portuguese protected areas

8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas

1/27

This article was downloaded by: [85.245.166.2]On: 27 November 2011, At: 16:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Profiling the segments of visitors to

Portuguese protected areasCatarina Marques

a, Elizabeth Reis

a& Joo Menezes

b

aDepartment of Quantitative Methods, ISCTE Business School

Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon, PortugalbDepartment of Management, ISCTE Business School Lisbon

University Institute, Lisbon, Portugal

Available online: 08 Jul 2010

To cite this article: Catarina Marques, Elizabeth Reis & Joo Menezes (2010): Profiling the

segments of visitors to Portuguese protected areas, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18:8, 971-996

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.497222

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.497222http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20


2/27

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Vol. 18, No. 8, November 2010, 971996

Profiling the segments of visitors to Portuguese protected areas

Catarina Marquesa, Elizabeth Reisa and Joao Menezesb

aDepartment of Quantitative Methods, ISCTE Business School Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon,Portugal; bDepartment of Management, ISCTE Business School Lisbon University Institute,Lisbon, Portugal

(Received 22 July 2009; final version received 23 May 2010)

This study identifies the diversity of domestic visitors to Portuguese protected areas(PPA) based on benefit segmentation. The segments of PPA visitors are also comparedwith other nature-based tourist segments using some empirical benefit segmentationliterature. Data were collected by means of a self-administered questionnaire and mul-

tivariate statistics techniques (principal components, hierarchical and K-means clusteranalyses) were applied. Five distinct segments of visitors were identified based on themotivation for their visit and further characterized by the perceived importance of activ-ities, facilities and services, frequency of visit and socio-demographics. Three segmentsare nature-focused and two are focused on activities or events. Only one segment showsspecific interests and motivations associated with ecotourism and similar characteris-tics to international ecotourists; moreover, the reasons for the visit in one segment areunrelated to any of the motivations of nature-based tourism. Some implications formanagement are also described.

Keywords: tourism in protected areas; nature-based tourism; ecotourism; benefitsegmentation; visitor segment profiles

Introduction

Tourism is one of the fastest-growing economic activities and many countries now recognize

its powerful economic and social strength. This is particularly so in Portugal where internal

tourism consumption represented 10.4% of GDP in 2007 and receipts from international

tourism reached 7.4 billion euros (Instituto Nacional de Estatstica, 2008). Portugal was

ranked the 20th tourist destination in the world and received roughly 12.3 million foreign

tourists in 2007 (United Nations World Tourism Organization, 2008). While Portugals

geographical location and climate is such that most tourists are drawn by the sun and the

beach, it also enjoys great geographical, natural and cultural diversity. This has led to the

diversification of the tourism supply and increased the relative importance of other moti-vations for tourism, e.g. nature, cultural touring, business, sports and golf. The Portuguese

strategic plan for tourism identified a total of 10 priority products on which the tourism

development strategy should be based, one of which is nature-based tourism (Turismo de

Portugal [TP], 2006).

Nature-based tourism is a growing component of international tourism. Travel motivated

by the desire to enjoy, contemplate and interact with nature in Europe has increased at a

yearly average of about 7% in recent years (19972004), reaching 22 million trips in

2004 and representing approximately 9% of all recreational trips made by Europeans (TP,

Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 onlineC 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2010.497222

http://www.informaworld.com


3/27

972 C. Marques et al.

2006). Globally, nature-based tourism grew three times faster than the tourism industry as

a whole in 2004, with an increase of 1012% per year in the international market (The

International Ecotourism Society, 2006). However, the literature presents a dispersed set

of estimates (from 1.5% to 25%; Lawton, 2001a; Weaver, 2001a) given the great range of

tourist characteristics encompassed. According to Lawton (2001a) and Weaver (2001a) the

lower estimates are related to a more conservative view of this tourism sector while the

higher estimates denote a more liberal interpretation.

Nature-based tourism depends on natural outdoor environments as one of the main

attractions or settings for tourist activities (Buckley, 2000). It is a broad term for which

some subsets have appeared in the literature (Buckley, 2000, 2008; Eagles, 2001; Fennell,

2003; Newsome, Moore, & Dowling, 2002; Weaver, 2001b), such as ecotourism and nature

and adventure tourism. The distinctions between these three concepts are now discussed.

First is the ecotourism concept, which has become very popular and is one of the most

widely discussed concepts in the tourism literature in recent years. It has been defined in

many different ways and is often confused with nature tourism and sustainable tourism.

In fact, ecotourism is closer to sustainable tourism since it should be ecologically andsocioculturally sustainable, minimizing any undesirable impacts on the natural, cultural or

social environment. The ecotourism concept refers to environmentally responsible travel

to relatively undisturbed natural and cultural areas that fosters environmental education or

learning and appreciation while contributing to conservation and economic development

(Bjork, 2000; Blamey, 1997, 2001; Diamantis, 1999; Fennell, 2001, 2003; Pforr, 2001;

Sirakaya, Sasidharan, & Sonmez, 1999; Weaver, 2001a,b; Weaver & Lawton, 2007). Bjork

(2000) argues that there must also be cooperation between all stakeholders (tourists, local

communities, authorities and tourism business).

Because of the wide range of experiences that can be accommodated under the eco-

tourism definition, some authors have proposed a continuum from soft to hard, the eco-tourism spectrum, according to the nature and intensity of the interaction between the

tourist and the attraction, as well as their behaviors, motivations and attitudes (Weaver,

2001a, 2002, 2005; Weaver & Lawton, 2002). This justifies the above-mentioned variety

of estimates. According to the ecotourism spectrum framework, the two opposite poles

correspond to extreme ecotourist types: the hard and the soft ecotourist. Characteristics that

are commonly attributed to these poles have been identified by Weaver (2001a, 2002) and

Weaver and Lawton (2002). Hard ecotourists have a high level of commitment to environ-

mental issues and are supportive of enhancement sustainability. They engage in specialized

ecotourism and long trips with small groups, and prefer physically active and challenging

experiences with emphasis on the personal experience. They expect few, if any, services

and are more likely to make their own travel arrangements. In contrast, soft ecotourists

exhibit a more moderate level of environmental commitment and tend to be satisfied with

achieving steady state sustainability. They are likely to participate in ecotourism as just

one activity within a multipurpose itinerary, so their trips are often short, in larger groups,

and they expect a high level of services. They rely on travel agents and tour operators to

arrange their travel, prefer physically passive experiences and comfort and the emphasis is

put on interpretation. Not all the ecotourism definitions in the literature refer to the concept

of soft ecotourism due to the fact that the tourist motivations and the wide range of people

involved in the experience are not considered conducive to environmental sustainability

or learning outcomes (Weaver & Lawton, 2001). However, Weaver (2001c) argues that

soft ecotourism is also legitimate since the three core dimensions (nature-based, learning-focused and environmentally and socioculturally sustainable) of the ecotourism definition

are fulfilled.


4/27

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 973

The second concept of nature tourism1 refers to the observation or contemplation

of fauna, flora or landscape scenery (Buckley, 2008). Hence, it shares only some of the

ecotourism requirements: it relates to nature, its attractiveness and the visitors experience

in natural settings, whereas ecotourism also encompasses the sociocultural attractiveness.

The third concept is that of adventure tourism. The purpose of adventure tourism is

to expose individuals to experiences that often involve perceived risk or controlled danger

related with personal challenges (Morrison & Sung, 2000; Swarbrooke, Beard, Leckie, &

Promfret, 2005). However, as Weber (2001) notes, this does not necessarily involve a natural

environment or exotic settings. In fact, nature-based tourism includes adventure tourism

if the natural environment is used as the setting for adrenalin-based or outdoor sporting

activities (Buckley, 2006).

