearity of variables in this research was examined based on Pearson‘s correlation coefficients. The general rule of thumb is if a correlation coefficient is higher than 0.8 or 0.9, this shows a serious issue with multicollinearity (Midi et al., 2010). The examination revealed that none of the predictive variables had a value above the threshold. That is, there were no predictive variables in these models which had excessively high intercorrelations, which was consistent with the preliminary statistical agreement. (Table 35)

111

112

In this research, a regression analysis was conducted on independent variables and dependent variables in order to test the statistics of the indicators of multicollinearity. The statistics consisted of tolerance and variance inflation factors (VIF). As for tolerance, it is the amount of variability in an independent variable that the other independent variables do not explain. Looking at the degree to which multicollinearity increases the variance of one estimated coefficient, the VIF measures the extent to which one explanatory variable can be explained by all the other explanatory variables in the equation. In the case when the value of tolerance value is lower than 0.2 or 0.1 and the value of VIF is at least 10, there is an issue of multicollinearity. The examination suggested that the values of tolerance of all the independent variables exceeded 0.2 and that their VIF values were greater than 10. Thus, it could be concluded that independent variables or predictive variables in the models had no issue of multicollinearity – this was consistent with the preliminary statistical agreement. (Table 36)

112

Table 35 Pearson‘s correlation matrix of variables

Variables KOR AOR PMR PIN PRL REN LST PER MES INC RCB KOR 1.000 AOR 0.182** 1.000 PMR 0.210** 0.622** 1.000 PIN 0.123** 0.516** 0.494** 1.000 PRL 0.194** 0.117** 0.080* 0.018** 1.000 REN 0.019** 0.121** 0.223** 0.236** 0.098** 1.000 LST 0.070* 0.262** 0.270** 0.336** 0.252** 0.341** 1.000 PER 0.011** 0.127** 0.213** 0.237** 0.138** 0.783** 0.388** 1.000 MES 0.099** 0.427** 0.351** 0.390** 0.137** 0.246** 0.309** 0.246** 1.000 INC -0.206** 0.634** 0.619** 0.655** 0.171** 0.028** -0.229** 0.197** 0.381** 1.000 RCB 0.012** 0.014** 0.023** 0.031** 0.017** 0.024** 0.036** 0.040** 0.011** 0.230* 1.000

Remark: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

113

114

Table 36 Results of multicollinearity test

Collinearity Statistics Variable Variance Inflation Tolerance Factors Knowledge of Regulation 0.908 1.101 Awareness of Regulation 0.509 1.965 Personal Morality 0.548 1.825 Perceived Injunctive Norm 0.631 1.586 Perceived Regulation Legitimacy 0.853 1.172 Regulation Enforcement 0.381 2.625 Legal Sanction 0.707 1.415 Persuasive Communication 0.367 2.723 Media Exposure 0.719 1.392

3.2.4 Autocorrelation

In this research, the examination of autocorrelation aimed to analyze as to whether the error terms of the variables in the models had intercorrelations. If their error terms had high intercorrelations, there would be an issue of autocorrelation. This could result in excessively high statistical significance levels and unreliability of predictive coefficients from the models. The statistic which was employed to test the interdependence of the error terms was the Durbin-Watson statistic. If the Durbin-Watson statistic was close to 2, this showed the individual error terms were independent from each other. It was less than 1.5 and close to 0, this showed that the error terms had high positive intercorrelations. If it was greater than 2.5, this showed the individual error terms had negative intercorrelations. The closer it was to 4, the more likely they would have high negative intercorrelations. The analysis showed that the Durbin-Watson value was equal to 1.905, which showed that these individual error terms were independent from each other. That is, they had nonautocorrelation, which was in line with the preliminary statistical agreement. (Figure 15)

114

115

Model Summaryb Adjusted R Std. Error of Durbin- Model R R Square Square the Estimate Watson 1 .777a .604 .601 .47447 1.905 a. Predictors: (Constant), Injunctive_Norm, Regulation_Legitimacy, Knowledge_of_Regulation, Regulation_Enforcement, Media_Exposure, Legal_Sanction, Personal_Morality, Awareness of_Regulation, Persuasive_Communication b. Dependent Variable: Intention_to_Comply

Figure 15 Model summary of autocorrelation testing

3.2.5 Homoscedasticity

Serving as condition in regression analysis, ‗homoscedasticity‘ is defined as the same variance of dependent variables in all values of independent variables. It is examined using a scatter plot, which shows the relationship between the standardized residual and the standardized predicted (Pedhazur, 1997). It is based on the standardized residual value. If random distribution occurs without a patterned decrease or increase, this means homoscedasticity is achieved (Hair et al., 2010). Figure 16 showed that the variance of standardized residual‘s distribution had no pattern. In the standardized residual, the upward or downward trend did not occur. It could be concluded that this was in line with the preliminary agreement on homoscedasticity.

115

116

Figure 16 Residual scatterplot for homoscedasticity

4. Path Model Analysis, Moderation Analysis and Hypothesis Testing

The results in this part were derived from the examination of the consistency between the developed models and empirical data, the analysis of predictive coefficients of variables in the models, analysis of the effects of moderator variables, and hypothesis testing. The results are presented under the four topics – 1) Model fit analysis, 2) Path coefficient analysis, 3) Moderation analysis, and 4) Hypothesis testing, as follows:

4.1 Model fit analysis

The consistency between the models and empirical data was verified using the path analysis by means of the AMOS program. The first verification found inconsistency between the models and empirical data. The fact that these models included many variables

116

117

might have resulted in different scales of measurement. After the models were adjusted based on model modification indices, which aimed to adjust the parameter values to pass the threshold and to be consistent with empirical data, the consistency was achieved. The consistency was witnessed through the values of Chi-Square, goodness of fit, adjusted goodness of fit, comparative fit index, root mean square error of approximation, and standardized root mean square residual (Hooper, et al. 2008; Kline, 2005). All the statistics obtained were at acceptable levels. (Table 37) The predictive coefficients of the variable ‗The intention to comply with national park regulation‘ and the variable ‗regulation compliance behavior‘ equaled 0.416 and 0.199 respectively. This showed that the variables in the models could explain the variance of the variable ‗The intention to comply with national park regulation‘ and of the variable ‗regulation compliance behavior‘ at 41.60 percent and 19.90 percent, respectively. Overall, the variables in the models jointly explained the variance of the regulation compliance behavior at 61.50 percent. (Figure 17)

Table 37 Model fit indices

Measure Name of indices Cut-off for good fit Value Test result 2 Model Chi-Square p-value>0.05 2 Acceptable   =17.336 df = 10 p-value= 0.067 GFI Goodness of Fit ≥ 0.95 0.99 Acceptable AGFI Adjusted Goodness of ≥0.90 0.98 Acceptable Fit CFI Comparative Fit Index ≥.90 0.99 Acceptable RMSEA Root Mean Square Error <0.08 0.02 Acceptable of Approximation SRMSR Standardized Root Mean <0.08 0.00 Acceptable Square Residual

117

Knowledge of Direct Effect 0.299 regulations Indirect Effect -0.067*

Awareness of -0.033* 0.626 regulations 0.153** 0.076**

Personal morality 0.729 0.161** 0.080**

0.046* Perceived injunctive 0.092* 0.836 norm Intention to comply Regulation compliance behavior 2 0.496** R = 0.416 R2 = 0.199 Perceived regulation 0.178** 0.651 legitimacy 0.088** 0.077 0.167 Regulation 0.047* 1.037 0.095* enforcement -0.062** Legal sanctions -0.124** 0.659 0.159**

0.509 Persuasive 0.321** communication

Figure 17 Path coefficient of model Remark: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

118

119

4.2 Path coefficient analysis

The examination of the path coefficient (beta) shows the direct effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable in the path model. In general, standardized coefficients with absolute values less than 0.10 may indicate a ―small‖ effect size. The values approximately 0.30 are a ―medium‖ effect size, and those exceeding 0.50 are considered to be a ―large‖ effect size (Kline, 2005). The results in Table 23 revealed that the predictive variables (i.e., knowledge of regulation, awareness of regulation, personal morality, perceived injunctive norm, perceived regulation legitimacy, regulation enforcement, legal sanctions, and persuasive communication) had small and medium effects on intention to comply. The intention to comply had a medium effect on regulation compliance.

An analysis of the direct effects of these predictive variables revealed that the variables with the highest positive direct effect on the intention to comply consisted of persuasive communication (0.321), perceived regulation legitimacy (0.178), personal morality (0.161), awareness of regulations (0.153), perceived injunctive norm (0.092), and regulation enforcement (0.095), respectively. This analysis demonstrated that these six variables had a positive direct effect on the intention to comply. There were two variables which had a negative direct effect on the intention to comply – legal sanctions (-0.124) and knowledge of regulations (-0.067). Both they had a direct effect on the intention to comply, but in the opposite direction. In addition, the results found that the intention to comply had a positive direct effect on compliance behavior (0.496), which suggested that the intention to comply had a positive direct effect on compliance behavior. (Table 38)

The analysis of indirect effects suggested that all the independent variables had a statistically significant indirect effect on the regulation compliance behavior, which was an indirect effect which moderated the intention to comply with national park regulation. The variable which had the greatest indirect positive effect was persuasive communication (0.159), followed by perceived regulation legitimacy (0.088), personal morality (0.080), awareness of national park regulations (0.076),

120

regulation enforcement (0.047), and perceived injunctive norm (0.046), while the knowledge about national park regulations (-0.033) and legal sanction had an indirect negative effect (-0.062). (Table 39)

The variable which had the greatest overall effect value on regulation compliance behavior was the intention to comply with national park regulation (0.496), followed by persuasive communication (0.480), regulation legitimacy (0.266), personal morality (0.241), awareness of regulations (0.229), regulation enforcement (0.142), perceived injunctive norm (0.138), knowledge about national park regulations (-0.100), and legal sanctions (-0.186), respectively. (Table 39)

Table 38 Standardized regression weights of variables in path model

Parameter Effect type Estimate Critical Ratio P KOR INC Direct effect -0.067 -2.735 .006 AOR INC Direct effect 0.153 4.763 .001 PMR INC Direct effect 0.161 5.137 .001 PIN INC Direct effect 0.092 3.023 .002 PRL INC Direct effect 0.178 6.876 .001 REN INC Direct effect 0.095 2854 .004 LST INC Direct effect -0.124 -4.678 .001 PER INC Direct effect 0.321 9.542 .001 INC RCB Direct effect 0.496 11.298 .001

121

Table 39 Direct, indirect, and total effects of intention to comply and regulation compliance behavior

Intention to comply Regulation compliance behavior Variables Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total effect effect effect effect effect effect KPR -0.067 - - - -0.033 -0.100 ARC 0.153 - - - 0.076 0.229 PMR 0.161 - - - 0.080 0.241 ISN 0.092 - - - 0.046 0.138 LEG 0.178 - - - 0.088 0.266 REN 0.095 - - - 0.047 0.142 LST -0.124 - - - -0.062 -0.186 PER 0.321 - - - 0.159 0.480 INC - - - 0.496 - 0.496

The knowledge of regulations was a predictive variable, which had an influence in the opposite direction of the outcome variable. That is, visitors equipped with a higher level of knowledge about national park regulations were more likely to have a lower degree of regulation compliance. This finding was consistent with past studies on law compliance of Thais, which demonstrated that traffic rule knowledge had no influence on traffic rule compliance (Darawong, 2001; Verapatanakul, 1997; Yaiyong, 1999). This was also consistent with the study by Chalermkiat (1997), who found that passenger car users with a higher educational level had a higher degree of traffic rule violation than their counterparts who had a lower educational level. It can be concluded that people with a higher level of national park regulation-related knowledge might not have regulation compliance that is consistent with their knowledge level.

Legal sanction was another predictive variable which showed relationships in the opposite direction. The aim of legal sanctions is to create perceived severity, the possibility of being arrested, and the possibility of receiving immediate punishment.

