1. Introduction
Grouping users into specific market segments can help researchers and managers to understand and adequately respond to users’ desires. Prior typology studies using socio-demographic or geographical variables have made contributions to explain users’ distinct characteristics, but most have provided a limited understanding of outdoor recreationists’ psychological variables [
1,
2]. Considering the necessity of more detailed information to explain outdoor recreationists’ behaviors and motivation, scholars have been developing various concepts. In this regard, the concept of specialization has been used to comprehend outdoor recreationists, which includes multiple measures for behavioral, cognitive, and affective aspects of activities [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5]. Setting experience may be regarded as a component of specialization [
2]; as people become deeply absorbed in an activity, they also may have affection for a certain place that facilitates their activities. However, specialization mainly focuses on the development process of an “activity” [
5,
6,
7,
8]. Regarding “place,” studies have paid attention to the extent and intensity of place attachment. It is defined as an affective bond between users and the environment in which users become deeply absorbed in an outdoor recreation activity, and users may build affection for a certain place that facilitates their activities [
9]. Thus, despite different focuses (i.e., activity vs. place), researchers have used specialization and place attachment as useful conceptual frameworks to better understand outdoor recreationists’ behaviors and the outcomes [
7,
10,
11]. In particular, both concepts are closely related to sustainable resource management, such as sensitivity to resource and social conditions [
11,
12,
13,
14,
15] and recreation-related impact [
5], conservation involvement [
4,
6], and environmental behavior [
16,
17,
18].
Specialization includes the length of time in certain settings where a particular activity takes place [
3]. On the side of activity, place attachment measures how much a place facilitates the user’s activity [
19]. In this sense, previous studies reveal the close relationship between specialization and place attachment [
11,
20,
21,
22]. As a promising way to examine the associations between these two concepts, prior studies tried to create a typology using specialization and place attachment [
16,
17,
18]. However, there are some limitations in these typology studies. First, previous studies used summative approaches to represent each concept [
11,
20,
23]; that is, they were not able to consider variations in the different dimensions that make up both concepts. Although the conceptual model posits substantial correlations among various components of specialization [
3,
5], highly specialized people sometimes reduce their participation because of leisure constraints such as pregnancy or injury [
24]. Second, previous typology studies have used the mean or median spilt of both concepts to classify groups [
24,
25], which has been criticized because of the simplicity of method [
26,
27,
28]. Also, some typology studies were based on cluster analysis, but ambiguity on how to standardize scores for grouping has been indicated [
26,
28,
29]. This issue may be more relevant in the case of psychological measures such as specialization and place attachment [
30,
31].
In response to these methodological limitations, Kim and Song [
31] used a latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify distinct classes of hikers based on multiple dimensions of specialization. Their findings have shown diverse behavioral patterns of hiking experience, place experience, and hiking experience in a certain place. However, this study has focused on specialization dimensions, which mixes activity- and place-related measures. Thus, it would be helpful to use distinctive measures of specialization and place attachment for deeper understanding of place experience. For example, if the site setting is famous for activities other than hiking, the attachment to the place may be high but the specialization for hiking may be low. In addition, previous typology studies were exploratory and descriptive; they did not examine associations of their typologies with users’ various outcomes for practical applications [
17,
18,
24]. Thus, this study aims to expand the horizon of outdoor recreation typology by combining specialization and place attachment to distinguish hikers. In sum, the purpose of this study is (a) to explore a typology of hiker specialization and place attachment using latent profile analysis (LPA) as an improved type of clustering method; (b) to compare hikers’ socio-demographic characteristics by membership of derived typologies; and (c) to examine associations between these typologies and the outcome variables of hikers (i.e., satisfaction and intention to revisit).
4. Results
4.1. Description of Sample and Indicator Variables
A descriptive summary of the sample is shown in
Table 1. The majority of participants were female (63.8%) and the mean age of participants was 36.4 (
SD = 14.07). Most participants (83.4%) had some education beyond high school. About two-thirds of the respondents (63.8%) had an annual income under
$40,000, which is close to the median household income in Korea. Most of the respondents were repeat visitors to Jeju Island (82.4%). Although the Olle Trail is becoming popular as a national hiking spot, it was only built about seven years ago, and most people are first-time visitors (74.1%).
In this study, the typology incorporated dimensions of specialization and place attachment (see
Table 2). The theoretical conceptualization of three dimensions of specialization and two dimensions of place attachment was validated by results of the confirmatory factor analysis. As indicated by model fit indices (i.e., Chi-square = 332.60;
df = 125; RMSEA = 0.05; NFI = 0.94; CFI = .96; GFI = 0.92), the model fit was acceptable. The reliability coefficients demonstrated high internal consistency.