In addition to these subdivisions, different combinations have emerged for the nature-

based tourism market. Eagles (2001), for example, suggested at least four submarkets,

using a motivation-based segmentation: ecotourism, wilderness use, adventure travel and

camping. Fennell (2003) and Buckley (2000) proposed composite terms, also known by

hybrids, in an attempt to reflect the overlap which tourist products contain; for example, aproduct may contain both natural and cultural attractions as well as adventurous elements.

Buckleys (2000) classification is based on major trends in the nature-based tourism sector:

the appearance of a sector incorporating Nature, Eco- and Adventure Tourism, otherwise

known as NEAT.

The NEAT have grown mainly in and around national parks and protected areas, thus

generating increasing interest in the economics and management of these areas (Buckley,

2000). The rising number of visitors to national parks is pressuring park management

agencies to invest in park infrastructure, management and education, as a complement to

the management of the conservation of their natural resources, which is their main mission.

Consequently, park management agencies need to define management strategies to developtheir sustainable tourism, notably in marketing and operations areas. This involves looking

at the park tourism market not only as a tool for communication and dissemination of

conservation values but also as a potential source of revenue and a major management

issue.

The first step in the planning of nature-based tourism is the analysis of tourism demand

(Seaton & Bennett, 2000). Different demand requirements and expectations are critical

when defining the supply. If planners and managers acknowledged the nature-based tourism

market and the travel motivations of different segments, they would become more aware

of their implications in managing park visitors and would develop appropriate tourism

planning and marketing strategies.

Studys aim and scope

Though not one of the worlds hotspots for biodiversity, in the European context Portugal

has some interesting natural landscapes in parks, nature reserves and other areas of natural

interest. However, tourism in protected areas is still in its early stages with some limitations,

mainly in visitor facilities and services. In recent years, there has been increasing demand

for activities in nature2 but there is a lack of information on the characterization of visitors

and their motivations. As yet, Carneiro, Costa and Crompton (2006) is the only studyconducted identifying the motivations behind the decision to visit two of the most-visited

protected areas.


5/27


The structural demand for nature-based tourist experiences in Portugal is almost ex-

clusively domestic (96%) (TP, 2006); it has developed in a somewhat dispersed manner

despite its already important economic impacts at the local level. Most foreign visitors

travel to Portugal for other reasons and are only attracted to the practice of some kind of

nature-based tourism experience once in the country (secondary demand) (TP, 2006).

The current research shows the need for the segmentation and characterization of the

domestic market of Portuguese protected areas (PPA). This is an important instrument to

identify target markets, set up added value products without losing sight of conservation

priorities and also to define marketing and communication strategies. It is a first step in the

structuring of the tourism supply in PPA, i.e. the service development strategy that will also

be offered to the international market. In short, the aim of the present study is to provide

structured information on the characterization of demand by addressing the following key

research questions:

(1) What are the actual PPA market segments? What is the profile of each segment? What

motivates each group to visit protected areas?

This paper strives to identify and understand the diversity of domestic visitors to PPA

based on benefit segmentation. In particular, a profile will be made of visitor segments in

an attempt to understand their motivations and the importance they give to aspects such as

activities, facilities and services.

(2) Are any of the segments of visitors looking for contact with nature linked to a specific

activity, e.g. adventure sports and/or activities that require a high degree of concentra-

tion or awareness?

The main interests and motivations of these visitors are clearly associated with nature-

based tourism. These individuals are normally able to adapt their behavior to the fact that

they are in a protected area.

(3) What similarities are found in the literature between segments of PPA visitors and those

of nature-based tourists? Do they have common profiles? Are any segments of PPA

visitors composed of ecotourists as in other nature-based international markets?

Segments of PPA visitors are also compared with those of other nature-based tourists

based on the examination of the empirical benefit segmentation literature, and segments ofPPA visitors are identified with international ecotourist characteristics. These insights into

the characteristics of potential foreign visitors to PPA will help structure the PPA tourism

supply accordingly. The PPA not only have natural and cultural attractions but may also

contain adventurous elements and activities. Therefore, all nature-based tourism subsectors

under the title of NEAT will be used in this comparison. Additionally, some comments

about the extent to which PPA visitor segments support the hardsoft ecotourism spectrum

framework will be noted.

This paper is structured as follows. The next section characterizes the PPA network and

describes both the background to tourism in PPA and potential activities in these areas. The

literature on nature-based tourism segmentation is reviewed in the subsequent section, andemphasis is given to benefit segmentation. The methodological approach is then described,

and the subsequent section contains a detailed description of the statistical analysis and


6/27


the results obtained. Discussions of the results and conclusions are presented in the final

section.

BackgroundThe Portuguese protected areas network

Portugal has an extensive network of protected areas with natural characteristics of very

sensitive biodiversity and great cultural wealth. The network plays a crucial role in nature

conservation and aims to assure the economic sustainability of the local populations.

The number of protected areas in Portugal has increased significantly in the last decade.

Nowadays, the PPA network corresponds to about 667,027 ha, incorporating a national

park, 13 natural parks, 9 natural reserves, 5 natural monuments, 2 protected landscapes and

10 classified sites. There are also four protected landscapes of regional interest, and two

marine parks have recently been created inside two protected areas. Moreover, 29 sites have

been classified in the Natura 2000 Network as Special Protection Areas under the BirdsDirective together with 60 sites designated under both the Birds and Habitats Directives.

In all, the terrestrial areas classified under the Natura 2000 Network and the PPA network

correspond to approximately 21.3% of the Portuguese continental surface area (Instituto

do Ambiente, 2005).

Most protected areas fall into the category of natural parks, which is the most common

form of protection in southern European countries (e.g. France, Italy and Spain) due to their

specific characteristics: parks embracing living areas, working landscapes and urban areas,

closely reflecting the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected

landscape category (category V; IUCN, 2003). Other PPA of national interest are national

parks, natural reserves and natural monuments.3

Within each Portuguese protected area, the land use plan sets out a number of protection

levels according to the natural characteristics and respective levels of conservation in their

different zones. These levels vary from total protection to complementary protection zones

that can sustain heavier use. Consequently, each Portuguese protected area can have different

types of visitors in line with the zones varying protection levels. For example, whereas

both the Peneda-Geres National Park and the natural reserves have significant surface areas

with total protection classification, these zones cover much smaller areas in natural parks.

In this context, Lawton (2001b) discusses the compatibility of different forms of tourism

and ecotourism within the different protected area categories proposed by the IUCN.

The Peneda-Geres National Park signed the EUROPARCs European Charter for Sus-

tainable Tourism in Protected Areas in 2002, along with the Serra de S. Mamede NaturalPark. Nowadays, another three natural parks are currently candidates in the Charter Process.

In addition to this certification, the national park has belonged to the WWF PAN Parks

Network since May 2008.

The advent of tourism in Portuguese protected areas

Leisure habits in Portugal have been evolving in part not only due to economic, political and

social changes in Portuguese society in recent decades but also due to growing concerns

about environmental issues. There has been a significant rise in the number of domestic

visitors to natural and rural spaces for tourism and recreation, and to protected areas inparticular. People travel daily and at weekends to areas of ecological interest or withbeautiful

landscapes to engage in activities or enjoy a singular leisure experience. At the same time,


7/27


local communities have begun to realize the economic benefits of using protected areas as

a source of revenue given the economic value of tourism in these areas.

The perception of the emergent demand for protected areas as tourist destinations

together with the pressure on the increasing use of preserved spaces by nature-based com-

panies have compelled the Portuguese Government to set rules and restrictions for tourism

in protected areas while also promoting forms of visitor occupation that contribute to local

development, e.g. offering recreation and leisure activities compatible with the conservation

objectives and the resident populations lifestyle. As a consequence, the National Program

of Nature Tourism (NPNT)4 was created in 1998 exclusively to develop sustainable tourism

in protected areas in accordance with some of the main international recommendations.