122

When people in society perceive legal sanctions, their inclination towards wrong actions may be deterred (Blumstein and Nagin, 1977). This research project found that the perception of legal sanctions by most of park visitors was at a high level, but their actual behavior showed the opposite. It is possible that people hardly perceived fining people who violate national park regulations, which may result in visitors having no fear for legal sanctions. This may also be derived from socio-cultural factors. Chupikulchai et al. (1988) surveyed the beliefs of Thai families about the adoption of values of Thai society which had an impact on socialization. Their study identified that most of the families acknowledged the sayings: ―True Thais do what they pleased” and “Regulations are just words,” which reflect the habit of violating regulations and social rules. This was also consistent with previous research finding on nonconforming with national park regulation of local people by Tanakanjana and Haas (1996) which found that non-conformers did not hold conformity values. This should be taken into account by national park authorities.

3.3 Moderation analysis

A moderator variable is a factor that changes the impact of an independent variable X on a dependent variable Y. Moderator variables that have an effect on the form of such relationship can be quasi-moderator variables or pure moderator variables. In the case when a moderator variable interacts with the predictor variable and is directly related to the criterion variable, it is a quasi-moderator. A moderator variable is a pure moderator if it only interacts with the predictor variable (Sharma et al. 1981). Based on the models developed in this research, media exposure (MES) served as the moderator variable, which moderated the relationship between the intention to comply with national park regulation (INC) and the regulation compliance behavior (RCB). (Figure 18)

The moderation effect testing involved the hierarchical multiple regression analysis, which identified if the predicted moderator variable was a pure moderator or quasi moderator. The testing was carried out in three models. In Model 1, the

123

independent variable (INC) was tested to predict the dependent variable (RCB). In Model 2, the independent variable (INC) and the moderator variable (MES) were tested to predict the dependent variable (RCB). Model 3, which was the full model, consisting of three terms: the independent variable (INC), the moderator variable (MES), and the interaction term (INC x MES), were tested to predict the dependent variable (RCB). (Figure 19) The equation of the test (Cohen et al., 2003) is Y = b0 + b1X + b2Z + b3XZ.

Media xpo

ure (MES)

Regulation Intention to comply compliance behavior (INC) (RCB)

Figure 18 Framework for moderation analysis

124

Model 1

INC RCB

Model 2

INC

RCB

MES

Model 3 INC

MES RCB

INC x MES

Figure 19 Model for testing the moderation effect

The analysis showed that in Model 1, INC had a significant effect on RCB (β=0.44, t=15.87, p < 0.01), and in Model 2, (INC) had a significant effect on RCB (β=0.45, t=15.88, p < 0.01) whereas MES had no significant effect on RCB (β=0.02, t=15.87, p > 0.05). In Model 3, INC had no significant effect on RCB (β=0.08, t=0.54, p > 0.05), while MES had a significant effect on RCB (β=0.41, t=2.77 p < 0.01). The interaction term (INC x MES) had a significant effect on RCB (β=0.56, t=2.70, p < 0.01). (Table 40)

125

Table 40 The moderating effect of media exposure

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Independent variable β t-value β t-value β t-value Intention to Comply 0.44** 15.87 0.57** 15.88 0.08 0.54 (INC) Media Exposure (MES) 0.02 0.65 0.41** 2.77 INC × MES 0.56** 2.70 R2 0.202 0.203 0.208 Adjust R2 0.201 0.200 0.205 F 251.95 126.11 87.043

Remark: ** p<0.01

It can be concluded that media exposure was a moderator variable because it had an interaction effect in injunction with the independent variable, which had an effect on the dependent variables in Model 3. The predictive coefficient (R2) in Model 3 was higher than that in Models 1 and 2. Because media exposure had an interaction with independent variables and dependent variables, it was considered to be a quasi- moderator (Sharma et al., 1981). It can be explained that if park visitors were exposed to more news about the environment in national parks, their intention to comply with park regulations and regulation compliance behavior would increase. (Figure 20)

126

Figure 20 Moderation effect of media exposure on intention to comply and regulation compliance behavior

This study found that media exposure of visitors, including traditional media (television, radio, and newspapers) and contemporary media (the Internet), was the moderator variable which moderated the relationship between visitor intention to comply and actual regulation compliance. This finding agreed with the behavior of information consumption among Thai people, who prefer to be exposed to media, especially online media. This was also in accordance with results of consumer behavior studies, which indicated that media exposure was the moderator variable moderating the relationship between the intention to comply and actual regulation compliance (Sun, 2013). Wray et al. (2005) indicated that media exposure had an impact on attitudes and environmental behaviors of consumers.

4.4 Hypotheses testing results

This research consisted of 10 hypotheses, nine of which were related to the effect of the predictive variables on regulation compliance behavior and one of which was related to the moderator variable, which moderated the relationship between the intention to comply with national park regulations and the regulation compliance behavior. The test results are as follows:

127

The analysis of the effect of the predictive variables revealed that the awareness of regulations (H2), personal morality (H3), perceived injunctive norm (H4), perceived regulation legitimacy (H5), regulation enforcement (H6), and persuasive communication (H8) had a positive effect on regulation compliance behavior by moderating the intention to comply with national park regulation. The intention to comply with national park regulation (H9) had a statistically significant positive effect on regulation compliance behavior. This was in line with a hypothesis set forth. The knowledge of regulations (H1) and legal sanction (H7) had a statistically significant direct negative effect on the intention to comply with national park regulation, which was inconsistent with a hypothesis. The analysis found that media exposure (H10) was a moderator variable, which moderated the relationship between the intention to comply with national park regulation and regulation compliance behavior, which was consistent with a hypothesis. (Table 41)

Table 41 The results of the hypotheses testing of predictive variable

Hypotheses Result H 1: Knowledge of regulationsintentioncompliance Not supported H 2: Awareness of regulations intentioncompliance Supported H 3: Personal morality intentioncompliance Supported H 4: Perceived injunctive norm intentioncompliance Supported H 5: Perceived regulation legitimacy intentioncompliance Supported H 6: Regulation enforcement intentioncompliance Supported H 7: Legal sanctions intention compliance Not supported H 8: Persuasive communication intention compliance Supported H 9: Intention to complycompliance Supported H 10: Media exposure moderates the interaction effect on intention Supported to comply and compliance behavior

128

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion

This research aimed to analyze regulation compliance among national park visitors and validate the path model of factors associated with visitors‘ regulation compliance. The samples of this research consisted of 1,000 Thai visitors who participated in recreational activities and stayed overnight at one of the following national parks – Khao Yai National Park (Nakhon Ratchasima), Kaeng Krachan National Park (Phetchaburi), Chae Son National Park (Lampang), Nam Tok Phlio National Park (Chanthaburi), and Khao Luang National Park (Nakhon Si Thammarat).

Overall, the characteristics of park visitor found that the visitors were mostly female, aged 21-30 years, and held a bachelors‘ degree. Most of them were company employees. They came mainly from provinces that were not home to the national parks that comprised the study areas. Most of them stayed at least one night in one of the studied national parks, on average, had approximately nine members in their group, and had visited the national park that was the study area approximately two times.

The analysis results of regulation compliance behavior revealed that overall, the majority of the park visitors complied with the conservation regulations at a high level. The results of the regulation compliance survey through 20 question items, composed of 16 negative-behavior question items and four positive-behavior question items, found that their top three inappropriate behaviors were: buying food packed in styrofoam containers for a picnic, making noise during walks along natural trails, and taking cooking utensils outside of the campsite for convenience. Their top three positive behaviors were: separating waste and disposing of it in separate bins provided, putting waste into a bag and disposing of it outside the national park area, and avoiding using plastic bottles or plastic bags as food containers.

129

The regulation compliance model of national park visitors was developed including both cognitive and situational involving ten predictor variables: knowledge of regulation, awareness of regulation, personal morality, perceived injunctive norm, perceived regulation legitimacy, regulation enforcement, legal sanctions, persuasive communication, and media exposure. The results of factor associated with regulation compliance behavior found that the park visitors had the intention to comply at a high level; knowledge of regulation at a high level; awareness of regulation at a high level; personal morality at a high level; perceived injunctive norm at a high level; regulation legitimacy at a moderate level; regulation enforcement at a moderate level; legal sanction at a moderate level; persuasive communication at a moderate level; and media exposure at a high level.

The path analysis of these variables was consistent with empirical data and served as a predictor of the intention to comply and actual regulation compliance and the moderator variable moderating the relationship between the intention to comply and actual regulation compliance. This study confirmed the usefulness of the predictive model in explaining and predicting visitors‘ intentions towards engaging in compliance behavior of national park regulation.

The test results of the hypotheses conclude that the variables that had a positive effect with statistical significance on regulation compliance of park visitors were persuasive communication, perceived regulations legitimacy, personal morality, awareness of regulations, perceived injunctive norms, and regulation enforcement. The results also found that knowledge of regulations and legal sanctions had a negative effect with the statistical significance on regulation compliance of visitors, which was not consistent with the hypotheses in this research. This research suggested that essential predictors of the intention to comply and regulation compliance consisted of persuasive communication (situational influence) and regulation legitimacy (cognitive influence).

130

Recommendations

1. Recommendations for Park Management

Finding from this research contain implications for improving visitor‘s regulation compliance are as follow.

1) DNP policy makers should consider communication skills to be competency-based skills for park rangers and should train park rangers in communication strategies which they can apply to design communication to persuade visitors to comply with park regulations. In addition, they need to develop guidelines and instructions for training communicators which take into different national parks and target groups of visitors.

2) With regard to communication strategies designed to influence park visitor behavior, e.g. signs containing messages which campaign for regulation compliance among visitors, in the message design process, communicators should consider including injunctive norm appeals to promote socially desirable behaviors in national parks. This will provoke visitors to be aware of ‗do‘ and ‗don‘t‘ behaviors during their park visit, especially, problematic behaviors in each park area. When injunctive norms are strong, the visitor intention to comply with park regulations will be more likely to increase. Apart from injunctive norm appeals, rational message appeals to stimulate the legitimacy of regulations should be included.

3) A common understanding is that personal morality or personal norms are principles that have been internalized by an individual, so that they influence behavior even in the absence of external factors. The DNP needs to collaborate with the Ministry of Education, as a socialization agent, to cultivate morality and ethics in Thai youths. The Ministry of Education should incorporate national park- and national park conservation-related substance into primary and secondary school curriculums on a continual basis to result in youth‘s awareness of the value of national parks, which will encourage their regulation compliance in the long run.

131

4) More awareness programs on the regulations should be created in the environmental education programs. Park users should be educated on the need to always comply with the park rules and regulations, and stricter measures should be put in place to sanction or penalize any defaulter of park regulations as this will further ensure compliance to the regulations.

5) Park users should be further educated through national park orientation at visitor centers and other means on the need to always comply with the park regulations in order to ensure optimum and effective use of national parks for recreational purposes.

6) Media exposure may contribute to accurate or inaccurate perceptions about the prevalence of a behavior in national parks. Thus, the DNP should utilize social media, e.g. Facebook, a social network which is conveniently accessible for the general public, as a channel to convey messages to the general public about park regulations. This is because most visitors still possess incorrect understanding about certain park regulations. A Facebook page can provide the general public with updates on national parks, including campaign programs, activities, and reasons for, and necessities of, prohibitions imposed on park visitors. This will ensure their increased acceptance of park regulations, which will create awareness of regulation legitimacy.

2. Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research

The measurement of the different variables resulted in a questionnaire consisting of many parts and being quite lengthy. This might be an obstacle to the willingness to cooperate in responding to the questionnaire survey among the participants. Thus, the researcher suggest that those interested in undertaking research on this topic utilize on-site surveys in conjunction with online surveys of participants who have experience in visiting national parks. Furthermore, the questions developed for measuring visitor regulation compliance might be another obstacle because they contain a self-checklist for inappropriate behaviors. This is because by nature, humans

132

use a self-defense mechanism. Thus, both positive and negative items should be mixed, and they should be indirect statements but reflect the context of the behaviors.

