Adventure Tourism: Insight from Experienced Visitors of Romanian National and Natural Parks
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pomfret, G.; Bramwell, B. The characteristics and motivational decisions of outdoor adventure tourists: A review and analysis. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 19, 1447–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ponte, J.; Couto, G.; Pimentel, P.; Oliveira, A. Tourism activities and companies in a sustainable adventure tourism destination: The Azores. Tour. Manag. Stud. 2018, 14, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huddart, D.; Stott, T. Adventure Tourism: Environmental Impacts and Management; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Dumitras, D.E.; Muresan, I.C.; Jitea, I.M.; Mihai, V.C.; Balazs, S.E.; Iancu, T. Assessing tourists’ preferences for recreational trips in national and natural parks as a premise for long-term sustainable management plans. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adventure Travel Trade Association. Adventure Tourism Development Index: An Adventure Travel Scorecard. International Institute of Tourism Studies, The George Washington University and Adventure Travel Trade Association. 2016. Available online: https://www.adventureindex.travel/docs/ATDI16-web.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2020).
- Beeton, S. Community Development through Tourism; Landlink Press: Collingwood, Australia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Dudley, N. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Borges, M.A.; Carbone, G.; Bushell, R.; Jaeger, T. Sustainable Tourism and Natural World Heritage: Priorities for Action; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Eagles, P.E.J.; McCool, S.F. Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning and Management; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Haq, S.M.A. Multi-benefits of national parks and protected areas: An integrative approach for developing countries. Environ. Socio Econ. Stud. 2016, 4, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kothari, A. Community conserved areas: Towards ecological and livelihood security. Parks 2006, 16, 3–16. [Google Scholar]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; Available online: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2021).
- Dumitras, D.E.; Muresan, I.C.; Ilea, M.; Jitea, I.M. Agritourism-A potential linkage between local communities and parks to maintain sustainability. Bull. UASVM Hortic. 2013, 70, 300–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCool, S.F.; Bosak, K. Reframing Sustainable Tourism; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hearne, R.R.; Salinas, Z.M. The use of choice experiments in the analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development in Costa Rica. J. Environ. Manag. 2002, 65, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veisten, K.; Haukeland, J.V.; Baardsen, S.; Degnes-Ødemark, H.; Grue, B. Tourist segments for new facilities in national park areas: Profiling tourists in Norway based on psychographics and demographics. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2015, 24, 486–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pantelidis, C.; tom Diek, M.C.; Jung, T.; Miller, A. Exploring Tourist Experiences of Virtual Reality in a Rural Destination: A Place Attachment Theory Perspective. e-Review of Tourism Research. 2018. Available online: https://journals.tdl.org/ertr/index.php/ertr/article/view/116 (accessed on 18 April 2021).
- Edler, D.; Keil, J.; Wiedenlübbert, T.; Sossna, M.; Kühne, O.; Disckmann, F. Immersive VR experience of redeveloped post-industrial sites: The example of “Zeche Holland” in Bochum-Wattenscheid. KN J. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. 2019, 69, 267–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, M.J.; Lee, C.-K.; Jung, T. Exploring consumer behavior in virtual reality tourism using an extended stimulus-organism-response model. J. Travel Res. 2020, 59, 69–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Büyüksalih, G.; Kan, T.; Özkan, G.E.; Meric, M.; Isin, L.; Kersten, T.P. Preserving the knowledge of the past through virtual visits: From 3D laser scanning to virtual reality visualisation at the Istanbul Çatalca İnceğiz Caves. PFG J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Geoinf. Sci. 2020, 88, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kajala, L.; Almik, A.; Dahl, R.; Diksaite, L.; Erkkonen, J.; Fredman, P.; Jensen, F.S.; Karoles, K.; Sievänen, T.; Skov-Petersen, H.; et al. Visitor Monitoring in Nature Areas–A Manual Based on Experiences from the Nordic and Baltic Countries; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: Stockholm, Sweden, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). Global Report on Adventure Tourism; AM Reports; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2014; Volume 9, Available online: https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/epdf/10.18111/9789284416622 (accessed on 20 January 2020).