We also checked the outcome variables by an exploratory factor analysis. Six items of activity (hiking) satisfaction revealed a single factor, explaining 62% of the total variance. It showed high internal consistency (α = 0.73). For place satisfaction, six items formed two factors explaining 61.5% of the total variance: satisfaction with both supporting services and facilities (amenity satisfaction; α = 0.73) and satisfaction with the natural environment (nature satisfaction; α = 62).
4.2. Selection of the Latent Class Model
The model fit indices for 2 through 5-class solutions were compared (see
Table 3). Although the BIC values continued to decrease with the inclusion of additional classes, they began to level off after the 3-class solution. The Lo-Mendell-Rubin (LMR) likelihood ratio test showed that the 3-class solution was the best fit. Specifically, the
p value indicated that a 3-class solution fit the data better than a 2-class solution, whereas a 4-class solution did not fit the data better than a 3-class solution.
Standardized mean scores and raw scores for the specialization and place attachment measures are shown separately for the three classes in
Figure 1 and
Table 4. Visual inspection of the data revealed that Class 1 scored lower than Classes 2 and 3 on all measures and was labeled the “novice” group. Class 3 appeared to score higher than Classes 1 and 2 on virtually all measures and was labeled the “expert” group. Class 2 appeared to score in an intermediate range on almost all specialization measures, with relatively higher scores on the affective dimension of specialization and the two place attachment dimensions, and thus was labeled the “affection-driven” group. It should be noted that these labels were assigned based on relative differences between the classes. The greatest separation between groups was observed for the affective dimension of specialization and both dimensions of place attachment in Class 2.
In summary, the 3-class model yielded the following three classes: (a) a “novice” class in which hikers reported the lowest levels of both specialization and place attachment (38%); (b) an “affection-driven” class in which hikers reported a lower level of behavioral and cognitive specialization and higher level of affective specialization and place attachment (40%); and (c) an “expert” class in which hikers reported higher levels of both specialization and place attachment (22%), although place attachment was slightly lower than in class 2.
4.3. Characteristics of the Classes
Table 4 indicates that the three classes differed significantly on all 5 specialization-place attachment measures. Among class identification indicators, post-hoc tests revealed that the “expert” class exhibited the highest scores for all specialization dimensions, in particular, for the behavioral and cognitive dimensions. Meanwhile, among the place attachment dimensions, the “affection-driven” class displayed the greatest place identity and place dependence, but did not differ significantly from the “expert” class.
The classes differed in terms of age, gender, marital status, and education. Compared with the “novice” class, the “expert” class reported more education and were more likely to be married. In addition, the “expert” class was comprised of older hikers and more male hikers compared with the “novice” class. In particular, the “novice” class reported less satisfaction with their activity (F = 63.95, p < 0.001), the nature (F = 12.75, p < 0.001), and amenity dimensions (F = 7.03, p < 0.01) of setting satisfaction than did the “affection-driven” and “expert” classes. While there were no significant differences among the three classes for past experience with Jeju Island, we found a significant difference for past experience with the Olle Trail (2 = 11.10, p < 0.01). While all hikers showed a high intention to revisit, the “novice” class showed relatively less intention to revisit the Olle Trail than the “affection-driven” and “expert” classes (2 = 38.9, p < 0.001).
4.4. Predicting Latent Class Membership
As shown in
Figure 1 and
Table 4, the “novice” class had overall lower levels and the “expert” class had higher levels on the specialization-place attachment dimensions. Both groups also showed significant associations with the outcome variables. For the “novice” and “expert” classes, profiles in each class differed mainly in terms of quantitative levels (e.g., uniformly high or low scores across all components of the profiles). However, the “affection-driven” class was comprised of mixed levels, scoring low on behavior and cognitive specialization and high for the affective dimension of specialization and both dimensions of place attachment, and they displayed a different pattern in relation to outcomes, ranking in the middle among the three classes. This pattern of the “affection-driven” class suggests that an LPA of multiple dimensions of specialization and place attachment should result in groups of hikers with qualitatively different profiles: groups with opposite levels, as well as groups that differ in terms of overall levels (i.e., uniformly high or low). In particular, there may be an idiographic approach (i.e., discovery of a particular fact and process as distinct from general law) in the formation of different attachments to activity and place, suggesting that a person-centered approach is needed. Thus, the “affection-driven” class indicates the need to use LPA for identifying different tendencies in the profiles. We used the “affection-driven” class as the reference group.