For future research on this topic, the researcher recommends two approaches. The first approach is splitting the predictive model into two models, a model for cognitive variables and a model for situational variables, and comparing the predictability power between the two models. Or, subgroup analysis can be conducted after the consistency examination of the model and path analysis, which will improve the interestingness of the research. The second proposed approach is designing experimental research on persuasive communication by comparing the response to message content concerning moral appeals, which aim to stimulate personal morality and awareness of regulations, or by comparing the response to message content using normative appeals, e.g. injunctive norm appeals and descriptive norm appeals, the findings of which can be practically useful.

133

LITERATURE CITED

Amodu, T. 2008. The Determinants of Compliance with Laws and Regulations with Special Reference to Health and Safety. Department of Law, The London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London.

Anderson D.H, D.W. Lime and T.L. Wang. 1998. Maintaining the Quality of Park Resources and Visitors’ Experiences: A Handbook for Managers. CooperativePark Studies, Department of Forest Resource. University of Montana, Minnesota: St. Paul.

Arias, A. 2015. Understanding and managing compliance in the nature conservation context. Journal of Environmental Management 153:134-143.

Becker, G. 1968. Crime and punishment: an economic approach. Journal of Political Economy 76(2):169-217.

Blumstein, A and D. Nagin. 1977. Deterrent effect of legal sanctions on draft evasion. Stanford Law Review 29(2): 241-276.

Bottoms, A.E. 2002. Morality, Crime, Compliance and Public Policy. In A.E. Bottoms and M. Tonry, eds. Ideology, Crime and Criminal Justice, Willan.

Bova, C.S., S.J. Halse, S. Aswani and W.M. Potts. 2017. Assessing a social norms approach for improving recreational fisheries compliance. Fisheries Management and Ecology 24:117125.

Bowers, K.S. 1973. Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique. Psychological Review 80(5): 307-336.

Bragagnolo, C., A. Malhadoa, P. Jepson and R.J. Ladle. 2016. Modeling local attitudes to protected areas in developing countries. Conservation and Society 14(3):163-182.

134

Bright, A. D., M.J. Manfredo, M. Fishbein and A. Bath. 1993. Application of the theory of reasoned action to the National Park Service's controlled burn policy. Journal of Leisure Research 25(3):263-280.

Brown, T. J., S.H. Ham and M. Hughes. 2010. Picking up litter: an application of theory- based communication to influence tourist behaviour in protected area. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18: 879-900.

Bruner, A., R.G. Gullison, R.E. Rice and G.A.B. Gustavo. 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291:125-128.

Campbell, R., M. Evans, M. Tucker, B. Quilty, P. Dieppe and J.L. Donovan, 2001. Why don‘t patients do their exercises? Understanding non-compliance with physiotherapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 55:132-8.

Chalermkiat, S. 1997. Factors Effecting Violation of Traffic Laws by Private Cars Drivers in Bangkok Metropolis. M.A. Thesis. Chulalongkorn University.

Charungphan, K. 2001. Nonconforming Behaviors of Visitors to National Park: A Case Study of Erawan National Park, Kanchanaburi Province. M.S. Thesis, Kasetsart University.

Chettamart, S. 2004. Course Handouts 308531 Protected Area Management. Conservation Department, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University. (Mimeographed)

Chupikulchai, S., C. Poolsiri, P. Sriyuthasakdi, J. Ua-amnuay, J. Thamavi and S. Mungmuang. 988. A Study of Attitudes Towards Ethics, Values, Traditions and Culture of Thai Families Affecting Parenting: A Case Study in Bangkok. Board of Social Problems Research. The National Council on Social Welfare of Thailand.

135

Cialdini, R.B., C.A. Kallgren and R.R. Raymond. 1991. A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 24:201-234.

Cialdini, R.B. and J. N. Goldstein. 2004. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual review of psychology 55:591-621.

Cialdini, R.B. and M.R. Trost. 1998. Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance pp. 151-192. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske and G. Lindzey., eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Cialdini, R.B., R.R. Raymond and C.A. Kallgren. 1990. A Focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58:1015-1026.

Clarke, K.R., R.M. Warwick and B.E. Brown. 1993. An index showing breakdown of seriation, related to disturbance, in a coral-reef assemblage. Marine Ecology Progress Series 102(1/2):153-160.

Cohen, J. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112:155–159.

Cohen, J., P. Cohen, S.G. West, L.S. Aiken. 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/ Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 3rd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, US. Contreras-Hermosilla, A. and E. Peter. 2005. Best Practices for Improving Law Compliance in the Forestry Sector. FAO Forestry Paper 145. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Crocker, L.M. and J. Algina. 1986. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Rinehart and Winston, New York.

136

Cronbach, L.J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297-334.

Darawong, S. 2001. Knowledge, Understanding and Conformity to Traffic Laws of People in Bangkok Metropolis. M.A. Thesis, Kasetsart University.

Dawson, C.P. and J.C. Hendee. 2009. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values. 4th ed. CO: Fulcrum Publishing, Golden.

Deci, E.L. and R.M. Ryan. 2000. The ―what‖ and ―why‖ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11: 227- 268.

Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Government of Western Australia. 2018. Fisheries Compliance Strategy. September 2018. Available Source: https://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/corporate_ publications/fisheries_compliance_strategy.pdf, March 25, 2019.

DNP, Department of National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation. 2006. Management Plan for Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex. Bangkok.

Dudley, N., eds. 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN Glad Publications Services, Switzerland.

Duzgunes, E. and O. Demirel. 2016. Importance of Visitor Management in National park Planning. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 17(2): 675–680.

137

Eagles, P.F.J., F.S. McCool and D.A.H. Christopher. 2002. Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Elster, J. 1989. Social norms and economic theory. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 3:99-117.

Emphandhu, D. and S. Chettamart. 2003. Thailand Experience in Protected Area Management. Paper presented at IUCN World Park Congress, Durban, South Africa.

Faul, F., E. Erdfelder, A.–G. Lang and A. Buchner. 2007. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39:175-191.

Fischer, L. and G. Wiswede. 1997. Grundlagen der Sozialpsychologie. München, Oldenbourg.

George, D. and M. Mallery. 2010. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. 10th ed. MA:Pearson, Boston.

Gezelius, S.S. 2003. The Morality of Compliance in Coastal Fisheries Cases from Norway and Newfoundland. Paper Presented at the IASCP Northern Polar Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska August 17-21, 2003. Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute (NILF), Norway.

Gorzelany, J.F. 2004. Evaluation of boater compliance with manatee speed zones along the gulf coast of Florida. Coastal Management 32(3):215-226.

Gravetter, F. and L. Wallnau. 2014. Essentials of Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 8th ed. Belmont, CA Wadsworth.

138

Guilford, J.P. and B. Fruchter. 1979. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Statistics. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin and R.E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Hanna S. 1998. Co-Management in Small-Scale Fisheries: Creating Effective Links among Stakeholders. Plenary presentation at the International Community-Based Natural Resource Management Workshop, Washington D.C., May 10–14.

Hatcher, A. and S. Pascoe. 2006. Non-compliance and fisheries policy formulation. Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science 36:355-373.

Hauck, M. 2008. Rethinking small-scale fisheries compliance. Marine Policy. 32:635-642.

Heberline, T.A. 2012. Navigating Environmental Attitudes. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Heinen, J. and R.J. Shrivastava. 2009. An analysis of conservation attitudes and awareness around Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India: Implications for conservation and development. Population and Environment 30: 261-274.

Hines J.M., H.R. Hungerford and A.N. Tomera. 1987. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education 18:1-8.

Hooper, D., J. Coughlan and M. R. Mullen. 2008. Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Method 6:53-60.

139

Hønneland, G.1999. Co-management and communities in the Barents Sea fisheries. Human Organization: Winter 58(4): 397-404.

IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2019. Category II: National Park. Available Source: https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected- areas/about/ protected-areas-categories/category-ii-national-park, March 3, 2019.

Jantowat, H., N.T. Phongkhieo and S. Kaitpraneet. 2011. Responses toward regulations and recreational user management measures of visitors to Doi Suthep-Pui National park, Chiang Mai province. Thai Journal of Forestry 30(2): 39-47.

Jentoft, S. 1989. Fisheries co-management: Delegating government responsibility to fishermen‘s organizations. Marine Policy 13(2):137-154.

Jett, J., B. Thapa and R. Swett. 2013. Boater Speed compliance in manatee zones: examining a proposed predictive model. Society and Natural Resources 26 95- 104.

Jett, J.S. and B. Thapa. 2010. Manatee zone compliance among boaters in Florida. Coastal Management 38(2): 165-185.

Keane, A., J.P.G. Jones, G. Edward-Jones and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2008. The sleeping policeman: Understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation. Animal Conservation 11:75-82.

Keane, A., J.P.G. Jones and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2011. Encounter data in resource management and ecology: pitfalls and possibilities. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(5): 1164-1173.

140

Kernan, A. and E. Drogin. 1995. The effect of a verbal interpretive message on day user impacts at Mount Rainier National Park, pp. 32-47. In Proceedings of the 1994 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. General Technical Report NE-198 Radnor, PA: SDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Kline, P. 2000. The Handbook of Psychological Testing. Psychology Press, London and New York.

Kline, R.B. 2005. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed. Guilford, New York.

Kuperan, K and J.G. Sutinen. 1998. Blue water crime: Deterrence, legitimacy, and compliance in fisheries. Law and Society Review 32(2).

Lancaster, D., P. Dearden and N.C. Ban. 2015. Drivers of recreational fisher compliance in temperate marine conservation areas: A study of Rockfish Conservation Areas in British Columbia, Canada. Global Ecology and Conservation 4:645-657.

Lausche, B. 2011. Guidelines for Protected Areas Legislation. IUCN Gland, Switzerland.

Lee, W.H. and G. Moscardo. 2005. Understanding the impact of ecotourism resort experiences on tourists‟environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13:546-565.

Leisher, C., S. Mangubhai, S. Hess and H. Widodo. 2012. Measuring the benefits and costs of community education and outreach in marine protected areas. Marine Policy 36. 1005–1011.

141

Leung Y-F, A. Spenceley, G. Hvenegaard, R. Buckley, eds. 2018. Tourism and Visitor Management in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Sustainability. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 27, IUCN Gland, Switzerland.

Lin, T.C.W. 2016. Compliance, Technology, and Modern Finance. 11 Brook. J. Corp. Fin. and Com. L. 159, Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2017-06.

Luanchawee A. 2004. Legal Measures for the Management of Ecotourism Resources: Specifically the Case of National Parks. Pridi Banomyong Faculty of Law. Dhurakij Pundit University, Bangkok.

Lucas, R. 1982. Recreation regulations--When are they needed? Journal of Forestry 80(3): 148-151.

Lucas, R. 1983. The role of regulations in recreation management. Western Wildlands 9(2): 6-10.

Manning, R.E. 2003. Emerging principles for using information/education in wilderness management. International Journal of Wilderness 9(1):20-27.

Manning, R.E. 2011. Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction. 3rd ed. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Matthews, B. E. and C. K. Riley. 1995. Teaching and evaluating outdoor ethics programs, pp.118. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 401 097. Wildlife Federation, Vienna.

Marion, J.L. and S.E. Reid. 2007. Minimising visitor impacts to protected areas: The efficacy of low impact education programmes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 15(1): 4-27.

142

Martin, G.J. 1995. Ethnobotany: A People and Plants Conservation Manual. Chapman and Hall, London.

McAvoy, L.H. and D.L. Dustin. 1983. Indirect versus direct regulation of recreation behavior. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 1(4): 12-17.

Midi, H., A. Bagheri and A.H.M.R. Imon, 2010. The application of robust multicollinearity diagnostic method based on robust coefficient determination to a non-collinear data. Journal of Applied Science 10:611-619.

Montes, N., R. Swett, S.K. Jacobson and C. Sidman. 2018. Factors influencing recreational boaters‟ intentions to comply with right whale regulations in the southeastern United States. Society and Natural Resources 31:473-488.