- Samuelsen, R. Adventure Tourism. Master’s Thesis, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, July 2017. Available online: https://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/261862661/Adventure_tourism_31.07.17.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2020).
- Ewert, A.; Jamieson, L. Current status and future directions in the adventure tourism industry. In Managing Tourist Health and Safety in the New Millennium; Wilks, J., Stephen, J., Moore, F., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2003; pp. 87–104. [Google Scholar]
- Zeng, X.; Liu, R.; Gong, H. Motivations of adventure recreation in an emerging market: Scale development and an empirical study on mainland Chinese enthusiasts. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 23, 600–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khatri, I. New Trends in Adventure Tourism: A Lesson from 6th International Adventure Conference, 30 January–2 February 2018, Segovia, Spain. J. Tour. Adventure 2018, 1, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adventure Travel Trade Association. Adventure Tourism Development Index; George Washington University: Seattle, WA, USA, 2020; Available online: https://cdn-research.adventuretravel.biz/research/7832975982376892.2352352/atdi-report2020.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2021).
- Marcuta, L.; Marcuta, A.; Popescu, A.; Tindeche, C.; Tudor, V.; Smedescu, D. Study on the development of adventure tourism in Romania. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2020, 20, 339–345. [Google Scholar]
- Romanian National Institute of Statistics—National Institute of Statistics. Tempo-Online Time Series. Available online: http: //statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/ (accessed on 16 April 2021).
- Szabo, E.A.; Lawrence, A.; Iusan, C.; Canney, S. Participatory protected area management–A case study from Rodna Mountains National Park, Romania. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Manag. 2008, 4, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szell, A.B. Attitudes and Perceptions of Local Residents and Tourists toward the Protected Area of Retezat National Park, Romania. Master’s Thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 2012. Available online: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=masters_theses (accessed on 16 April 2021).
- Manea, G.; Orbu, L.M.; Matei, E.; Preda, M.; Vijulie, I.; Cuculici, R.; Cocos, O.; Zaharia, A. Heritage advantages vs. economic constraints in the sustainable development framing: A study on social perception in Apuseni Mountains Natural Park. Hum. Geogr. J. Stud. Res. Hum. Geogr. 2019, 13, 173–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Necheş, I.M.; Erdeli, G. Geolandscapes and geotourism: Integrating nature and culture in the Bucegi Mountains of Romania. Landsc. Res 2015, 40, 486–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Hausner, V.H.; Grodzińska-Jurczak, M.; Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A.; Olszańska, A.; Peek, B.; Rechciński, M.; Lægreid, E. Cross-cultural values and management preferences in protected areas of Norway and Poland. J. Nat. Conserv. 2015, 28, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hartel, T.; Nita, A.; Rozylowicz, L. Understanding human–nature connections through value networks: The case of ancient wood-pastures of Central Romania. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1357–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farias Torbidoni, E.I. Managing for recreational experience opportunities: The case of hikers in protected areas in Catalonia, Spain. Environ. Manag. 2011, 47, 482–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, W.H. Econometric Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Laurier, E. Owning and sharing experiences of adventure: Tourism, video and editing practices. In Mediated Geographies and Geographies of Media; Mains, S.P., Cupples, J., Lukinbeal, C., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 433–445. [Google Scholar]
- Sidi, M.A.M. A diversity of national park category: Public space for ecotourism attraction and multiple outdoor recreational experiences at Johor National Park, Malaysia. In Proceedings of the 4th Malaysian International Outdoor Recreation and Education Conference 2018 “From many to One: Sustaining Our Spirit of Recreation”, Tanjong Malim, Malaysia, 11–13 May 2018; pp. 1–6. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/275876705.pdf#page=17 (accessed on 16 April 2021).