This program is built on a strategy that articulates tourism and environment by promoting

the integration and sustainability of nature conservation, local development, the qualifica-

tion of the tourism offer and the diversification of tourism activity (Resolucao de Conselho

de Ministros, 1998). Specific legislation (Decree Law 47/99) was also approved to define

the concept.

It should be noted that the preservation of natural values is required for tourism in pro-tected areas; this is also vital to the sector as conserving nature and landscapes contributes

decisively to both Portugals image and the increased value of the tourism supply itself

(Institute of the Nature Conservation, 2002).

Activities in protected areas

The activities that can be carried out in PPA were specified by the NPNT and categorized

into three types: environmental interpretation, nature-based sports and recreational activi-

ties. Environmental interpretation activities provide visitors with not only general knowl-

edge of the protected areas heritage in interpretation centers and/or through observationin loco of geological formations, flora, fauna and their habitats but also an understanding

of aspects related to the local communities and their lifestyles. Activities such as exhi-

bitions, conferences and environmental education courses are included in this category.

Nature-based sports activities are practiced in contact with nature but without damag-

ing nature conservation. This category also includes adventure sports and outdoor games.

Examples of accepted adventure sports are hiking, mountaineering, rock climbing, ori-

enteering, caving, mountain biking, ballooning, paragliding, hang gliding, diving, sailing,

surfing, windsurfing, hydrospeed, rafting, rowing and canoeing. Recreational activities are

those included in the leisure time occupation of tourists and visitors. Recreation enables

the tourism supply to be diversified, integrating these activities with other resources ofprotected areas, such as gastronomy, arts and crafts and exhibitions of local communities

products and traditions. Religious and ethnographic events, thematic tours, shows and other

cultural activities all belong to this category.

The Governmental Agency for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity, ICNB5

(hereafter also referred to as the PPA management agency because it cares for the Portuguese

national protected areas), is responsible for promoting and developing environmental inter-

pretation activities and also for licensing private operators to develop nature-based tourism

activities (nature-based sports and recreational activities) in accordance with Portuguese

legislation.

The supply of activities in each PPA depends on its natural attractions as well as ondemand from visitors. Only environmental interpretation activities are available in all of

them as they are offered by the ICNB.


8/27


Benefit segmentation in nature-based tourism

According to Weinstein (1994), segmentation is the process of partitioning markets into

smaller and more homogeneous components or segments with similar needs, motivations

and/or characteristics and that are likely to exhibit similar behavior, in order to adapt the

marketing policy to each or some of the segments. Markets can be segmented in a varietyof ways based on physical or behavioral attributes. Physical attributes regularly used in

segmentation include socio-demographic characteristics and geography, while behavioral

attributes include psychographics, product usage, benefits and perceptions or preferences.

The choice of segmentation base depends on the purpose of the study as well as the market

in question (Wedel & Kamakura, 2000).

Benefit segmentation examines consumer purchase motivations and is linked to the

consumer behavior field of marketing (Weinstein, 1994). Haley (1968) first introduced this

approach based on the idea that the benefits people seek in consuming a product are the

basic reasons for the heterogeneity in their choice of behavior, and thus for the existence of

market segments. Palacio and McCool (1997) argue that it is an important tool in product

development, as it defines their attributes and helps enhance product strengths and overcome

weaknesses. In the tourism market, benefit segmentation means attempting to establish how

the tourist benefits from a trip and the services necessary to support this (Seaton & Bennett,

2000); it is a way of identifying a cognitivenormative tourist typology (Murphy, 1985).

A few studies have been published on the segmentation of the nature-based tourism

market using motivation and expected benefits. Palacio and McCool (1997) identified

four distinct segments of Belize visitors based on the perceived benefits of nature-based

experiences: Ecotourists, Nature Escapists, Comfortable Naturalists and Passive Players.

They found that Ecotourists and Nature Escapists had similar levels of activity participation

but differed in terms of socio-demographic and trip characteristics. The social dimension

was also differentiated by Ecotourists, who gave great importance to sharing recreationalexperiences with friends and family. Like the latter two segments, Comfortable Naturalists

were also interested in learning about nature and escaping from everyday life, but to a

moderate degree. Passive Players arrived in Belize in large groups, reported the highest

ages and had little interest in any of the benefit domains; they indicated that the reasons for

their visit were unrelated to the Belize nature-based experiences.

Bricker and Kerstetter (2002) defined four segments of tourists who made the decision to

participate in a nature-based tour in the Fiji Islands. They are labeled Eco-Family Travelers,

Culture Buffs, Ecotourists and Eclectic Travelers. The segment differences are based on

a variety of factors, including tour satisfaction and their motivation for engaging in an

ecotourism experience. With the exception of Culture Buffs, tourists consistently rated theenvironmental and sociocultural aspects of the experience as important. Moreover, Eco-

Family Travelers placed importance on being with family and/or friends; Culture Buffs

identified the sociocultural as the only important domain, and all motives were important

to Eclectic Travelers.

Weaver and Lawton (2002) identified three distinct groups among the overnight guests

of two ecolodges in an Australian park based on the authors purported characteristics

of hard and soft ecotourism. Results supported the existence of distinctive hard and soft

ecotourist market segments, corroborating the fact that there is a softhard continuum

spectrum in the ecotourism market. Additionally, they identified a large anddistinctive group

of Structured Ecotourists who combined hard and soft characteristics. These Structured

Ecotourists resemble the Harder Ecotourists in terms of their environmental and ecotourism-

related behavior and attitudes, whereas they resemble the Softer Ecotourists in factors


9/27


such as multipurpose and short trips, larger groups, services expected and emphasis on

interpretation. Weaver (2002) complemented the latter research by examining the Harder

Ecotourists and determining how they differed from the other ecotourists sampled, i.e.

Softer Ecotourists and Structured Ecotourists.

Kerstetter, Hou and Lin (2004) identified three segments among the ecotourists in

the coastal wetlands in Taiwan based on the motivations for their visit, and they labeled

them Experience-tourists, Learning-tourists and Ecotourists. A behavioral profile was then

made for each segment. The Ecotourist segment included those who most valued mixed

educational and holistic benefits associated with the natural experience. They were the most

likely to say they would support local initiatives, but they did not perceive sustainability

of local resources as their responsibility. The remaining individuals were more interested

in experiencing or learning about the environment rather than engaging in sustainable

activities/behaviors. In particular, Experience-tourists did not express any support for, or

exhibit, environmental-friendly behavior, and were the most likely to be visiting natural

resources purely for adventure.

When the above nature-based tourist markets are compared, it is observed that notall the nature-based tourists may be classified as ecotourists, even though they have been

sampled in well-known ecotourism settings in all these studies. This confirms the trend in

the tourism literature to classify all visitors to nature-based sites as ecotourists, as Ryan,

Hughes and Chirgwin (2000) and Palacio and McCool (1997) have noted, perhaps as a

result of the varied definitions of ecotourism. Only Kerstetter et al. (2004) found segments

in all nature-based tourist subsectors of the term NEAT, i.e. nature, eco- or adventure

tourists.

The current study focuses on the segmentation of domestic visitors to PPA based on the

motivations for their visit. Visitor segments are also profiled according to the importance

given to park activities, facilities and services, frequency of visits and socio-demographics;and they are compared to those identified in the benefit segmentation literature. Two com-

parisons are made with the PPA segments: the first is based on the classification of the

nature-based tourist markets (in nature, eco- or adventure tourists) and on other tourist

typologies presented in the literature review; the second is based on their interest in nature

and adventure.

Methodological approach

Sampling and questionnaire

This study used a survey approach based on a self-administered questionnaire. The target

population included those living in the Portuguese mainland aged 15 to 75 years, with

economic consumption ability to visit PPA and purchase PPA services. To select poten-

tial participants with this profile, specific Portuguese regions were chosen using a number

of criteria, mainly from available socioeconomic statistics for NUTS III6 such as income

distribution, purchasing power, educational level, concentration of resident urban popu-

lation and access to information. Given the time and financial restrictions to conduct the

survey, population density and resident population were also considered, thus avoiding

regions with great geographical dispersion and a small expected number of interviews

respectively.