The following individual characteristics were included as predictors of the latent classes of the specialization-place attachment typology: socio-demographic variables and hikers’ past experience with the Olle Trail. Results of the overall model predicting latent class membership from the entire set of covariates are shown in
Table 5. Marital status, education, income, and past experience with the Olle Trail were not significant predictors when included in the overall model, while gender (
p < 0.01) and age (
p < 0.01) significantly predicted specialization-place attachment latent class membership.
The estimated log-odds coefficients and the corresponding log-odds confidence intervals were converted into odds ratios.
Table 5 shows the increase in odds of membership in the “affection-driven” latent class relative to the “novice” and “expert” latent classes corresponding to a one-unit increase in the covariate. For example, as age increased, the odds of a hiker being a “novice” was over 0.7 times lower (odds ration (
OR) = 0.69), compared to an “affection-driven” hiker. Female hikers were less likely to be in the “expert” class than in the “affection-driven” class (
OR = 0.45).
4.5. Latent Class Membership and Outcomes
Table 6 shows how the latent classes are associated with satisfaction and intention to revisit, controlling for socioeconomic demographics and past experience with the setting. The regression model used dummy-coded groups of hikers. The “affection-driven” class was used as the reference group.
While some socio-economic characteristics and past experience with the Olle Trail were not significantly associated with satisfaction and intention to revisit, several covariates were significant predictors of these outcomes. First, more educated hikers were more satisfied with hiking and showed higher intention to revisit the Olle Trail. Second, respondents with higher incomes were more satisfied with nature, and older hikers were more satisfied with hiking itself.
Regarding the relationship of the latent classes to the outcome variables, the coefficients for the “novice” class were negative. Thus, compared to the “affection-driven” class, the “novices” reported less satisfaction with hiking (β = −0.68) and place (β = −0.32 for nature and β = −0.29 for amenity). In addition, the “novices” showed less intention to revisit than the “affection-driven” class (β = −1.23). Meanwhile, more educated respondents showed more intention to revisit (β = 0.30). The “expert” class showed no significant effect on satisfaction and intention to revisit, compared to the “affection-driven” class.
5. Discussion and Implications
Based on the growing attention on the segmentation of target markets through a person-centered approach, this study focused on multiple measurements of hikers’ intensity across activity and place. The purpose of this study was to identify latent profiles of hikers in Korea based on specialization and place attachment and to examine the hiking patterns of the subdivided profiles. This study employed a person-centered quantitative approach which has rarely been used in the outdoor recreation literature.
This study makes the following contributions to the literature. First, this study expands the scope of measurement in research in activity and place. Findings of this study indicate that three dimensions of specialization and two dimensions of place attachment could be fully identified into three profiles, whereas previous research partially connected individual dimensions of both concepts [
11,
23,
24]. This study, furthermore, took an individual-centered approach by using LPA, while previous studies took a more summative approach or simple dichotomized approach [
23,
25,
34,
35]. For instance, Morgan and Messenger [
23] created the specialization-place attachment typology by using the median spilt method. They assigned equal value to place and activity, thus, their typology neglected the impact of the individual dimensions of both concepts. Meanwhile, the present study found various levels of specialization-place attachment within groups, with the “affection-driven” group reporting the middle level of specialization and the highest level of place attachment, while the “novice” and “expert” groups revealed linear patterns. Considering the inherent occurrence of both activity and place in the development process, this study contributes to the current literature by using the combination of individual dimensions of specialization and place attachment.
Second, the present study revealed that LPA is an appropriate technique to capture multidimensional concepts [
31]. While previous research has heavily relied on linear regression analyses [
11,
23], the association of specialization and place attachment may not be always linear. Our findings showed that the different profiles reflected a linkage between quantitative differences in the overall level of involvement (e.g., “novice” versus “expert”) and qualitative differences in the shape of the profiles (e.g., the “experts” scored higher on the behavior dimension, whereas the “novices” and “affection-driven” group scored higher on the affective dimension). Traditionally, this difference has been assessed based on an ANOVA in which the “level” is the effect of the mean averaged over all dimensions, but the “shape” is the extent to which there are distinct profiles. Even when the LPA indicators focus on fundamental characters, LPA might be effective in offering cutoff values and prevailing rates for different categories—particularly when the emphasis is on diagnostic classifications such as in exploratory studies. When the LPA groups mirror a combination of level and shape distinctions such as in this study, LPA offers a potentially useful analysis and may compensate for the weakness of variable-centered approaches. As stressed by several researchers [
53] and verified in this study, the use of variable approaches (e.g., SEM or regression) and person-centered approaches (e.g., cluster analysis) should be seen as complementary rather than competing.