Monz, C., J. Roggenbuck, D. Cole, R. Brame, A. Yoder. 2000. Wilderness party size regulations: implications for management and a decision making framework, pp. 265-273. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference-Vol. 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management. 23-27 May 1999, Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

National Parks Office. 2017. Number of Tourists Visiting National Parks. Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Thailand.

Nielson, J.R. 2003. An analytical framework for studying: compliance and legitimacy in fisheries management. Marine Policy 27(5):425-432.

Nielsen, J.R. and C. Mathiesen. 2003. Important factors influencing rule compliance in fisheries - Lessons from Denmark. Marine Policy 27(5):409-416.

143

Niyomsilp, S. 2006. Influence of Mass Media on Behavior of Visitors to National Parks. M.S. Thesis, Kasetsart University.

North, D.C. 1990. Institutions, Instituional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2000. Reducing the Risk of Policy Failure: Challenges for Regulatory Compliance. The papers published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. Available Source: https://www. oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/46466287.pdf, January 28, 2018.

Oliver, S.S., Roggenbuck, J.W. and A. E. Watson. 1985. Education to reduce impacts in forest campgrounds. Journal of Forestry 83(4):234–236.

ONEP, Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning. 2019. Indicators data "Conservation Forest Area. Available Source:http://www. onep..go.th env_data/2016/01, January 7, 2019.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Page, K. and P. Radomski. 2006. Compliance with sport fishery regulations in Minnesota as related to regulation awareness. Fisheries 31:166-178.

Pauwles, L., F. Weerman, G. Bruinsma and W. Bernasco. 2011. Perceived sanction risk, individual propensity and adolescent offending: assessing key findings from the deterrence literature in a Dutch sample. European Journal of Criminology 8(5):386-400.

Pedhazur, E.J. 1997. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction. 3rd ed. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth.

144

Perloff, R.M. 2003. The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.

Phumsathan, S. 2011. Environmental Impacts of Tourism in Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A & M University.

Pierce, R. and C. Tomcko. 1998. Angler noncompliance with slot length limits for Northern Pike in five small Minnesota Lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:720-724.

Planning and Information Office. 2017. Statistical Data: National Park, Wildlife and Plant 2017. Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Thailand.

Poolsawat A. 2013. Normative Behaviors in Recreation Settings of Thai and Foreign Visitors to National Park: A Case Study of Khao Yai National Park. M.S. Thesis, Kasetsart University.

Posner, E.A. 1997. Symbols, Signals, and Social Norms in Politics and the Law. Available Source: https://ssrn.com/abstract=33687, February 14, 2019

Ramcilovic-Suominen, S. and G. Epstein. 2012. Towards an Analytical Framework for Forest Law Compliance. International Forestry Review 14(3):326-336.

Rattanapan, N. 2003. Vandalism and Nonconforming Behaviors of Visitors to National park: A Case Study of Nam Tok Yong National Park, Nakhonsrithammarat Province. Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation.

Read, A.D, R.J. West and B.P. Kelaher. 2015. Using compliance data to improve marine protected area management. Marine Policy 60: 119-127.

145

Rovinelli, R.J. and R.K. Hambleton. 1977. On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal of Educational Research 2:49-60.

Royal Forest Department. 2009. Forestry in Thailand. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Thailand.

Rosenthal, R. 1984. Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research. Sage Publications. Inc. Beverly Hills Califirnia.

Rueangsut, A. 2015. Deviant behaviors of visitors to Khao Yai National Park. M.S. Thesis, Kasetsart University.

Samdahl, D.M. and H.H. Christensen. 1985. Environmental cues and vandalism: An exploratory study of picnic table carving. Environment and Behavior 17(4): 445-458.

Saypanya, S., T. Hansel, A. Johnson, A. Bianchessi and B. Sadowsky. 2013. Effectiveness of a social marketing strategy, coupled with law enforcement, to conserve tigers and their prey in Nam Et Phou Louey National Protected Area, Lao People‘s Democratic Republic. Conservation Evidence 57‐66.

Schill, D. and P.A. Kline. 1995. Use of random response to estimate angler noncompliance with fishing regulations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15:721-731.

Schoenfeld, A.C., R.F., Meier and R.J. Griyn. 1979. Constructing a social problem: The press and the environmental. Social Problem 27(1):38–61.

Schwartz, F. and W.G. Tullock. 1975. The costs of a legal system. Journal of Legal Studies 4(1):75-82.

146

Schwartz, S.H. 1973. Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique, proposal, and empirical test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9(4):349-364.

Sesabo, J.K., H. Lang and T. Richard. 2006. Perceived Attitude and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Establishment: Why Households’ Characteristics Matters in Coastal Resources Conservation Initiatives in Tanzania. FNU- 99 (submitted).

Sharma, S., R.M. Durand and O. Gur-Arie. 1981. Identification and analysis of moderator variables. Journal of Marketing Research 18(3):291-300.

Slater, M.D., K.L. Henry, R.C. Swaim and J. Cardador. 2004. Vulnerable teens, vulnerable times: How sensation-seeking, alienation, and victimization moderate the violent media content-aggressiveness relation. Communication Research 31:642–668.

Slater, M.J., Y.D. Mgaya, and S.M. Stead. 2014. Perceptions of rule-breaking related to marine ecosystem health. PLoS ONE 9 (2):e89156.

Sterl, P., C. Brandenburg and A. Arnberger. 2008. Visitors‘ awareness and assessment of recreational disturbance of wildlife in the Donau-Auen National Park. Journal for Nature Conservation 16:135-45.

Suksawang, S. 2014. A System Plan for Thailand’s Protected Areas; Toward Resilient Landscapes. Paper presented at IUCN World Park Congress. Sydney, Australia.

Suksawang, S and J.A. McNeely. 2015. Parks for Life: Why We Love Thailand’s National Parks. Department of National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation and the United Nations Development Programme, Bangkok.

147

Suksawang, S and K. Setbubpha, n.d. Implementation of Participation through the Advisory Committee on Protected Areas in Thailand. Department of National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation together with the World Environment Fund and the United Nations Development Program.

Sutinen, J.G. 1992. Morality and fairness, and their role in fishery regulation. The European Association of Fisheries Economist. In Proceedings of the IV Annual Conference. April 22–24, 1992. University of Salerno, Italy.

Sutinen, J.G., A. Rieser and J. R.Gauvin. 1990. Measuring and explaining noncompliance in federally managed fisheries. Ocean Development and International Law 2:335-372.

Sutinen, J.G. and K. Kuperan. 1999. A socio‐economic theory of regulatory compliance. International Journal of Social Economics 26(1/2/3):174-193.

Sutinen, J.G. and P. Andersen. 1985. The Economics of Fisheries Law Enforcement. Land Economics 64(10): 387-397.

Sun, Y. 2013. Media Exposure, Self and Fashion Clothing Involvement of Chinese Young People: Analysis of Effect Models. Ph.D. Thesis. Hong Kong Baptist University.

Swaroop, A. and M.K. Padhy. 2015. A study of role of media in human-wildlife conflict management in Dudhwa National Park, Uttar Pradesh. International Multidisciplinary Research Journal 4(11): 1-9.

Tanakanjana, N. and G.E. Haas. 1996. Predictive model of nonconforming behaviors of local people in the national park system of Thailand, pp. 32-47. In Proceedings of the FORTROP'96 International Conference. Tropical Forestry in the 21st Century: Vol. 5 Parks and Protected Areas. Bangkok, Thailand.

148

Tyler, T.R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. Yale University Press, CT, US: New Haven.

Tyler, T.R. and J.T. Jost. 2007. Psychology and the law: Reconciling normative and descriptive accounts of social justice and system legitimacy, pp.807-825. In A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins, eds. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. The Guilford Press, New York.

Vagias, W.M., R. Powell, D. More and B.A. Wright. 2014. Predicting behavioral intentions to comply with recommended leave no trace practices. Leisure Sciences 00:1–19.

Vande Kamp, M.E., D.R. Johnson and T. C. Swearingen. 1994. Preventing visitor- caused damage to national park resources: What do we know? What should be done? Park Science 14(3):8-10.

Verapatanakul, A. 1997. Media Exposure, Knowledge, Awareness and Proper Driving Behavior of Private Car Drivers in Bangkok Metropolis. M.A. Thesis. Chulalongkorn University.

Widner, C.J. and J. Roggenbuck. 2000. Reducing theft of petrified wood at Petrified Forest National Park. Journal of Interpretation Research 5(1):1-18.

Winter, S.C. and P.J. May. 2001. Motivation for compliance with environmental regulations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20: 675-698.

Wray, R.J., K. Jupka and C. Ludiwg-Bell. 2005. A Community-Wide Media Campaign to Promote Walking in a Missouri Town. Prev Chronic Dis. Volume 2: No.4 October.

149

Yaiyong, B. 1999. Drivers' Violation of Traffic Law in Bangkok: Case Study on Metropolitan Police Division 2. M.A. Thesis. Kasetsart University. Young, O.R. 1979. Compliance and Public Authority: A Theory with Practical International Applications. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Zaelke, D., M. Stilwell and O. Young. 2005. Compliance, rule of law, and good governance. What Reason Demands: Making Law Work for Sustainable Development. In D. Zaelke, D. Kaniaru. E. Kruzikova, eds. Making Law Work: Environmental Compliance and Sustainable Development. Chapter 1. Vol. 1. Cameron May Ltd., London.

150

APPENDICES

151

Appendix A The results of the assessment to study area selection

152

Appendix Table A The Results of the Assessment to Study Area Selection

Indicators Number of Diversity of Level of Total National Park Visitor Recreational Regulation Activities Noncompliance Northern Region 1) Phu Hin Rong Kla 3 3 2 8 2) Doi Pha Hom Pok 3 3 2 8 3) Doi Suthep - Pui 3 2 2 7 4) Khlong Lan 3 2 2 7 5) Doi Phu Sang 3 2 2 7 6) Chae Son 3 2 2 7 7) Doi Inthanon 3 2 1 6 8) Thung Salaeng Luang 2 3 1 6 9) Huai Nam Dang 3 2 1 6 10) Khlong Wang Chao 1 2 2 5 11) Mae Wong 1 2 2 5 12) Mae Yom 1 2 2 5 13) Mae Moei 1 2 2 5 14) Nam Nao 2 2 1 5 15) Ramkhamhaeng 1 3 1 5 16) Si Lanna 1 2 2 5 17) Doi Luang 1 2 2 5 18) Khun Chae 1 2 2 5 19) Lan Sang 1 2 2 5 20) Namtok Chat Trakan 1 2 2 5 21) Wiang Kosai 1 2 2 5 22) Doi Phu Nang 1 2 2 5 23) Khun Phawo 1 2 2 5 24) Mae Ngao 1 3 1 5

153

Appendix Table A (Continued)

Indicators Number of Diversity of Level of Total National Park Visitor Recreational Regulation Activities Noncompliance 25) Tham Pla - Namtok 1 2 2 5 Pha Suea 26) Mae Takhrai 1 2 2 5 27) Mae Tho 1 2 2 5 28) Namtok Pha Charoen 2 2 1 5 29) Tat Mok 1 2 2 5 30) Ton Sak Yai 1 2 2 5 31) Op Khan 1 2 2 5 32) Lam Nam Kok 1 2 2 5 33) Khao Kho 1 2 1 4 34) Si Satchanalai 1 2 1 4 35) Khun Khan 1 1 2 4 36) Op Luang 1 2 1 4 37) Salawin 1 2 1 4 38) Doi Pha Klong 1 1 2 4 39) Doi Phu Kha 1 2 1 4 40) Lam Nam Nan 1 2 1 4 41) Mae Puem 1 2 1 4 42) Mae Wa 1 2 1 4 43) Mae Wang 1 2 1 4 44) Si Nan 1 2 1 4 45) Taksin Maharat 1 2 1 4 46) Doi Wiang Pha 1 1 2 4 47) Kaeng Chet Khwae 1 1 2 4 48) Khun Sathan 1 2 1 4