The questionnaire was partitioned into five sections measuring aspects such as socio-demographic characteristics and psychographics, occupation of leisure time and travel

habits, environmental attitudes and several aspects of the PPA characteristics (peoples


10/27


perceptions of the biological, cultural and economic importance of the PPA and the im-

age they have of them). Respondents who are regular visitors were requested to answer

some questions about the parks they visited, their motivations, the level of satisfaction and

the importance they assign to several aspects such as park facilities, activities and services.

The questionnaire was long (approximately 50 questions over 6 pages) and the time to

answer was 20 minutes on average.

After pre-testing procedures, a non-probability sampling method, quota sampling, was

adopted. This method is often used for targeting the general population in market research

studies when no sampling frame, i.e. an exhaustive list of the population members, is

available. The strata were defined by region (categories of NUTS III), age groups and

gender and the quotas considered proportionally to the population distribution (Instituto

Nacional de Estatstica, 2002). A cross stratification was used where each selected element

must simultaneously fulfill the three criteria. To avoid bias resulting from the interviewers

subjective choice, they were also asked to diversify respondents characteristics in terms

of place (questionnaires were delivered in public places, e.g. coffee shops, shopping malls

and public gardens, and in cultural places such as libraries), day and time of contact,education level and profession. To guarantee the survey quality and reduce costs, a survey

coordinator traveled all over the country to train interviewers and manage the survey. Most

of the interviewers were students recruited from local universities and polytechnic institutes.

The questionnaire was self-administered and delivered by the interviewer (who ex-

plained the survey objectives and the questionnaire structure), and collected a few days

later. This approach was used to motivate respondents to answer more accurately and,

therefore, to increase data quality. The survey took place between April and June 2005. A

total of 779 valid responses were obtained with a response rate corresponding to approxi-

mately 30% of the total delivered questionnaires.

Standard social-demographic variables were used to assess the quality of the sample.The quotas obtained were compared to the population distribution and no significant differ-

ences were found for the distributions of control variables region, age groups and gender

indicative of a representative sample for those characteristics.7 However, the sample dis-

tribution of the highest level of education variable differs from the population distribution

as a result of the difficulty in getting answers from those with lower academic qualifications.

Higher-qualified individuals were much more motivated to collaborate.8 To analyze this

bias and its impact on visitor profiles, post-survey weighting was applied and comparisons

were made to non-weighted estimates for several variables measuring opinions, attitudes

and behaviors, based on the mean square error criteria (Kish, 1992). As results showed

non-significant differences between weighted and non-weighted estimates, the latter was

used throughout this statistical analysis.

Segmentation process

Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on the motivation statements, followed

by a cluster analysis of the individuals principal components (PC) scores to achieve visitor

segmentation. The segments obtained were then named according to the motivations and

profiled in terms of activity preferences, importance given to park facilities and services,

frequency of visit and socio-demographics.9

Principal component analysesPCA was used for data reduction purposes. Three groups of variables10 visit motives,

activity preferences and the perceived importance of facilities and services were reduced


11/27


to a smaller number of composite variables, dimensions or PC. Several criteria were used

when deciding the number of PC to extract, in particular: (1) the latent root criterion of

retaining PC with eigenvalues greater than 1.0; (2) the scree plot indicating the suitable

number of PC that can be extracted before the amount of explained variance becomes

too small; and (3) the percentage of variance explained criterion that considers solutions

accounting for at least 60% of the total variance as satisfactory. The selected solution

assures that all variables have high loadings only on a single factor; all communalities are

greater than 0.5 and there is no variable that cross-loads, i.e. loads highly on two or more

PC (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2005). In addition, the reliability coefficient

to assess the consistency of each dimension, the Cronbachs alpha coefficient, is greater

than 0.6 for all dimensions. PC loadings were used to identify the underlying meaning of

each dimension.

Prior to PCA, a set of measures indicates that the original variables meet the fundamental

requirements for PCA: (1) a significant Bartletts test of sphericity indicating significant

correlations among variables; (2) both overall measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) and

the MSA value for each variable exceeding the threshold value of 0.5 to identify correlationpatterns between variables; and (3) the number of partial correlations over 0.5 should be

minimal, signifying that two variables are not correlated with a larger number of other

variables in the analysis.

Cluster analysis

The clustering process combined a hierarchical method with a nonhierarchical method, the

Ward and K-means methods, respectively, to increase the validity of the chosen solution

(Reis, 2000). The number of clusters was decided after hierarchical clustering with the

Ward method, after which the K-means method was used to develop an optimal individ-ual allocation within each cluster.11 The squared Euclidean distance was chosen as the

dissimilarity measure.

The clustering variables were examinedfor each cluster to assign a name which describes

its nature. One-way ANOVA or KruskalWallis tests12 and chi-square goodness-of-fit tests

were used to evaluate differences between groups, both to assess predictive validity and to

profile the clusters.13

Analysis and results

Visitors socio-demographic characteristics

Of the 779 respondents, 401 are visitors to protected areas, i.e. individuals who visit

protected areas one or more times per year. Most visitors go to PPA once a year and only

15% are considered regular visitors (Table 1).

The distribution of visitors and non-visitors socio-demographic characteristics is pre-

sented in Table 2.

The results show significant differences between visitors and non-visitors, summarized

as follows: (1) A total of 53% of visitors are female. This percentage is similar within the

group of non-visitors. (2) The age distribution of visitors shows a young adult profile as

the majority range from 25 to 44 years. Non-visitors present a slightly younger and older

distribution, with higher percentages of respondents aged under 25 or over 44 years. (3)

This sample shows a high educational level, as already noted, and is even higher within thevisitor group. (4) Three quarters of visitors are employed and only 16% are students; the

non-visitor group includes a higher proportion of students, retired people and housewives.

(5) Approximately two thirds of visitors have a net monthly household income of over


12/27


Table 1. Frequency of visits.

%

Sometimes (once a year) 63.3Often (two or three times per year) 21.9

Regularly (more than three times per year) 14.7Total 100.0

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics.

Visitors (%) Non-visitors (%) Pearson chi-square

SexFemale 52.9 54.0Male 47.1 46.0 0.095

Age groups1519 years 7.2 11.6

2024 years 12.2 15.32534 years 30.9 20.63544 years 22.2 18.04559 years 21.9 23.360 or more years 5.5 11.1 22.714

Highest level of educationUp to primary school completed 6.2 15.3 Ninth grade completed 15.5 18.3Secondary school completed 29.9 32.0BA/B.Sc. 8.5 7.4Higher education 39.9 27.0 27.723

Living with

Other adults 53.3 59.5Other adults and children 39.9 30.4Other 6.8 10.2 8.881

Do you have a car?Yes 84.1 69.9 No 15.9 30.1 21.532

OccupationEmployed 75.2 63.4Student 16.2 21.7Other 8.6 14.9 19.672

Net household income (monthly)400 euros 6.2 9.9

4011000 euros 28.

9 39.

510012000 euros 36.4 27.220013500 euros 19.0 16.7>3500 euros 9.5 6.8 15.264

Region (NUTS III)Cavado 6.0 2.4Ave 7.5 12.4Greater Oporto 15.7 17.7Tamega 4.2 9.3Baixo Vouga 4.5 4.5Baixo Mondego 4.7 4.2Pinhal Litoral 3.5 1.3Oeste 6.2 5.3

Greater Lisbon 30.4 24.3Setubal Peninsula 10.0 12.2Algarve 7.2 6.3 26.470

Significant at the 0.01 level; significant at the 0.05 level.