- Beckman, E.; Whaley, J.E.; Kim, Y.K. Motivations and experiences of whitewater rafting tourists on the Ocoee River, USA. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2017, 19, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giddy, J.K.; Webb, N.L. Environmental attitudes and adventure tourism motivations. GeoJournal 2018, 83, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naidoo, P.; Ramseook-Munhurrun, P.; Seebaluck, N.V.; Janvier, S. Investigating the motivation of baby boomers for adventure tourism. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 175, 244–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schneider, P.P.; Vogt, C.A. Applying the 3M model of personality and motivation to adventure travelers. J. Travel Res. 2012, 51, 704–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, H.H. Classification of adventure travellers: Behaviour, decision making, and target markets. J. Travel Res. 2004, 42, 343–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mintel Oxygen. Adventure tourism in South Africa. September 2011. Mintel Mark. Intell. 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Adventure Travel Trade Association. Adventure Tourism Market Report 2010; George Washington University and Xola Consulting: Seattle, WA, USA, 2010; Available online: https://www.adventuretravel.biz/research/adventure-tourism-market-report-2010/ (accessed on 15 March 2021).
- Adventure Travel Trade Association. Adventure Tourism Market Study 2013; The George Washington University and Adventure Travel Trade Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; pp. 1–14. Available online: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2026&context=ttra (accessed on 15 January 2021).
- Muller, T.E.; Cleaver, M. Targeting the CANZUS baby boomer and adventure segments. J. Vacat. Mark. 2000, 6, 154–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patterson, I. Growing Older: Tourism and Leisure Behaviour of Older Adults; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- O’Connell, T.S. The effects of age, gender and level of experience on motivation to sea kayak. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2010, 10, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gavrilă-Paven, I.; Bârsan, M.C.; Dogaru, L.D. Advantages and Limits for Tourism Development in Rural Area (Case Study Ampoi and MureúValleys). Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 32, 1050–1059. [Google Scholar]
Variables | Total (N = 137) | Less Experienced (N = 59) | More Experienced (N = 78) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | % | N | % | N | % | |
Gender | ||||||
Female | 58 | 42.34 | 27 | 45.76 | 31 | 39.74 |
Male | 79 | 57.66 | 32 | 54.24 | 47 | 60.26 |
Age groups | ||||||
18–29 years | 58 | 42.33 | 31 | 52.54 | 27 | 34.62 |
30–39 years | 47 | 34.31 | 22 | 37.29 | 25 | 32.05 |
40–49 years | 21 | 15.33 | 5 | 8.48 | 16 | 20.51 |
50–68 years | 11 | 8.03 | 1 | 1.69 | 10 | 12.82 |
Education level | ||||||
High school | 37 | 27.01 | 15 | 25.42 | 22 | 28.21 |
University degree | 66 | 48.17 | 29 | 49.16 | 37 | 47.43 |
Masters/PhD degree | 34 | 24.82 | 15 | 25.42 | 19 | 24.36 |
Personal net monthly income | ||||||
Less than 1250 RON | 11 | 8.03 | 7 | 11.86 | 4 | 5.13 |
1250–2000 RON | 17 | 12.41 | 10 | 16.95 | 7 | 8.97 |