154

Appendix Table A (Continued)

Indicators Number of Diversity of Level of Total National Park Visitor Recreational Regulation Activities Noncompliance 49) Tham Sakoen 1 2 1 4 50) Tham Pha Thai 1 2 1 4 51) Khun Nan 1 1 1 3 52) Doi Khun Tan 1 1 1 3 53) Mae Ping 1 2 1 4 Southern Region 1) Namtok Yong 3 2 1 6 2) Khao Sok 3 2 1 6 3) Khao Luang 2 2 2 6 4) Ao Manao-Khao 2 2 1 5 Tanyong 5) Than Bok Khorani 2 2 1 5 6) Bang Lang 1 2 2 5 7) Khao Nan 1 2 2 5 8) Namtok Ngao 2 2 1 5 9) Namtok Si Khit 1 2 2 5 10) Thale Ban 1 2 2 5 11) Khao Phanom Bencha 1 2 1 4 12) Mu Ko Phetra 1 2 1 4 13) Khao Lak - Lam Ru 1 2 1 4 14) Khao Lampi - Hat Thai 1 2 1 Mueang 4 15) Khlong Phanom 1 1 2 4 16) Laem Son 1 2 1 4 17) Mu Ko Surin 1 2 1 4

155

Appendix Table A (Continued)

Indicators Number of Diversity of Level of Total National Park Park Visitor Recreational Regulation Activities Noncompliance 18) Tarutao 1 2 1 4 19) Khao Pu - Khao Ya 1 2 1 4 20) Si Phang - nga 1 2 1 4 21) Na Yung - Nam Som 1 2 1 4 22) Kaeng Krung 1 1 1 3 23) Hat Khanom - Mu Ko 1 1 1 3 Thale Tai North Eastern Region 1) Phu Ruea 3 3 2 8 2) Khao Yai 3 3 2 8 3) Pha Taem 3 2 2 7 4) Sai Thong 3 3 1 7 5) Pa Hin Ngam 3 2 1 6 6) Pha Daeng 1 2 3 6 7) Tat Ton 3 2 1 6 8) Phu Chong - Na Yoi 2 2 2 6 9) Phu Laenkha 3 2 1 6 10) Phu Suan Sai 1 3 2 6 11) Phu Kradueng 2 2 1 5 12) Phu Kao - Phu Phan 1 2 2 Kham 5 13) Phu Pha Thoep 2 2 1 5 14) Phu Langka 1 2 2 5 15) Phu Pha Lek 1 2 2 5 16) Phu Pha Yon 1 2 2 5

156

Appendix Table A (Continued)

Indicators Number of Diversity of Level of Total National Park Park Visitor Recreational Regulation Activities Noncompliance 17) Phu Sa Dok Bua 1 2 1 4 18) Kaeng Tana 1 1 2 4 19) Phu Pha Man 1 2 1 4 20) Phu Phan 1 2 1 4 Eastern Region 1) Mu Ko Chang 3 3 2 8 2) Khao Khitchakut 3 2 2 7 3) Khao Leam Ya-Mu Ko 3 2 2 7 Samet 4) Namtok Phlio 2 2 2 6 5) Khao Chamao-Khao 3 1 2 Wong 6 6) Thap Lan 1 2 2 5 7) Pang Sida 1 2 1 4 8) Ta Phraya 1 2 1 4 Western Region 1) Kaeng Krachan 3 3 2 8 2) Erawan 3 2 2 7 3) Sai Yok 3 2 2 7 4) Khao Sam Roi Yot 2 2 2 6 5) Khuean Srinagarindra 2 2 2 6 6) Khao Laem 1 2 2 5 7) Thong Pha Phum 1 2 2 5 8) Hat Wanakon 1 2 2 5 9) Lam Klong Ngu 1 2 1 4

157

Appendix Table A (Continued)

Indicators Number of Diversity of Level of Total National Park Park Visitor Recreational Regulation Activities Noncompliance 10) Chaloem Phra Kiat 2 1 1 4 Thai Prachan 11) Kui Buri 1 2 1 4 12) Chaloem Rattanakosin 1 2 1 4 13) Namtok Huai Yang 1 1 2 4 Central Region 1) Namtok Chet Sao Noi 2 1 2 5 2) Namtok Sam Lan 1 2 1 4

Remark: Evaluation criteria are as follows

Indicators Criteria/Scores Result 1) Number of park visitors 1 = Less than 50,000 people/year  1 = Low (Since 2010 to 2014) 2 = 50,000–100,000 people/year  2 = Moderate 3 = Over > 100,000 people/year  3 = High

2) Diversity of recreational 1 = 1 – 5 activities  1 = Low activities 2 = 6 – 10 activities  2 = Moderate (1 activity = 1 point) 3 = Over 10 activities  3 = High

3) Level of regulation 1 = Average 2.01 - 3.00  1 = Serious noncompliance 2 = Average 1.01 - 2.00  2 = Moderate 3 = Average 0.00 - 1.00  3 = Mild

158

Appendix B Questionnaire

159

Questionnaire Survey on Regulation Compliance Behavior of Park Visitors in Thailand

Dear all respondents,

This questionnaire was developed as part of data collection of the research for a dissertation in the Doctor of Philosophy Program in Parks, Recreation, and Tourism. The purpose of this survey is to learn about your opinions, perceptions, and knowledge about national park regulations, as well as your behavior in response to prohibitions and instructions for park visitors. The research results will be applied to park visitor management planning in Thailand. The responses you provide in this questionnaire will not have any negative impacts on you. Please read each question carefully and answer as truthfully as possible. The author hopes to receive your cooperation and thank you very much for taking the time to respond to the questionnaire.

SECTION A: General information

These questions relate to your trip, which aim to analyze visitor travel patterns. Please fill in the blanks with correct numbers:

1) Have you ever visited this national park?  Never.  Yes, I have visited here ...... times (not including this time).

2) The number of people who joined this trip with you (including you):......

3) In this visit, you stayed overnight within the national park for...... nights.

160

SECTION B: Activities during the park visit

These questions are asked in order to have a better understanding of your response to instructions and guidelines for park visitors. Please put a tick () in the box to show if you have done it or haven‘t done it.

Done Never Activities it. done it. Buying food packed in styrofoam containers for a picnic. Eating and drinking alcoholic beverages as part of a group party. Bringing a weapon for protection in case of unexpected incidents. Using chemicals for repelling ants or other insects at the campsite. Avoiding using plastic bottles or plastic bags as food containers. Bringing food containers made with natural materials. Bringing pets to expose them to natural surroundings. Setting up a tent outside a designated campsite for privacy. Taking cooking utensils outside of the campsite for convenience. Washing containers and utensils beside the campsite. Playing music, singing, and playing the guitar at the campsite. Taking selfie photos and making noise during walks along natural trails. Using dried branches or twigs to make a fire for cooking or creating a boisterous atmosphere. (-) Feeding wild animals or fish in water bodies for fun. (-) Picking beautiful flowers, leaves, stones, or forest products as souvenirs. (-) Going off-trail hiking to get closer to natural surroundings.(-) Engraving a tree to symbolize your visit. Disposing of food waste or other waste in a spot that is not a trash bin because the bin is placed too far away.

161

Done Never Activities it. done it. Separating waste and disposing of it in separate bins provided. Putting waste into a bag and disposing of it outside the national park area.

SECTION C: Knowledge of regulation

These questions are asked in order to have a better understanding of your park regulation-related knowledge. Please put a tick () in front of the statement you consider to be right and a cross () in front of the statement you consider to be wrong.

Activities Right wrong The national park makes an announcement to allow visitors to bring alcoholic beverages only during the New Year festival. Playing the guitar in the national park is allowed if it does not disturb or annoy others. In very cold weather, visitors are allowed cut dry branches or twigs in the forest to make a fire. Plastic bags, soda beverage cans, and glass bottles are not allowed to be brought into the national park. Cars with exhaust pipes with loudness exceeding 100 decibels are not allowed to enter the national park. Food containers made with tapioca starch are not allowed to be brought into the national park, and if they will be subject to fines if they violate this regulation. Visitors are allowed to collect fallen leaves as souvenirs by showing evidence to park officers. The national park allows visitors to leave food waste to the ground as food for wildlife animals.

162

Activities Right Wrong Visitors are allowed to do fishing to relax in natural water bodies in the national park. Visitors are not allowed to use fireworks or floating lanterns in the national park except for small fireworks. Visitors are not allowed to use canned gas as a fuel for cooking, and they will be subject to fines if they violate this regulation. Driving at a speed exceeding 60 km/hour is considered to be a violation of national park regulations.

SECTION D: Regulation enforcement and persuasive communication

These questions are asked to learn about your sightings of regulation enforcement measures and persuasive communication measures. Have you seen these things during your visit to the national park? Put a tick () in the box which matches your experience in the national park for each item. There are four levels of opinions, as follows: 4 = Always, 3 = Very often, 2 = Sometimes, 1 = Rarely

Frequency Statement 4 3 2 1 Regulation enforcement Clearly visible national park signs to provide information about regulations for visitors and legal sanction. Prohibition and warning signs at different spots to show what actions do not comply with regulations and show legal sanction (e.g. ―Litter is prohibited, and it is subject to a fine.”). Park officers carry out patrol at different locations where visitors carry out recreational activities.

163

Frequency Statement 4 3 2 1 Park officers give warnings to visitors who are noncompliant with park regulations. Persuasive communication Park officers declare regulations and emphasized the prohibition or give instructions to park visitors. Signs with statements which request cooperation to comply with regulations (For example, "You are in a natural area. Please help to keep clean). Signs with statement explaining the reason for the prohibition and telling the consequences in the case of regulation noncompliance (For example, “Wildlife animals may be dangerous. For your safety, please don‘t feed wildlife animals.”)

SECTION E: Legal sanction

These questions are asked in order to have a better understanding of your opinion about legal sanction measures. Put a tick () in the box which matches your opinion most closely about each statement. There are six levels of opinions, as follows: 6 = Strongly Agree, 5 = Agree, 4 = Slightly Agree, 3 = Slightly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree

Opinion level Statement 6 5 4 3 2 1 The national park regulations indicate that litter and styrofoam containers are prohibited into the park area. The violation is subject to a 500-1,000 baht fine. “You feel that the penalty is severe.”

164

Opinion level Statement 6 5 4 3 2 1 If visitors bring prohibited items, e.g. alcoholic beverages or pets into the national park. “You think that there is a chance that this is found by park officers.” In the case when any visitors do something which is against the national park regulations, e.g. littering or singing aloud. “You think that it is possible that offenders will be subject to legal sanction.” A group of park visitors litters in recreational areas and this is seen by an officer. “You think that the park officer will give them warning immediately.”

SECTION F: Perceived Regulation Legitimacy

These questions are asked in order to have a better understanding of your opinion about legitimacy of regulation. Do you agree with the statements pertaining to the regulations? Please put a tick () in the box which matches your opinion most closely about each statement. There are six levels of opinions, as follows: 6 = Strongly Agree, 5 = Agree, 4 = Slightly Agree, 3 = Slightly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree

Opinion level Statement 6 5 4 3 2 1 Visitors‘ loud noise is a small issue, so its prohibition is immoderate. Visitors should not be banned from drinking alcohol in the national park because this violates personal rights.

165

Opinion level Statement 6 5 4 3 2 1 The national park is a public area, so a pet should be allowed in the national park. Styrofoam foam boxes are daily-used items, so, there is no reason to prohibit their use in the national park. Feeding wildlife animals can be dangerous to visitors, so banning it is appropriate. The ban on using firewood, cutting wood for firewood, and making a fire prevents visitors from having fun. Engraving names on trees and rocks shows memories of the place, so there is no need to prohibit it. There are a lot of plants in the national park, so the prohibition of taking them out of the national park is not reasonable. Sorting waste before disposal is not an appropriate regulation because it causes visitors difficulty. Requesting cooperation to being waste for disposal outside of the national park is an instruction which places a burden on visitors. The ban on vehicles with a loud-noise engine and black exhaust smoke in the national park is a regulation which should be supported.