13/27


1000 euros; half of non-visitors are in the lower income brackets. (6) A total of 56% of

visitors live in the urban regions of Greater Lisbon, Greater Oporto and Set ubal Peninsula;

this percentage is approximately the same for the non-visitor group (54%). However, less

populated and more rural regions present significant differences. The percentage of visitors

in regions with a protected area nearby is higher, indicating that proximity to a protected

area might influence the number of visits. (7) More than half the visitors live with other

adults and 40% live with adults and children, a slightly different distribution from the one

shown by the non-visitor group. The percentage of visitors owning a car is 84%, while that

of non-visitors is 70%.

Visitor segmentation

A set of 23 motives was used as the basis to segment visitors. PCA was applied to find the

underlying motivation dimensions. Two variables, Health reasons and Environmental

education, were excluded from the PCA; the former was excluded because it had the lowest

number of significant correlations with any other variables resulting in a one-variable PC;by contrast, the latter had the highest number of significant correlations ensuing in high

loadings in several PC.

Seven dimensions were identified that explain 66.8% of total variance. The selected

solution was assessed by varimax rotation. The PC were named as follows: participation

in traditional events, enjoyment of nature, sports, social influence, personal ful-

fillment, proximity and convenience and participation in planned events. Results are

shown in Table 3.

Table 3. PCA results of motivations for visiting a PPA.a

Principal Cronbachscomponents Variables Loadings Variance (%) alpha

Participation intraditionalevents

Visit to arts and crafts fairs 0.827 12.7 0.762Participation in religious festivals 0.782Participation in traditional games 0.718Regional gastronomy 0.545

Enjoyment ofnature

Observing fauna and flora 0.798 12.5 0.740Enjoyment of contact with nature 0.737Personal, physical and mental

harmony0.711

Physical wellbeing 0.527

Photography 0.524Sports Adventure sports (active tourism) 0.836 9.8 0.773

Participation in competitive sports 0.778Social influence As a result of family participation 0.823 8.6 0.641

As a result of friends/colleaguesparticipation

0.748

Social contact with friends/family 0.585Personal

fulfillmentA lifestyle 0.791 8.3 0.613Gives the appearance of good taste 0.665Cultural fulfillment 0.562

Proximity andconvenience

Close to residence 0.906 8.1 0.788Close to holiday location 0.852

Participation inplanned events Participation in corporate events 0.602 6.8 0.686Participation in cultural events 0.560

a Bartletts test of sphericity is statistically significant at the 0.01 level; KMO value of 0.790.


14/27


The previous seven dimensions, together with the standardized variables of Health rea-

sons and Environmental education, were then used as clustering variables. The inclusion

of these two variables is justified due to their importance as visit motivation to PPA. Con-

cerning the former, the practice of going on holiday to a thermal spa specifically for health

reasons is a long-standing tradition in Portuguese society. Thermal spas were built in places

of profuse mineral water attributed with healing properties. These sanctuaries of wellbeing

are peaceful retreats offering close contact with nature which are now increasingly used in

treatments known to be effective in overcoming stress and fatigue. Regarding the latter, PPA

are ideal places for implementing programs for Environmental Education as they represent

real living laboratories. Direct contact with the natural and cultural heritage, together with

the communication of concepts relating to nature conservation and biodiversity, can bring

new human values that contribute to conservation and the exercise of citizenship in the

environmental context.

Two alternative clustered solutions (with four and five clusters) were identified from

the results of the hierarchical analysis and then profiled to inspect for the distinguishable

characteristics in each cluster. Differences between the two solutions were large enoughacross the set of clustering variables to justify the choice of the five-cluster solution, which

was retained to use as the initial solution in the non-hierarchical analysis; the correspondence

to the segments proposed by practical experience was also better assessed by this solution.

Results reveal the existence of five distinct clusters of visitors to PPA that are quite

different in size, ranging from 49 to 125 members (Table 4). The fourth cluster is the

biggest, accounting for 31% of visitors.

Segments are now labeled according to the clusters mean scores (Figure 1).

Segment 1 (19% of visitors) was named Self-centered Visitors because it comprises

those visitors motivated by personal fulfilment aspects and nature enjoyment, regardless of

the distance covered. They are the least influenced by visits of family or friends and theydo not visit parks for health reasons, environmental education or sports or to participate in

traditional events. In short, these individuals enjoy nature so as to feel well or self-fulfilled.

Segment 2 (about 25% of all visitors), named Occasional Visitors, gives more impor-

tance to almost all motivation dimensions. However, their visits are restricted by proximity.

These visitors are motivated by sports activities and participation in traditional and planned

events. Natural environment and scenery is much less appreciated. These are visitors who

look for some event or activity performed nearby.

Segment 3 (13%) visit nearby parks influenced by family and friends and to enjoy the

contact with nature. These visitors give the least importance to personal fulfillment, health

aspects, traditional events and environmental education. Since they visit protected areas as

an escape so as to relax and be with family and friends, this segment was labeled Urban

Visitors.

Table 4. Segment size.

Frequency %

Segments1 77 19.22 97 24.23 53 13.2

4 125 31.25 49 12.2

Total 401 100.0


15/27


Figure 1. Distribution of the mean factor scores by segment.

The fourth segment (the largest, accounting for 31% of total visitors) is labeled Ex-

cursionists and includes those who visit parks influenced by family and friends and to

achieve personal fulfilment. They also show interest in traditional events but they are

the ones who enjoy nature the least. These individuals visit protected areas so as to feel

active.

Members of the fifth segment are motivated by the enjoyment of the natural environ-

ment and scenery. They also visit parks for health reasons, environmental education and

personal fulfilment and as a result of their friends and family visits since they are the

most influenced by others. They are willing to travel large distances to reach the parks as

they scored low in the proximity dimension, finding it of least importance. Due to their

interest in the natural environment and the high scores for influence of family/friends, this

segment was labeled Sociable Naturalists. This is the smallest group with only 12% of

visitors.These five segments exhibit their main motivation: the Self-centered Visitors, Urban

Visitors and Sociable Naturalists are clearly committed to the natural environment;

the Occasional Visitors and also the Sociable Naturalists are focused on activities or

events. Only the Excursionists visit for reasons unrelated to any of the motivations of

nature-based tourism.

Segment characteristics

Another two PCAs were applied to find the underlying dimensions of the variables of

activity preferences and the importance of facilities and services. PCA results are shownin Tables 5 and 6. The three dimensions identified for the activities, named Recreational

Events/Activities, Environmental Interpretation Activities and Sport and Organized


16/27


Table 5. PCA results for protected area activities.a


Recreational Activities related to gastronomy 0.820 29.4 0.851

events/activities Traditional games 0.790Religious festivals 0.744Art and craft fairs 0.712Shows/cultural activities 0.577

Environmentalinterpretationactivities

School activities about nature 0.839 18.6 0.751Environmental education courses 0.718Photographic activities 0.602

Sports andorganizedactivities

Organized treks with guide 0.741 17.0 0.646Radical sports 0.734Exhibitions/lectures/conferences 0.616

a Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization; 65.0% of variance explained; Bartletts test of sphericity

is statistically significant at the 0.01 level; KMO value of 0.892.

Activities, are analogous although not exactly equal to the NPNT classification. For the

facilities and services variables, six dimensions were identified: Accommodation and Food

Facilities, Information and Services, Observation and Study Sites, Basic Facilities,

Reception Facilities and Child Support Services.

Table 6. PCA results for perceived importance of facilities and services.a


Facilities for Camp sites 0.829 13.4 0.811accommodationand food

Picnic sites 0.786Accommodation 0.704Restaurants/cafes 0.667

Information andservices

Availability of charts, maps andinformation

0.771 13.0 0.792

Park rangers 0.737Information signposts about nature,

historical and cultural sites to visit0.628

Organized and signposted trails 0.596

Maintenance 0.524Observation and

study sitesObservatories 0.846 12.8 0.835Viewpoints 0.805Local museums 0.741Interpretation centers 0.535

Basic facilities WC 0.818 12.1 0.793Medical posts 0.723Recycle bins 0.698Security 0.540

Receptionfacilities

Information centers 0.778 9.8 0.694Car park 0.727

Child support

services

People who take care of children 0.783 7.7 0.714

Child play area 0.627a Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization; 68.8% of variance explained; Bartletts test of sphericityis statistically significant at the 0.01 level; KMO value of 0.863.