2001–3000 RON | 28 | 20.44 | 10 | 16.95 | 18 | 23.08 |
3001–4000 RON | 22 | 16.05 | 11 | 18.64 | 11 | 14.10 |
Over 4000 RON | 34 | 24.82 | 14 | 23.72 | 20 | 25.64 |
Confidential | 25 | 18.25 | 7 | 11.86 | 18 | 23.08 |
Statements | Less Experienced (N = 59) | More Experienced (N = 78) | p-Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | ||
1. Physical activity | |||||
To practice adventure sports | 3.64 | 0.14 | 4.27 | 0.11 | 0.001 ** |
To practice some kind of outdoor physical or sporting activity | 3.98 | 0.14 | 4.45 | 0.08 | 0.003 ** |
To enhance health or physical condition | 4.08 | 0.13 | 4.19 | 0.09 | 0.488 |
2. Natural environment | |||||
To get close to nature | 4.27 | 0.10 | 4.72 | 0.07 | 0.000 ** |
To enjoy the scenery | 4.41 | 0.10 | 4.69 | 0.06 | 0.013 * |
To learn more about the natural environment | 3.51 | 0.12 | 3.63 | 0.12 | 0.495 |
3. Cultural immersion | |||||
To visit a particular area | 3.32 | 0.14 | 3.47 | 0.12 | 0.410 |
To get to know new cultural places | 4.00 | 0.12 | 4.18 | 0.09 | 0.232 |
To enjoy new cultural experiences | 4.03 | 0.13 | 4.31 | 0.10 | 0.087 |
Variable | Dependent Variable: “Importance of Having the Opportunity to Practice Adventure Sports” | Dependent Variable: “Importance of Having the Opportunity to Practice Some Kind of Outdoor Physical or Sporting Activity” | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient (Std. Error) | Odds Ratio | Coefficient (Std. Error) | Odds Ratio | |
Gender (Male = 1) | 0.3957 (0.3381) | 1.4855 | −0.0913 (0.3404) | 0.9127 |
Age | −0.0374 (0.0178) * | 0.9633 | 0.0056 (0.0172) | 1.0056 |
Level of education | −0.1379 (0.2423) | 0.8712 | −0.0100 (0.2458) | 0.9047 |
Income | 0.1451 (0.1165) | 1.1562 | −0.0550 (0.1166) | 0.9465 |
Experience | 1.2744 (0.3527) ** | 3.5766 | 0.8966 (0.3533) * | 2.4514 |
Cut point 1 | −4.6035 (1.1237) | −4.8819 (1.3221) | ||
Cut point 2 | −2.3974 (0.8887) | −3.2248 (0.9711) | ||
Cut point 3 | −0.8705 (0.8516) | −1.1335 (0.8811) | ||
Cut point 4 | 0.0509 (0.8547) | 0.0693 (0.8773) | ||
Log likelihood | −169.2603 | −152.6894 | ||
LR chi-square (4) | 18.55 | 8.01 | ||
Pseudo R-squared | 0.0519 | 0.0256 |
Variable | Dependent Variable: “Importance of Having the Opportunity to Get Close to Nature” | Dependent Variable: “Importance of Having the Opportunity to Enjoy the Scenery” | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient (Std. Error) | Odds Ratio | Coefficient (Std. Error) | Odds Ratio | |
Gender (Male = 1) | 0.1169 (0.3873) | 1.1241 | −0.0663 (0.3789) | 0.9358 |
Age | 0.0391 (0.0227) | 1.0399 | 0.0045 (0.0194) | 1.0045 |
Level of education | 0.1486 (0.2771) | 1.1602 | 0.2087 (0.2743) | 1.2320 |
Income | −0.1839 (0.1347) | 0.8320 | −0.1759 (0.1316) | 0.8387 |
Experience | 1.3199 (0.3968) * | 3.7433 | 0.9074 (0.3940) * | 2.4780 |
Cut point 1 | −3.3916 (1.3789) | −4.4646 (1.3789) | ||
Cut point 2 | −0.2872 (0.9834) | −1.8595 (0.9915) | ||
Cut point 3 | 1.0544 (0.9828) | −0.1428 (0.9697) | ||
Log likelihood | −112.6843 | −113.8592 | ||
LR chi-square | 18.80 | 6.83 | ||
Pseudo R-squared | 0.0770 | 0.0291 |
Type of visitors | Not at All Satisfied | Slightly Satisfied | Moderately Satisfied | Very Satisfied | Completely Satisfied | Mean | S.D. | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
General infrastructure | ||||||||