166

SECTION G: Personal Morality

These questions are asked in order to have a better understanding of your reasons for complying with the park regulations. Put a tick () in the box which matches the level of significance based on your reasons. There are six levels of opinions, as follows: 6 = Very Important, 5 = Quite important, 4 = Important, 3= Unimportant 2= Quite Unimportant 1= Very Unimportant

Importance of reasons Statement 6 5 4 3 2 1 Legal compliance While taking a rest in the national park, I won‘t pick flowers as souvenirs because I‘m aware that observing regulations is good visitors‘ obligation. I‘ll drive into the national park with a restricted speed and won‘t increase the speed to make loud noise because this is a park regulation. When I see wildlife animals, I won‘t feed them to attract them or take their photos because feeding wildlife animals is regulation noncompliance. Respect for the rights of humans and living beings in the ecosystem While taking a rest in the national park, I won‘t pick flowers as souvenirs because doing this shows no respect for nature. I‘ll drive into the national park with a restricted speed and won‘t increase the speed to make loud noise because I don‘t want to disturb wildlife animals living in natural areas. When I see wildlife animals, I won‘t feed them to attract them or take their photos because I don‘t want to be a bad role model.

167

Importance of reasons Statement 6 5 4 3 2 1 Valuing the environment While taking a rest in the national park, I won‘t pick flowers as souvenirs because I want the national park to maintain its beauty. When I see wildlife animals, I won‘t feed them to attract them or take their photos because I want them to live in a natural environment. When I see wildlife animals, I won‘t feed them to attract them or take their photos because I want them to live in a natural environment.

SECTION H: Awareness of regulation

These questions are asked in order to have a better understanding of your awareness of park regulations compliance. Put a tick () in the box which matches your opinion most closely about each statement. There are six levels of opinions, as follows: 6 = Strongly Agree, 5 = Agree, 4 = Slightly Agree, 3 = Slightly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree

Opinion level Statement 6 5 4 3 2 1 You believe that one cause of environmental issues in the national park is visitors‘ regulation noncompliance. You think that visitors‘ park regulation noncompliance has to be urgently addressed. If visitors comply with regulations, this will maintain the beauty of the environment in the national park.

168

Opinion level Statement 6 5 4 3 2 1 In the future, this national park may have environmental issues of visitors ignore regulation compliance. Visitors‘ participation in the conservation of the environment in the national park shows strict regulation compliance.

SECTION I: Media Exposure

These questions are asked in order to have a better understanding of your exposure media. Put a tick () in the box which matches your experience. There are six levels of opinions, as follows: 6 = Very frequently, 5 = Frequently, 4 = Occasionally, 3 = Rarely, 2 = Very rarely, 1 = Never

Frequency Statement 6 5 4 3 2 1 You are interested in news and information about environmental issues in national parks via different media, e.g. newspaper, magazine, journal, radio, television, film, and the Internet. You expose yourself to news and information about environmental issues in national parks via different media, e.g. newspaper, magazine, journal, radio, television, film, and the Internet. You learn about situations related to environmental issues in national parks via different media, e.g. newspaper, magazine, journal, radio, television, film, and the Internet.

169

SECTION J: Perceived Injunctive Norm

These questions are asked in order to have a better understanding of your perception of injunctive norms. Do you think most visitors in this park accept the actions as what they should do during their visit to the national park? Put a tick () in the box which matches your opinion most closely about each statement. There are six levels of opinions, as follows: 6 = Very high, 5 = High, 4 = Medium, 3 = Lowy, 2 = Very low, 1 = Negligible

Opinion level Statement 6 5 4 3 2 1 Avoiding singing, playing the guitar, or singing karaoke in natural areas. Avoiding bringing pets into the national park. Using environmentally-friendly containers instead of styrofoam containers Avoiding feeding wildlife animals or fish in water bodies. Avoiding collecting plants, insects, stones, and other things from natural areas. Avoiding writing on, or engraving, a tree or rock. Avoiding drinking all types of alcoholic beverages in the national park. Avoiding bringing non-degradable waste, e.g. plastic bags, plastic bottles, and beverage cans into the national park. Separating waste and disposing of it in separate bins provided. Bringing waste out of the national park for disposal.

170

SECTION K: Intention to Comply with Park Regulation

These questions are asked in order to have a better understanding of your intention to comply with the park regulations. In this visit to this national park, how much do you intend to comply with the regulations? Put a tick () in the box which matches your reality for each statement. There are six levels of opinions, as follows: 6 = Definitely intend, 5 = Intend, 4 = Quite intend, 3 = Quite not intend 2 = Not intend, 1 = Definitely do not intend

Intention Statement 6 5 4 3 2 1 Avoiding bringing styrofoam food containers into the national park. Avoiding bringing alcoholic beverages into the national park. Avoiding bringing a weapon into the national park Avoiding bringing insecticide or pesticide with residue into the national park. Avoiding bringing plastic bags, plastic bottles, and beverage cans into the national park. Using food containers made with natural materials. Avoiding bringing pets into the national park. Setting up a tent inside a campsite designated by the national park. Avoiding singing, opening music, playing the guitar, or singing karaoke at the campsite. Avoiding taking cooking utensils outside of the designated areas Avoiding feeding wildlife animals or fish in water bodies.

171

Intention Statement 6 5 4 3 2 1 Avoiding picking plants, insects, rocks or other things out of the national park. Avoiding writing on, or engraving, a tree or rock. Washing containers and utensils in designated areas Avoiding making loud noise along natural trails or forest areas Avoiding dried branches or twigs to make a fire at the campsite. Avoiding going off-trail hiking to get closer to natural surroundings. Avoiding leaving food waste, water bottles, and other waste in non-designated areas. Separating waste and disposing of it in separate bins provided. Bringing waste out of the national park for disposal.

SECTION L: Sociodemographic Information

1) Gender  Male  Female

2) Age...... years

3) Educational level  Elementary school  Junior high school  Senior high school  Vocational certificate  Diploma/high vocational certificate or equivalent  Bachelor‘s degree  Higher than bachelor‘s degree

172

4) Occupation  Government service  State enterprise employee  Company employee  Private business/Freelance  Farmers/livestock/fisheries  Student  Contractors  Others (Please specify)......

5) Your current address is in...... province.

173

Appendix C Item-objective congruence index

174

Appendix Table C Item-objective congruence index of the questionnaire

The IOC Index Expert Expert Expert Expert Expert Total Items Mean of 1 2 3 4 5 Score Expert Scores Regulation Compliance Behavior 1) 0 +1 +1 +1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 2) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 3) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 4) +1 +1 0 +1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 5) +1 +1 0 +1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 6) 0 +1 +1 +1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 7) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 8) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 9) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 10) 0 +1 +1 +1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 11) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 12) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 13) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 14) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 15) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 16) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 17) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 18) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 19) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 20) 0 0 +1 +1 +1 3 3/5 = 0.60 Knowledge of Regulation 1) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 2) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80

175

Appendix Table C (Continued)

The IOC Index Expert Expert Expert Expert Expert Total Items Mean of 1 2 3 4 5 Score Expert Scores 3) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 4) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 5) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 6) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 7) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 8) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 9) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 10) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 11) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 12) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 Regulation Enforcement 1) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 2) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 3) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 4) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 Persuasive Communication 1) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 2) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 3) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 Legal Sanction 1) +1 +1 +1 0 -1 4 3/5 = 0.60 2) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 3) +1 +1 +1 0 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 4) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00

176

Appendix Table C (Continued)

The IOC Index Expert Expert Expert Expert Expert Total Items Mean of 1 2 3 4 5 Score Expert Scores Regulation Legitimacy 1) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 2) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 3) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 4) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 5) +1 +1 +1 0 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 6) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 7) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 8) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 9) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 10) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 11) +1 0 +1 +1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 Personal Morality 1) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 2) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 3) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 4) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 5) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 6) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 7) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 8) +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5 5/5 = 1.00 9) +1 +1 0 +1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 Awareness of Regulation 1) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 2) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80

177

Appendix Table C (Continued)

The IOC Index Expert Expert Expert Expert Expert Total Items Mean of 1 2 3 4 5 Score Expert Scores 3) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 4) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 5) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 Media Exposure 1) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 2) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 3) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 Media Exposure 1) +1 +1 0 0 +1 3 3/5 = 0.60 2) 0 +1 +1 0 +1 3 3/5 = 0.60 3) 0 +1 +1 0 +1 3 3/5 = 0.60 Injunctive Norm 1) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 2) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 3) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 4) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 5) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 6) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 7) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 8) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 9) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80 10) +1 +1 +1 +1 0 4 4/5 = 0.80

178

Appendix Table C (Continued)

The IOC Index Expert Expert Expert Expert Expert Total Items Mean of 1 2 3 4 5 Score Expert Scores Intention to Comply with Park Regulation 1) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 2) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 3) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 4) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 5) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 6) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 7) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 8) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 9) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 10) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 11) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 12) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 13) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 14) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 15) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 16) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 17) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 18) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 19) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80 20) +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 4 4/5 = 0.80

Remark: The qualified items have the IOC equal to or greater than 0.50

179

Appendix D Cronbach‘s alpha of items

180

Appendix Table D Cronbach‘s Alpha of Items

Cronbach’s Item-Total Question Alpha if Item Correlation Deleted Regulation Enforcement (α= 0.643) Question 1 0.615 0.818 Question 2 0.607 0.820 Question 3 0.669 0.798 Question 4 0.634 0.817 Persuasive Communication (α= 0.812) Question 1 0.631 0.789 Question 2 0.596 0.651 Question 3 0.649 0.703 Legal sanction (α = 0.734) Question 1 0.587 0.774 Question 2 0.629 0.624 Question 3 0.606 0.628 Question 4 0.531 0.673 Regulation Legitimacy (α = 0.630) Question 1 0.559 0.832 Question 2 0.626 0.826 Question 3 0.630 0.826 Question 4 0.649 0.824 Question 5 0.633 0.870 Question 6 0.629 0.825 Question 7 0.745 0.815 Question 8 0.712 0.818 Question 9 0.718 0.818 Question 10 0.523 0.835 Question 11 0.505 0.869

181

Appendix Table D (Continued)

Cronbach’s Item-Total Items Alpha if Item Correlation Deleted Personal Morality (α = 0.914) Question 1 0.679 0.905 Question 2 0.691 0.904 Question 3 0.755 0.900 Question 4 0.687 0.905 Question 5 0.722 0.902 Question 6 0.676 0.906 Question 7 0.710 0.903 Question 8 0.708 0.903 Question 9 0.673 0.906 Awareness of Regulation (α = 0.874) Question 1 0.702 0.848 Question 2 0.675 0.855 Question 3 0.702 0.847 Question 4 0.704 0.847 Question 5 0.739 0.838 Media Exposure (α = 0.843) Question 1 0.723 0.769 Question 2 0.750 0.741 Question 3 0.656 0.833 Perceived Injunctive Norm (α = 0.929) Question 1 0.563 0.930 Question 2 0.695 0.923 Question 3 0.695 0.923 Question 4 0.726 0.921 Question 5 0.754 0.920

182

Appendix Table D (Continued)

Cronbach’s Item-Total Items Alpha if Item Correlation Deleted Question 6 0.764 0.919 Question 7 0.746 0.920 Question 8 0.760 0.919 Question 9 0.785 0.918 Question 10 0.751 0.920 Intention to Comply with Park Regulation (α = 0.926) Question 1 0.601 0.962 Question 2 0.686 0.961 Question 3 0.749 0.960 Question 4 0.754 0.960 Question 5 0.660 0.961 Question 6 0.591 0.962 Question 7 0.748 0.960 Question 8 0.747 0.960 Question 9 0.736 0.960 Question 10 0.811 0.959 Question 11 0.762 0.960 Question 12 0.726 0.960 Question 13 0.809 0.959 Question 14 0.780 0.959 Question 15 0.790 0.959 Question 16 0.783 0.959 Question 17 0.769 0.960 Question 18 0.768 0.960 Question 19 0.767 0.960 Question 20 0.716 0.960