17/27


Table 7. Mean scores for segments on activity dimensions.

Recreational Environmental Sports and Segments events/activities interpretation activities organized activities

(1) Self-centered Visitors 0.0668 0.0361 0.2475

(2) Occasional Visitors 0.1859 0.0393 0.2881(3) Urban Visitors 0.2288 0.0217 0.3362(4) Excursionists 0.0567 0.3377 0.0366(5) Sociable Naturalists 0.1601 0.7035 0.0888KW Statistic 7.823 37.878 14.742

Significant at the 0.01 level.

Segment characterization was based on mean scores resulting from all PCAs applied to

activity, facilities and services variables (Tables 7 and 8), frequency of visits (Table 9) and

socio-demographic variables (Table 10).

Members of the first segment, the Self-centered Visitors, do not value any kind of

activity with the exception of environmental interpretation activities, e.g. school activities

about nature. With regard to park facilities and services, they consider it important to have

information signposts about sites to visit and park cleaning and maintenance. They are

among those who visit parks the most: more than half visit once a year, and about a quarter

do so more than three times per year. They live mainly in Greater Lisbon, Algarve and

Greater Oporto, and their mean age is 36.5 years. The majority has the highest level of

education and over 80% are employed. Two thirds have a monthly income ranging from

400 to 2000 euros and 13% over 3500 euros.

The Occasional Visitors prefer planned activities in protected areas, e.g. gastronomy

and activities associated with popular culture and radical sports. In terms of facilities andservices, they attribute great importance to child support services and accommodation and

food facilities. More than 60% visit parks once a year and almost a quarter two or three

times per year. They are mainly female and the youngest age group and the majority has the

lowest level of education. This group has the most students and unemployed people. They

have low incomes; over 70% of them have a monthly income of below 2000 euros. They

live mainly in Greater Lisbon and Setubal Peninsula and in the North, in Greater Oporto

and Cavado.

Table 8. Mean scores for segments on facilities and services dimensions.

Accommodation Information Observation Child and food and and study Basic Reception support

Segments facilities services sites facilities facilities services

(1) Self-centeredVisitors

0.1863 0.0989 0.0620 0.1326 0.0064 0.1791

(2) OccasionalVisitors

0.1764 0.1594 0.0244 0.1256 0.0117 0.2887

(3) Urban Visitors 0.0897 0.0550 0.0598 0.0429 0.1239 0.5064(4) Excursionists 0.1133 0.0789 0.1952 0.1010 0.0425 0.0439(5) Sociable

Naturalists

0.2484 0.3020 0.3843 0.2458 0.0588 0.1457

KW Statistic 7.869 14.200 14.386 6.887 2.014 23.884

Significant at the 0.01 level.


18/27


Table 9. Frequency of visits by segment.

Frequency of visits

Segments Sometimes (%) Often (%) Regularly (%)

(1) Self-centered Visitors 54.5 23.4 22.1(2) Occasional Visitors 60.8 22.7 16.5(3) Urban Visitors 69.8 11.3 18.9(4) Excursionists 72.8 21.6 5.6(5) Sociable Naturalists 51.0 30.6 18.4

Activities performed in PPA are seldom preferred by the Urban Visitors. These

visitors consider availability of information and services important, in contrast to child

support services. A total of 70% visit parks once a year and little over a quarter more

than three times per year. They live mainly in Greater Lisbon. Two thirds have no chil-dren and 15% live alone. This is the group where individuals have higher education lev-

els as well as higher incomes; over two thirds have an income ranging from 1000 to

3500 euros.

The Excursionists give more importance to a number of activities unrelated to nature.

Only accommodation and food facilities are considered important, together with some basic

facilities such as medical posts, recycle bins and security. About three quarters of these

individuals visit the protected areas only once a year, whereas 6% go more than three times

a year. More than one third live in the region of Greater Lisbon or Greater Oporto. Those

remaining were uniformly distributed across other regions. They are the oldest and those

who have the lowest level of education, low incomes (over 70% have an income below2000 euros, though 11% have over 3500 euros) and the lowest percentage of employed

persons.

Visitors in the fifth segment, the Sociable Naturalists, value environmental interpre-

tation activities and guided organized treks, and value least the other cultural events such as

recreational activities. Basic facilities, observation and study sites and information services

are considered very important. These individuals visit the protected areas the most: approx-

imately 50% visit them often or with some regularity. Most of them live in Greater Lisbon,

Greater Oporto and Setubal Peninsula. It is the second youngest group (the mean age is

35.5 years) and 18% are students. Over a third possesses higher education and 45% have

completed secondary school. They have high incomes; almost two thirds have an income

ranging from 1000 to 3500 euros. This is the only segment in which the majority of its

members are male (53%).

Discussion and conclusion

This study develops a comprehensive analysis of the profile of segments of domestic visitors

to PPA, a theme where little empirical research has been conducted to date. Five segments

of visitors were identified based on the motivation for their visit and characterized by

the perceived importance of activities, facilities and services, visit frequency and socio-

demographics. Self-centered Visitors, Urban Visitors and Sociable Naturalists are

clearly committed to the natural environment and have the most typical characteristicsof nature-based tourism. Hereafter, they are named nature-focused segments. Occasional

Visitors and also Sociable Naturalists are focused on activities or events. And, for the


19/27


Table 10. Socio-demographic characteristics of visitor segments.

PearsonSegmentsa 1 2 3 4 5 chi-square

Gender (%)

Female 49.4 58.8 54.7 52.0 46.9Male 50.6 41.2 45.3 48.0 53.1 2.537

Age groups (%)1519 years 5.2 7.2 3.8 9.6 8.22024 years 9.1 15.5 11.3 12.8 10.22534 years 36.4 29.9 39.6 24.0 32.73544 years 19.5 26.8 26.4 19.2 20.44559 years 27.3 15.5 17.0 24.8 24.560 or more years 2.6 5.2 1.9 9.6 4.1 20.799

Age (mean) 36.5 35.1 35.6 37.7 35.5 1.498b

Highest level of education (%)Up to primary school completed 1.3 8.2 1.9 12.0 0.0

9th grade completed 16.9 23.7 5.7 15.2 8.2Secondary school completed 18.2 30.9 24.5 32.8 44.9BA/BSc 10.4 7.2 9.4 7.2 10.2Higher education 53.2 29.9 58.5 32.8 36.7 36.302,c

Living with (%)Other adults 55.3 55.2 58.5 52.8 41.7Other adults and children 40.8 36.5 28.3 41.6 54.2Other 3.9 8.3 13.2 5.6 4.2 11.442c

Occupation (%)Employed 84.0 72.0 81.1 67.2 81.6Student 13.3 18.3 13.2 16.8 18.4Other 2.7 9.7 4.8 16.0 0.0 19.456,c

Net household income (monthly) (%)400 euros 2.8 6.0 6.4 9.0 4.54011000 euros 29.6 32.1 19.1 31.5 25.010012000 euros 36.6 40.5 36.2 32.4 38.620013500 euros 18.3 14.3 29.8 16.2 25.0>3500 euros 12.7 7.1 8.5 10.8 6.8 13.210

Region (NUTS III) (%)Cavado 2.6 9.3 5.7 5.6 6.1Ave 6.5 5.2 7.5 9.6 8.2Greater Oporto 10.4 22.7 9.4 12.8 24.5Tamega 1.3 3.1 0.0 8.0 6.1Baixo Vouga 5.2 3.1 3.8 4.8 6.1Baixo Mondego 6.5 1.0 1.9 7.2 6.1

Pinhal Litoral 2.6 2.1 7.5 4.0 2.0Oeste 6.5 4.1 5.7 9.6 2.0Greater Lisbon 36.4 26.8 45.3 24.8 26.5Setubal Peninsula 9.1 15.5 7.5 7.2 10.2Algarve 13.0 7.2 5.7 6.4 2.0 41.663,c

a Segment names: (1) Self-centered visitors; (2) Occasional visitors; (3) Urban visitors; (4) Excursionists; (5)Sociable naturalists.bChi-square statistic of KruskalWallis test.cCategories aggregation was needed to verify the chi-square test assumption of no more than 20% of expectedcount less than 5.Significant at the 0.01 level; significant at the 0.05 level.