Less experienced | 8.47% | 25.42% | 50.85% | 13.56% | 1.69% | 2.34 | 0.11 | 0.329 |
More experienced | 2.56% | 20.51% | 55.13% | 11.54% | 10.26% | 2.53 | 0.14 | |
Location of accommodation | ||||||||
Less experienced | 35.59% | 47.46% | 0.00% | 15.25% | 1.69% | 2.94 | 0.08 | 0.067 |
More experienced | 44.87% | 37.18% | 10.26% | 3.85% | 3.85% | 3.21 | 0.10 | |
Tourist information centers | ||||||||
Less experienced | 18.64% | 38.98% | 38.98% | 3.39% | 0.00% | 2.27 | 0.10 | 0.463 |
More experienced | 17.95% | 37.18% | 37.18% | 3.85% | 3.85% | 2.38 | 0.11 | |
Existing information panels | ||||||||
Less experienced | 16.95% | 40.68% | 33.90% | 8.47% | 0.00% | 2.74 | 0.11 | 0.041 * |
More experienced | 24.36% | 28.21% | 29.49% | 6.41% | 11.54% | 3.06 | 0.10 | |
Toilet facilities | ||||||||
Less experienced | 3.39% | 11.86% | 71.19% | 13.56% | 0.00% | 1.85 | 0.10 | 0.993 |
More experienced | 3.85% | 10.26% | 58.97% | 15.38% | 11.54% | 1.85 | 0.11 | |
Maintaining cleanliness | ||||||||
Less experienced | 23.73% | 33.90% | 38.98% | 3.39% | 0.00% | 2.22 | 0.11 | 0.142 |
More experienced | 39.74% | 34.62% | 17.95% | 3.85% | 3.85% | 1.97 | 0.12 |
Type of Visitors | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neither Disagree nor Agree | Agree | Strongly Agree | Mean | S.D. | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
More attractive than other forms of tourism | ||||||||
Less experienced | 1.69% | 1.69% | 11.86% | 52.54% | 32.20% | 4.12 | 0.11 | 0.005 ** |
More experienced | 0.00% | 0.00% | 8.97% | 34.62% | 56.41% | 4.47 | 0.07 | |
More interesting than other forms of tourism | ||||||||
Less experienced | 0.00% | 5.08% | 13.56% | 45.76% | 35.59% | 4.12 | 0.11 | 0.001 ** |
More experienced | 0.00% | 1.28% | 5.13% | 30.77% | 62.82% | 4.55 | 0.07 | |
More dangerous than other forms of tourism | ||||||||
Less experienced | 0.00% | 5.08% | 33.90% | 37.29% | 23.73% | 3.79 | 0.11 | 0.023 * |
More experienced | 5.13% | 12.82% | 38.46% | 24.36% | 19.23% | 3.39 | 0.12 | |
Financially more accessible than other forms of tourism | ||||||||
Less experienced | 0.00% | 11.86% | 42.37% | 37.29% | 8.47% | 3.42 | 0.10 | 0.535 |
More experienced | 6.41% | 10.26% | 43.59% | 24.36% | 15.38% | 3.32 | 0.12 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Dumitras, D.E.; Mihai, V.C.; Jitea, I.M.; Donici, D.; Muresan, I.C. Adventure Tourism: Insight from Experienced Visitors of Romanian National and Natural Parks. Societies 2021, 11, 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020041
Dumitras DE, Mihai VC, Jitea IM, Donici D, Muresan IC. Adventure Tourism: Insight from Experienced Visitors of Romanian National and Natural Parks. Societies. 2021; 11(2):41. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020041
Chicago/Turabian StyleDumitras, Diana E., Valentin C. Mihai, Ionel M. Jitea, Delia Donici, and Iulia C. Muresan. 2021. "Adventure Tourism: Insight from Experienced Visitors of Romanian National and Natural Parks" Societies 11, no. 2: 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020041
APA StyleDumitras, D. E., Mihai, V. C., Jitea, I. M., Donici, D., & Muresan, I. C. (2021). Adventure Tourism: Insight from Experienced Visitors of Romanian National and Natural Parks. Societies, 11(2), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020041