Third, the present study examined satisfaction and intention to revisit of hikers in Korea segmented by a specialization-place attachment typology. The positive impacts of the typologies on satisfaction and intention to revisit (i.e., behavior loyalty) in this study were also similar with previous studies [
39,
44,
45,
46]. Specifically, the “novice” class revealed a significant negative linear relationship between specialization-place attachment typology, satisfaction, and intention to revisit. Although activity (i.e., hiking) and setting satisfaction (i.e., nature and amenity) increased or decreased together, all hikers were most satisfied with nature itself, and this tendency was prominent in the “affection-driven” group. These results implied the importance of place attraction for activity to activity-oriented groups (i.e., hikers) as well as place-oriented groups (i.e., tourists).
Fourth, there is an attention-grabbing hiker segment that was identified by the specialization-place attachment typology. The findings of this study revealed a unique pattern of attachment relations that characterized the “affection-driven” group. Only the affective dimension of specialization in this class increased with both the place attachment dimensions and outcome variables. Considering that place attachment is defined as affection for a place, this study indicates that the affective aspects of specialization are more related to place attachment than the others of specialization. Furthermore, although there were no differences in outcomes between the “affection-driven” and “expert” groups, the “affection-driven” group showed different demographics from the “experts.” Compared to the “experts,” the “affection-drive” class was slightly younger and had a higher percentage of females (i.e., not traditional expert hikers). As the study setting, the Olle Trail, was developed primarily as a place of relaxation for women hikers, this study revealed the possibility for relieving the leisure constraints on women and developing the relatively new market for female hikers.
This study provides several managerial implications. First, the results of this study showed that highly attached hikers, the “experts,” were more educated, more likely to be repeat visitors, more satisfied, and reported higher intention to revisit than their less attached counterparts, the “novices.” Thus, hikers’ intensity for hiking and the setting may be important in distinguishing different segments within the hiking population. According to typologies of substitution alternatives by Shelby and Vaske [
54], recreationists substitute a different time period when they choose the same activity at the same setting. Likewise, the “experts” are more likely to visit at a non-crowded time such as morning/evening or weekday; thus, managers should consider giving various experiences (e.g., hiking contest, flea market, face-to-face interpretation) to this group.
Second, Bricker and Kerstetter [
10] found that highly specialized individuals were more satisfied with their experience due to their high level of knowledge. Thus, the traditional hikers’ management goals are justified by their importance to the experts. Because their participation rates and ownership to the setting are higher than those of novices, they are likely to make a higher economic and psychological contribution to the communities in which their hiking activity occurs. In this study, the experts were older, married, and male. Thus, to retain this important group, managers should continue to pursue the traditional hikers’ goals that enhance experience with more skills and knowledge (e.g., running education courses, specialized clubs, and conferences).
Third, this study also identified the profiles of each segmented class by socio-demographic characteristics and past experience with the Olle Trail of Jeju Island. The findings associated with the “novice” and “expert” groups were generally consistent with previous studies [
4,
8] that explored the positive effects of education and past experience on specialization and place attachment. In addition, the “novice” and “expert” groups of hikers differed markedly in terms of their socio-demographic characteristics. Although the Olle Trail was developed to target female hikers by offering a place of relaxation for women, and 63.8% of hikers in this study were female, the “expert” group included a relatively higher percentage of male hikers. Even though hiking has recently become increasingly popular among women, traditionally, the main participants of outdoor recreation were men [
1]. Considering the positive relation between specialization-place attachment typology and its outcomes (i.e., satisfaction, intention to revisit), the managers should also consider plans to attract not only new customers (i.e., female hikers) but also regular customers (i.e., male hikers).
The present study provides some suggestions for future research. First, specialization and place attachment were measured with various aspects of activity and setting. Researchers could extend the scope to the items that make up each dimension. Second, the validity of the specialization-place attachment typology created in this study needs to be examined. It would be worth testing other recreationists, such as bikers or walkers, and whether the typology is also applicable to hikers in other nations. Third, future research could test setting-oriented groups (i.e., tourists or residents) rather than activity-oriented groups (i.e., recreationists) to make comparisons.