20/27


Excursionists the reasons for the visit are unrelated to any of the motivations of nature-

based tourism.

Regarding the second research question, it can be concluded that there is domestic

demand for contact with nature with specific interests and motivations; however, it is very

incipient, as demonstrated by the small size of the Sociable Naturalists segment. This

suggests that visits with specific interests to protected areas may be conceived as a tourism

product, though it is not yet structured and marketed. Most visits are spontaneous, i.e.

the real and effective reasons that justify the visit are not related to the enjoyment of

the nature resources and attributes. These are confirmed by the Occasional Visitors and

Excursionists segments that account for more than half of visitors. For these, PPA are

places of leisure and recreation that are not specifically about enjoying nature or nature-

related activities. They may not show strong environmentally responsible behavior as they

are very often unaware that they are in a protected area.

While varying in their specifications due to substantial differences in target populations,

questionnaires, sample sizes, sampling and statistical methodologies, and in venue charac-

teristics, similarities were identified among the PPA visitor segments and other nature-basedtourist markets within the benefit segmentation literature. Figures 2 and 3 present a com-

parison of all segments, and their description is summarized as follows.

First, PPA visitors in the three nature-focused segments differ from the other segments

in terms of the benefits they seek from nature. Sociable Naturalists may be referred to

as ecotourists due to their interest in observing, experiencing and learning about nature,

like the Ecotourists of Kerstetter et al. (2004) and Ecotourists and Nature Escapists of

Palacio and McCool (1997). By contrast, Urban Visitors and Self-centered Visitors are

engaged in an affective experience, one that allows them to admire and enjoy the natural

area rather than have a learning experience. These profiles are consistent with Ryan et al.s

(2000) argument about the differences between people visiting natural areas. Whereas somemay enjoy and admire the area in a general context without any motivation other than the

Nature-based TouristsBenefitSegmentation

Studies

SampledPopulation

Ecotourists Nature Tourists AdventureTourists

Other Type ofTourists

Palacio andMcCool (1997)n = 206

General travelers atthe Belizeinternational airport

Ecotourists (18%)Nature Escapists(22%)ComfortableNaturalists (33%)

PassivePlayers (27%)

Bricker andKerstetter

(2002)n = 350

Participants innature-tour of thirty-

four Fiji Islandoperators

Ecotourists (21%)Eco-Family Travelers

(25%)Culture Buffs (20%)Eclectic Travelers

(19%)a

Weaver andLawton (2002);Weaver (2002)n = 1180

Overnight guests attwo ecolodges inthe LamingtonNational Park(Australia)

Harder Ecotourists(34%)Softer Ecotourists(27%)StructuredEcotourists (39%)

Kerstetter etal. (2004)n = 408

Domestic tourists toone of threechosen CoastalWetlands in Taiwan

Ecotourists (40%) Learning-tourists(34%)

Experience-tourists (26%)

PPA visitorsegmentationn

= 401

Residents inPortuguese

mainland

Sociable Naturalists(12%)

Urban Visitors(13%)

Self-centeredVisitors (19%)

Excursionists(31%)

OccasionalVisitors (25%)

a Total of segments does not equal 100%.

Figure 2. Comparison of benefit segmentation within nature-based tourism.


21/27


nitseretnIGradational Interest in NatureAdventure

Main Motivationin Visit

Basic orOccasional

Interest in Nature

Advanced orFrequent Interest

in Nature

Deep or RegularInterest in Nature

Radical Sports inNature

Ecotourists

Nature Escapists

Palacio and

McCool (1997)stsilarutaNelbatrofmoC

Culture Buffs Eco-FamilyTravelers

EcotouristsBricker andKerstetter (2002)

a

Eclectic Travelers

Softer Ecotourists Harder EcotouristsWeaver andLawton (2002);Weaver (2002) Structured Ecotourists

Kerstetter et al.(2004)

Learning-tourists Ecotourists Experience-tourists

PPA visitorsegmentation

Urban Visitors Self-centeredVisitors

Sociable Naturalists

aThis study presents little detailed information and so does not allow the degree of interest in nature among Eclectic Travelers and

Ecotourists to be differentiated.

Figure 3. Nature and adventure interest by benefit segments within nature-based tourism.

immediate satisfaction of being there, others have specific intellectual reasons related

with flora, fauna or cultural aspects.

Second, in terms of the social dimension and environmental interpretation, Sociable

Naturalists resemble the Structured Ecotourists of Weaver and Lawton (2002). Sharing

recreational experiences with friends and family also assumes special significance for

the Ecotourists and Nature Escapists of Palacio and McCool (1997) and the Eco-FamilyTravelers of Bricker and Kerstetter (2002).

Third, the socio-demographic profile of the nature-focused visitors is also similar to the

ecotourists profile found in Weaver and Lawton (2002): all of them have high incomes and

level of education.

Fourth, surprisingly and contrary to expectations from practical experience in the Por-

tuguese case, no segment was identified with distinctive adventure characteristics. Although

Occasional Visitors gave sports and adventure recreation as the motivation for their visit,

this is not a differentiating dimension. A segment with these characteristics appears to

be unusual; only Kerstetter et al.s (2004) study found one that highlighted the adventure

experience, which means that being physically active is often associated with ecotourism,

and more specifically with hard ecotourism.

Fifth, there is no cultural segment like that of the Fiji Culture Buffs (Bricker & Kerstetter,

2002), although Occasional Visitors identified popular culture, mainly arts and crafts and

gastronomy, as their most important domain.

Sixth, segments such as Palacio and McCools (1997) Passive Players and PPA Ex-

cursionists or Occasional Visitors may be classified as mass tourism markets. However,

Weaver and Lawton (2002) have classified the Passive Players as soft ecotourists because

soft ecotourism comprises many of the characteristics of mass tourism, as discussed by

Weaver (2001a). The Passive Players and the Excursionists show similar profiles: they

are the oldest and focused on social contacts.

Finally, there are different degrees of interest/commitment in nature; this finding isalready pointed out in some ecotourism literature related to the hardsoft ecotourism

spectrum (Weaver, 2002; Weaver & Lawton, 2002).