183

Appendix E Testing reliability KR- 20

184

Appendix Table E1 Testing Reliability KR 20 Formula of Knowledge of Regulation

Items 2 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 81 2) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100 3) 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 7 49 4) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 49 5) 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8 64 6) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 9 91 7) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 5 25 8) 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 6 36 9) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 8 64 10) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 8 64 11) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100 12) 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 7 49 13) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 10 100 14) 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 8 64 15) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 121 16) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100 17) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100 18) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 81 19) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100 20) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 7 49 21) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 8 64 22) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 10 100 23) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 9 81 24) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 64 25) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 49 26) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 9 81 27) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8 64 28) 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 9 81 29) 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 8 64 30) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 8 64 31) 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 25

185

Appendix Table E1 (Continued)

Items 2 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 32) 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 5 25 33) 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 121 34) 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 81 35) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 144 36) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 8 64 37) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100 38) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100 39) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 7 49 40) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 9 81 41) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100 42) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 124 43) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 8 64 44) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 124 45) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 121 46) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8 64 47) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 25 48) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 121 49) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 121 50) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 81 51) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 81 52) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100 53) 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 7 49 54) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 49 55) 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8 64 56) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 9 81 57) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 5 25 58) 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 6 36 59) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 8 64 60) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 8 64 61) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100 62) 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 7 49 63) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 10 100

186

Appendix Table E1 (Continued)

Items 2 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 64) 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 8 64 65) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 121 66) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100 67) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100 68) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 81 69) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100 70) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 7 49

Total 50 27 70 64 37 28 67 54 38 63 57 50 605 5411 P 0.5 0.27 0.7 0.64 0.37 0.28 0.67 0.54 0.38 0.63 0.57 0.5 2 = 9.18 q 0.5 0.73 0.3 0.36 0.63 0.72 0.33 0.46 0.62 0.37 0.43 0.5 = 8.64 Pq 0.25 0.2 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.25 Pq=2.73

K = Number of items P = Proportion of people passing the item q = Proportion of people failing the item Pq = Proportion of people passing the item × proportion of people failing the item = Mean scores 2 = Variance of total scores

Formula KR20 =

Calculate

KR20 =

= 1.09 * 0.71 KR20 = 0.77 The value KR20 = 0.77 shows that the test has high reliability.

Appendix Table E2 Testing Reliability KR-20 of Regulation Compliance Behavior

Items No. X X2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 15 225 2) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 324 3) 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 14 196 4) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 225

5) 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 256 6) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 15 225 7) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 49 8) 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 12 144 9) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 256 10) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 256 11) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 15 225 12) 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 13 169 13) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 324 14) 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 256 15) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 361 16) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 289

187

Appendix Table E2 (Continued)

Items No. X X2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 17) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 16 256

18) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 324 19) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 324 20) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 13 169 21) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 14 196 22) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 16 256 23) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 289 24) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 14 196 25) 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 225 26) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 256 27) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 225 28) 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 16 256 29) 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 225 30) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 225 31) 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 12 144 32) 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 144

188

Appendix Table E2 (Continued)

Items No. X X2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 33) 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 361 34) 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 15 225 35) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 400 36) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 225 37) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 324 38) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 17 289 39) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 14 196 40) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 16 256 41) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 16 256 42) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 19 361 43) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 256 44) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 19 361 45) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 18 324 46) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 256 47) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 169 48) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 18 324

189

Appendix Table E2 (Continued)

Items No. X X2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 49) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 17 289 50) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 16 256 51) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 15 225 52) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 19 361 53) 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 16 256 54) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 324 55) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 400 56) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 15 225 57) 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 256 58) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 324 59) 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 15 225 60) 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 289 61) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 15 225 62) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 16 256 63) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 324 64) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 16 256

190

Appendix Table E2 (Continued)

Items No. X X2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 65) 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 361 66) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 361 67) 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 12 144 68) 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 225 69) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 400 70) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 361

Total 53 36 67 63 35 33 64 56 44 66 60 54 63 64 66 63 67 66 54 50 1124 18416

P 0.53 0.36 0.67 0.63 0.35 0.33 0.64 0.56 0.44 0.66 0.6 0.54 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.63 0.67 0.66 0.54 0.5 2 =7.35

q 0.47 0.64 0.33 0.37 0.65 0.67 0.36 0.44 0.56 0.34 0.4 0.46 0.37 0.36 0.34 0.37 0.33 0.34 0.46 0.5 = 16.05

Pq 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.25 Pq=4.67

191

192

Formula KR20 =

Calculate

KR20 =

= 1.05 * 0.57 KR20 = 0.59 The value KR20 = 0.59 shows that the test has moderate reliability

192

193

Appendix F Difficulty index testing of items

193

194

Appendix Table F Difficulty Index Testing of Knowledge of Regulation

Items No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3) 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 4) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 5) 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 6) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 8) 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 9) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 10) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 11) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 12) 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 13) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 14) 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 15) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 16) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 18) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 19) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 20) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 21) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 22) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 23) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 24) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 25) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

194

195

Appendix Table F (Continued)

Items No. I1 I2 I3 I 4 I5 I 6 I7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 27) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 28) 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 29) 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 30) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 31) 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 32) 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 33) 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 34) 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 35) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 36) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 37) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 39) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 40) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 41) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 42) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 44) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 45) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 46) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 47) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 48) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 49) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 50) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 51) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 52) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

195

196

Appendix Table F (Continued)

Items No. I1 I2 I3 I 4 I5 I 6 I7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 53) 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 54) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 55) 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 56) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 57) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 58) 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 59) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 60) 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 61) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 62) 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 63) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 64) 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 65) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 66) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 67) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 68) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 69) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 70) 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 R 50 27 70 64 37 28 67 54 38 63 57 50 R/N 0.74 0.38 1 0.91 0.52 0.4 0.95 0.77 0.54 0.9 0.81 0.71

P = Difficulty R = The number of people who answered correctly N = The total number of people

196

197

Formula

Calculate P = 0.72 The difficulty index (P) = 0.72 shows that the items is of average difficulty.

197

198

Appendix G Discrimination power testing

198

199

Appendix Table G Discrimination Power Testing of Perceived Regulation Legitimacy Sig. Items Group Mean S.D. t-test (2-tailed) 1) Visitors‘ loud noise is a small issue, 1 5.22 1.39 0.00 4.75 so its prohibition is immoderate. 2 2.63 1.89 2) Visitors should not be banned from 1 4.83 1.38 0.00 5.41 drinking alcohol in the national park 2 2.47 1.26 because this violates personal rights. 3) The national park is a public area, 1 5.22 0.87 0.00 6.97 so a pet should be allowed in the 2 2.21 1.65 national park. 4) Styrofoam foam boxes are daily- 1 4.94 1.43 0.00 3.42 used items, so, there is no reason to 2 3.10 1.82 prohibit their use in the national park. 5) The ban on using firewood, cutting 1 5.22 0.87 0.04 2.06 wood for firewood, and making a 2 4.21 1.93 fire prevents visitors from having fun. 6) Engraving names on trees and 1 5.50 0.70 0.00 9.64 rocks shows memories of the place, 2 1.94 1.43 so there is no need to prohibit it. 7) There are a lot of plants in the 1 5.50 1.20 0.00 13.79 national park, so the prohibition of taking them out of the national 2 1.31 0.47 park is not reasonable. 2 1.47 0.69

199

200

Appendix Table G (Continued)

Sig. Items Group Mean S.D. t-test (2-tailed) 8) Sorting waste before disposal is 1 5.38 1.03 0.00 13.40 not an appropriate regulation because it causes visitors difficulty. 9) Requesting cooperation to being 1 5.44 0.61 0.00 10.75 waste for disposal outside of the 2 1.94 1.26 national park is an instruction which places a burden on visitors. 10) The ban on vehicles with a loud- 1 5.66 0.59 0.00 9.23 noise engine and black exhaust 2 2.21 1.51 smoke in the national park is a regulation which should be supported.

Remark: Group 1: above percentile at 75, Group 2: below percentile at 25

200

201

Appendix H Research used for meta-analysis

201

Appendix Table H Research used in meta-analysis

Title Authors Year Published 1) The Effect of Verbal Appeal and Incentives on the Gail A. Vander Stoep 1987 Journal of Leisure Research Depreciative Behavior Among Youthful Park Visitors James H. Gramann 19:69-63 2) The Effectiveness of Selected Trailside Sign Texts in Johnson, D.R. 1992 USDA Forest Service general Deterring Off-Trail Hiking at Paradise Meadow, Mount Swearingen, T.C. technical report PNW-GTR - Rainier National Park Pacific Northwest Research Station (USA) 3) The Effect of Personality and Situational Factors on James H. Gramann 1995 Journal of Leisure Research Intended to Obey the Rules in Outdoor Recreation Areas Rhonda L. Bonifield 27:326-343 4) Predictive Model of Nonconforming Behaviors of Noppawan Tanakanjana 1996 Proceeding of the Local People in the National Park System of Thailand Glenn E. Hass FORTROP‘ 96: Tropical Forestry in the 21st Century pp.32-47 5) Participation in Park Interpretive Programs and Visitors‘ Neemedass Chandool 1997 Thesis (M.S.) Attitudes, Norms, and Behavior about Petrified Wood Virginia Polytechnic Institute Theft and State University

202

Appendix Table H (Continued)

Title Authors Year Published 6) Enforcement and Compliance with Fisheries K.Kuperan Viswanathan 1997 Proceedings of the Regulations in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines Nik Mustapha Raja Abdullah International Workshop on Indah Susilowati Fisheries Co-management Ida M. Siason pp.1-25 Cynthia Ticao 7) An Analysis of Normative Messages in Signs At Practicia L. Winter 1998 Journal of Interpretation Recreation Settings Robert B. Cialdini Research 3:39-47 8) An investigation of Factors Affecting Compliance Hatcher, A. 1998 Research Report with Fisheries Regulations Jaffry, S. University of Portsmouth Thebaud, O. Bennett, E. 9) Modeling Tour Operators‘ Voluntary Compliance Ercan Sirakaya 1998 Journal of Travel Research with Ecotourism Principles: A Behavioral Approach Robert W. Mclellan 36: 42-55

203

Appendix Table H (Continued)

Title Authors Year Published 10) Choosing to Encourage of Discourage: Perceived the Practicia L. Winter 2000 Environmental Management Effectiveness of Prescriptive Versus Proscriptive Brad J. Sagarin 26:589-594 Message Danial W. Barrett Robert B. Cialdini 11) Normative and Social Influences Affecting Aaron Hatcher 2000 Land Economics Compliance with Fishery Regulations Shabbar Jaffry 76: 448-461 Olivier Thébaud Elizabeth Bennett 12) Nonconforming Behaviors of Visitors to National Khomchedtha Charungphan 2001 Thesis (M.S.) Park: A Case Study of Erawan National Park, Kasetsart University Kanchanaburi Province 13) Comparing the Effectiveness of Interpretive and Garrett S. Duncan 2002 International of Wilderness Sanction Message for Influencing Wilderness Steven R. Martin 8:20-25 Visitors‘ s Intended Behavior 14) Tests of Perceived Risk and Attention Paying to Brenda K. Lackey 2002 Research Report Bear Safety Signs in Yosemite National Park Sam H. Ham, Troy E. Hall University of Idaho

204

Appendix Table H (Continued)

Title Authors Year Published 15) Predictive Model of Responsible Environmental Stuart Cottrell 2002 Monitoring and Behaviour: Application as a Visitor-Monitoring Tool Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas: Conference Proceedings 16) Vandalism and Nonconforming Behaviors of Nattapol Rattanapan 2003 Research Report Visitors to National Park: A Case Study of Nam Tok National Park, Wildlife and Yong National Park, Nakhon Sri Thammarat Province Plant Conservation Department 17) Conserving Manatees: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Sampreethi Aipanjiguly 2003 Conservation Biology Intentions of Boaters in Tampa Bay, Florida Susan K. Jacobson 7:1098-1105 Richard Flamm 18) Comparing the Influence of Interpretive and Sanction Martin Lowell Weiss Robbins 2005 Thesis (M.S.) Signs on Visitors‘ Attention, Knowledge, Attitudes Humboldt State University and Behavioral Intentions

205

Appendix Table H (Continued)

Title Authors Year Published 19) The Impact of Normative Message Types on Off-Trail Practicia L. Winter 2006 Journal of Interpretation Hiking Research 11: 35-52. 20) Reducing Thief of Petrified Wood at Petrified Forest Carolyn J. Winder 2006 Journal of Interpretation National Park Joseph Roggenbuck Research 5:1-18 21) Toward an Understanding of Noncompliant Behavior Robert K. Nesbitt 2006 Thesis (M.S.) in Outdoor Recreation: Linking the Theory of North Carolina State Planned Behavior to Off-Leash Dogs at William B. University Umstead State Park. 22) Factors Inﬂuencing Behavior in a Boating Speed Zone Michael G. Sorice 2007 Coastal Management Richard O. Flamm 35:357–374 Sara Mcdonald 23) The Effect of Moral and Fear Appeals on Park Karen S. Hockett, Troy E. Hall 2007 Journal of Interpretation Visitors‘ Beliefs about Feeding Wildlife Research 12:5-27

206

Appendix Table H (Continued)

Title Authors Year Published 24) Boater Compliance Behavior in Manatee John S. Jett 2007 Thesis (Ph.D.) Conservation Zones: Recreation Specialization, University of Florida Attitudes and Situational Factors 25) The Visitor Compliance with Fire Restrictions: An Sara S. Cohn 2008 Fire Social Science Research Observational Study Verbal Message and Symbolic William W. Hendricks from the Pacific Southwest Signage Deborah J. Chavez Research Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-209 26) Exploring Visitors: Using the Theory of Planned Nathan Reigner 2008 Thesis (M.S.) Behavior to Understand Visitor Behavior and Improve Virginia Polytechnic the Efficacy on Visitor Information at Haleakala Institute and State National Park University 27) An Investigation of Visitor Behaviour in Recreation and D.G. Hayes 2008 Thesis (M.S.) Tourism Settings: A case study of natural hazard Lincoln University management at the Glaciers, Westland National Park, New Zealand

207

Appendix Table H (Continued)

Title Authors Year Published 28) Visitor Response Behavior to Warning Signs in Phu Nipaporn Paisarn 2008 Thesis (M.S.) Kradueng National Park, Loei Province Kasetsart University 29) Visitors‘ Awareness and Assessment of Recreational Petra Sterl 2008 Journal for Nature Disturbance of Wildlife in the Donau-Auen National C. Brandenburg Conservation Park Arne Arnberger 16(3):135-145 30) Influencing Park Visitor Behavior: A Belief-based Michael Hughes 2009 Journal of Park and Approach Sam H. Ham Recreation Administration Terry Brown 27:38-53 31) Effects of the Presence of Ofﬁcial-Looking Alejandro, Acevedo-Gutierrez 2010 Conservation Biology Volunteers on Harassment of New Zealand Fur Seals Lisa Acevedo 25: 623–627 Laura Boren 32) Deterring Off-Trail Hiking in Protected Natural Areas: Karen Hockett 2010 Research Report Evaluating Options with Surveys and Unobtrusive Amanda Clark Virginia Polytechnic Institute Observation Yu-Fai Leung and State University Jeffrey L. Marion Logan Park

208

Appendix Table H (Continued)

Title Authors Year Published 33) How Effective are Posted Signs to Regulate Alejandro Acevedo-Gutiérrez 2010 Tourism in Marine Tourism? An Example with New Zealand Fur Seals Environment 7:39–41 34) Picking up Litter: An Application of Theory-Based Terry J. Brown 2010 Journal of Sustainable Communication to Influence Tourist Behaviour in Sam H. Ham Tourism Protected Areas Michael Hughes 18: 879–900 35) Responses toward Regulations and Recreational Hathairat Jantowat 2011 Thai Journal of Forestry User Management Measures of Visitors to Doi Noppawan Tanakanjana 30: 39-47 Suthep-Pui National Park, Chiang Mai Province Phongkhieo San Kaitpraneet 36) Why Some Forest Rules Are Obeyed and Others Sabaheta Ramcilovic-Suominen 2012 Forest Policy and Economics Violated by Farmers in Ghana: Instrumental and Christian P. Hansen 23:46–54 Normative Perspective of Forest Law Compliance 37) Motivation for Compliance with Environmental Kim Peterson 2012 Journal of Environmental Regulations Related to Forest Health Andrea Diss-Torrance Management 112:104–119

209

Appendix Table H (Continued)

Title Authors Year Published 38) Forest Law Compliance in the High-Forest Zone of Sabaheta Ramcilovic-Suominen 2012 Thesis (Ph.D.) Ghana: An analysis of forest farmers‘ livelihoods, their University of Eastern Finland forest Values, and the factors affecting law compliance behaviour 39) Good Governance in Protected Areas: An Evaluation of Paul F.J. Eagle, 2012 Journal of Sustainable Stakeholders‘ Perceptions in British Columbia and Francesc Romagosa Tourism Ontario Provincial Park Windekind C. Buteau- iFirst, 1–20 Duitschaever Mark Havitza Troy D. Glover Bonnie McCutecheon 40) Sustainable Uses of Natural Resource in Protected Noppawan Tanakanjana 2012 Research Report Areas of Recreation and Tourism Phongkhieo National Research Council of Sangsan Phumsathan Thailand Nitus Nunsong

210

Appendix Table H (Continued)

Title Authors Year Published 41) Weak Compliance Undermines the Success of No-Take Stuart J. Campbel 2012 PLoS ONE 7(11): e50074 Zones in a Large Government-Controlled Marine Andrew S. Hoey Protected Area Jeffrey Maynar Tasrif Kartawijay Joshua Cinner Nicholas A. J. Graham Andrew H. Baird 42) Forest Law Compliance in the High-Forest Zone of Sabaheta Ramcilovic-Suominen 2012 Thesis (Ph.D.) Ghana: An analysis of forest farmers‘ livelihoods, their University of Eastern Finland forest Values, and the factors affecting law compliance behaviour 43) Normative Behaviors in Recreation Settings of Thai and Apichaya Poolsawat 2013 Thesis (M.S.) Foreign Visitors to National Park: A Case Study of Kasetsart University Khao Yai National Park

211

Appendix Table H (Continued)

Title Authors Year Published 44) Boater Speed Compliance in Manatee Zones: Examining John Jett 2013 Society and Natural a Proposed Predictive Model Brijesh Thapa Resources Robert Swett 26: 95-104 45) Predicting Behavioral Intentions to Comply with Wade M. Vagias 2014 Leisure Sciences Recommended Leave No Trace Practices Robert B. Powell 00:1–19 D. Dewayne Moore Brett A. Wright 46) Marine Angling Tourist Behavior, Non-Compliance, Maria-Victoria Solstrand 2014 Tourism Management and Implications for Natural Resource Management Thomas Gressnes 45:59–70 47) Effective Interpretation of Recreational Marine Sander Diego den Haring 2014 Thesis (Ph.D.) Resource Use in the Mombasa Marine Park and James Cook University Reserve, Kenya 48) Legitimacy and Ethics or Deterrence Factors: Which are Sanaa Abusin 2014 African Journal of More Important for Compliance with Regulations Rashid Hassan Agricultural and Resource among the Artisanal Fishers of Sudan? Economics 9: 239-252

212

Appendix Table H (Continued)

Title Authors Year Published 49) Understanding Non-compliance in National Parks: Edmund Goh 2015 Thesis (Ph.D.) An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behaviour The University of Queensland 50) Local Community Perception and Attitude Towards the Israel Osunsina 2015 Journal of Agriculture and Non-Utilization of Natural Resources in Old Oyo Environment for International National Park, Oyo State, Nigeria Development 109 (2): 291-306 51) Evaluating Deterrents of Illegal Behaviour in Freya A.V. St. John 2015 Biology Conservation Conservation: Carnivore Killing in Rural Taiwan Chin-Hsuan Mai 189:86-94 Krutis J.-C. Pei 52) The Impacts of Deterrence, Social Norms and Sabaheta Ramcilovic-Suominen 2015 Forest Policy and Economics Legitimacy of Forest Rules Compliance in Ghana Graham Epstein 55:10-20 53) Drivers of Recreational Fisher Compliance in D. Lancaster 2015 Global Ecology and Temperate Marine Conservation Areas: A Study of P. Dearden Conservation Rockfish Conservation Areas in British Columbia, N.C. Ban 4: 645–657 Canada

213

Appendix Table H (Continued)

Title Authors Year Published 54) Understanding Non-compliance with Protected Kathryn D. Bisack 2015 Frontiers in Marine Science Species Regulation in Northeast USA Gillet Fishery Chhandita Das 2: 1-11 55) Influences of Social Norms, Habit and Ambivalence on Matthew Bowe 2015 Thesis (Ph.D.) Park Visitors‘ Dog Leash Compliance for Protecting University of Victoria Wildlife 56) Non-Compliance in Marine Reserves: Measuring the Nick Manning 2015 Independent Study Project Drivers of Behavior Among Recreational Fishermen James Cook University within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 57) Can Sanctions and Rewards Explain Conformance Ercan Sirakaya 2015 Journal of Sustainable Behaviour of Tour Operators with Ecotourism Muzaffer Uysal Tourism Guidelines 14: 15-22 58) Linking Ecological Condition to Enforcement of Katherine A. Kaplan 2015 Marine Policy Marine Protected Area Regulation in the Greater Gabby N. Ahmadia 62: 186-195 Caribbean Region Helen Fox, Louise Glew Emily F. Pomeranz Patrick Sullivan

214

Appendix Table H (Continued)

Title Authors Year Published 59) Developing a Conceptual Framework for the Attitude– Shova Thapa Karki 2015 Ecological Economics Intention–Behaviour Links Driving Illegal Resource Klaus Hubacek 117: 129-139 Extraction in Bardia National Park, Nepal 60) A Simple Method for Monitoring Dog Leash Yu-Fai Leung 2015 Journal of Outdoor Compliance Behavior in Parks and Natural Areas Chelsey Walden-Schreiner Recreation and Tourism Katharine Conlon 9: 11-16 Anna B. Miller 61) Lack of recreational fishing compliance may Dana Haggarty 2016 Canadian Journal of Fisheries compromise effectiveness of Rockfish Conservation Steve J. D. Martell and Aquatic Sciences Areas in British Columbia Jonathan B Shurin 73: 1587-1598 62) A New Approach to Identifying the Drivers of Alyssa S. Thomas 2016 PLoS ONE 11(10): e0163868 Regulation Compliance Using Multivariate Behavioural Taciano L. Milfont Models Michael C. Gavin

215

216

CURRICULUM VITAE

NAME: Mr. Thanakrit Sangchoey BIRTH DATE: March 6, 1978 BIRTH PLACE: Phetchaburi, Thailand EDUCATION: YEAR INSTITUTE DEGREE 2005 Kasetsart University M.S. (Park and Recreation) 2010 Ramkhamhaeng B.S. (Social Psychology) University 2007 Sukhothai Thammathirat B.A. (Hotel and Restaurant Open University Studies) 2000 Rajabhat Institute B.A. (Tourism Industry) Phetchaburi POSITION/TITLE: Assistant Professor WORKPLACE: Faculty of Management Science, Silpakorn University SCHOLARSHIP: National Research Council of Thailand (Doctoral Thesis Grant Program)

216