22/27


The NEAT typology proves a more appropriate theoretical framework for PPA visitors as

the nature-based tourism product in Portugal is in its early stages. However, it is interesting

to analyze the extent to which visitors characteristics supported the notion of the hardsoft

ecotourism continuum in an attempt to get a better understanding of their profiles when

compared to those of the literature. The continuum framework is more general than the

NEAT typology, not only because it considers the concept of soft ecotourism but also

because the sustainability dimension is understood as a reasonable intent to be sustainable,

in line with the current best-practices principles (Weaver, 2001a). Based on this ecotourism

conception, the identified nature-focused segments are represented according to the three

core dimensions in Figure 4. The remaining two segments are not represented as they

would be placed very near the referential origin. Note that the nature-based tourism in

the PPA is induced by the park plan to have sustainable practices, which requires all

tourism products to be environmentally andsocioculturally sustainable. Thus, all PPA visitor

segments could somehow be represented in this referential. Likewise, they all fall along

the hard to soft continuum because the non-nature-focused segments can also be regarded

as soft ecotourists. Figure 5 allows the comparison of the five segments in the ecotourismspectrum. As mentioned above, Sociable Naturalists distances itself from the other two

nature-focused segments due to the stronger level of environmental commitment and the

larger number of nature and cultural activities engaged. They expect mainly information

and interpretation services and, to a lesser extent, child support services. They are likely

to travel all over the country to visit PPA with family and/or friends. Urban Visitors and

Self-centered Visitors are close to each other as they expected few services and focus on

interpretation. However, the Self-centered Visitors have a higher level of environmental

commitment but are less likely to enhance sustainability than Urban Visitors. They are

physically passive and their trips are believed to be mentally challenging, whereas Urban

Visitors are physically active and engage in shorter trips. In contrast, Occasional Visitorsand Excursionists could be considered soft ecotourists as they expect some services;

additionally, the former are more likely to be physically active and make short trips while the


Self-centered Visitors

Urban Visitors

Nature-based Learning-focused

Sustainability



Urban Visitors



Urban Visitors

Figure 4. Representation of PPA nature-focused segments on the three ecotourism dimensions.


23/27


HardHard SoftSoft

The Ecotourism SpectrumThe Ecotourism Spectrum

E

xcursionists

Sociable

Naturalists

S

elf-centered

Visitors

UrbanVisitors

Occasional

Visitors

HardHard SoftSoft

The Ecotourism SpectrumThe Ecotourism Spectrum

E

xcursionists

Sociable

Naturalists

S

elf-centered

Visitors

UrbanVisitors

Occasional

Visitors

Figure 5. PPA visitor segments in the ecotourism spectrum.

latter tend to travel in larger groups. These visitors to PPA are not expected to be big spenders

as they have the lowest incomes; moreover, they do not demonstrate environmentally

responsible behavior. Nevertheless, their visits could be important to maintain some local

business and general park structures.

Although protected area characteristics in Portugal, as well as in other Mediterranean

countries, differ from other sites in the world, they fit ecotourists expectations and pref-

erences. This is particularly true for PPA visitor segments with ecotourism characteristicssimilar to others found in the literature. A possible conclusion is that the diversity of

ecosystems and landscapes, culture, traditions and gastronomy in the PPA, where nature in-

terpretation could be connected with local traditions and culture, could attract international

ecotourists who generally travel to undisturbed and protected wilderness areas. However,

further comprehensive studies are required on responsible foreign travelers to PPA.

The PPA management agency interested in the above-mentioned markets should develop

infrastructure and appropriate promotion actions either by themselves or by outsourcing.

They should adapt or create programs to visit the parks which fit the needs andcharacteristics

of these segments, each of which requires differentiated marketing strategies. The findings

provide some insights into the structure of the tourism market in PPA and the followingthree management implications are noted.14

First, the potential of nature-focused segments is very attractive given their composition

(i.e. visitors with more educational qualifications and higher monthly incomes) and behav-

iors. They could be attracted by highlighting the conservation of nature and the landscape,

improving information services and facilities (e.g. well-signed trails) and by supplying di-

verse types of information (e.g. signposts, internet, leaflets) about PPA characteristics and

attractions. The Sociable Naturalists are more demanding than the other two segments.

These visitors could also be attracted by preserving the cultural heritage and improving

observation and study sites, providing more nature-related activities and offering child

support services. More opportunities for being with family and friends may also attractboth this group and the Urban Visitors.

Second, the interests of Occasional Visitors could be satisfied by creating more

outdoor activities and popular culture events. They could also be attracted by improving

accommodation and food facilities and offering child support services.

Finally, some of the interests of Excursionists (e.g. social contacts and participation

in popular culture events like art and craft fairs and gastronomy) can be met along with

those of the other segments. Like Occasional Visitors, the latter would also benefit from

some social marketing measures, especially on environmental education, so as to avoid

non-environmentally responsible behaviors in PPA.

From the short- to mid-term perspective, the PPA management agency should focus

on the development and improvement of the general (e.g. infrastructure and information)and specific (activities and experiences) conditions for visitors with no particular interests

and motivations, both for domestic and foreign markets visiting Portugal for other reasons.


24/27


Additionally, from a long-term perspective, the PPA management agency must advance with

a structured and more specialized supply to the segments with more specific motivations

like Sociable Naturalists and other international ecotourist markets as they can make

a great contribution to the development of the countrys international image, positioning

Portugal as a destination for ecotourism (TP, 2006).

Finally, two limitations must be addressed. First, despite all efforts taken to ensure quota

sample representativeness, this proved difficult due to the quota sampling process. Second,

as a result of time and financial constraints, the sample size is small with only 401 visitors.

However, these two limitations do not cause a serious distortion in the final results. With

regard to sampling representativeness, the results of the cluster analysis matched the empir-

ical experience almost perfectly, which gives some confidence to the underlying structure

and its generalization to the population; and the sample dimension issue is not important

because the PPA management agency is only interested in identifying managerially useful

segments, i.e. those that represent at least 10% of the population. Therefore, a larger sample

could identify additional smaller segments for which the development of segment-specific

marketing programs may not be justified.

Notes on contributors

Catarina Marques is a Doctoral Researcher at the ISCTE Business School of the Lisbon UniversityInstitute, Portugal. She is Lecturer in Statistics at the Department of Quantitative Methods.

Elizabeth Reis is Full Professor of Statistics and Marketing Research and the Dean of the ResearchUnit at ISCTE Business School of the Lisbon University Institute.

Joao Menezes is Associate Professor of Business Management at ISCTE Business School of theLisbon University Institute and was the President of the Portuguese Government Agency for theConservation of Nature and Biodiversity during the period 20042008.

Notes

1. Often used synonymously with nature-based tourism, it is a term used more by analysts thanpractitioners since it describes the product or principal attraction of ecotourism, without refer-ence to the management issues (Buckley, 2008).

2. The number of overnight stays in lodging facilities managed by the Governmental Agency forthe Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity and the number of visitors who participated inguided tours and/or requested information in protected areas reception centers and headquartersaccount for more than 209,000 in 2007 (ICNB, 2009).

3. In Portuguese legislation, the four types of protected areas with national interest are national

parks, natural parks, natural reserves and natural monuments, which correspond to IUCNcategories II, V, IV and III, respectively.

4. In Europe, the terms nature or sustainable tourism are more commonly used than ecotourism(Blangy & Vautier, 2001).

5. ICNB is the acronym for Instituto da Conservacao da Natureza e da Biodiversidade; until2007 it was known as the ICN.

6. The NUTS (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) is a territory division system withinthe European Union with the purpose of generating regional statistics. NUTS provides threeaggregation levels: NUTS I, NUTS II and NUTS III. The last divides the Portuguese mainlandinto 28 regions; only 11 of these were chosen in this study: Cavado, Ave, Great Oporto, Tamega,Baixo Vouga, Baixo Mondego, Pinhal Litoral, Oeste, Great Lisbon, Setubal Peninsula andAlgarve.

7. It appeals to the underlying assumption of representativeness in quota sampling: if the samplecomprises those who are representative of the target population on certain characteristics byfilling quotas, the sample may also match the target population on the quantities or opinions thatare being measured (Davies, 2004; Vicente, Reis, & Ferrao, 2001).


25/27


8. On this bias, Cochran (1977) argues, The quota method seems likely to produce samples thatare biased on characteristics such as income, education, and occupation, although it often agreeswell with the probability samples on questions of opinion and attitude.

9. All analyses were performed with SPSS 14.0.10. Missing values were imputed using the replace with mean method.

11. SPSS uses the agglomeration coefficient as a heterogeneity measure. The allocation of individ-uals to groups stops when the successive coefficient values between steps show a substantialincrease in heterogeneity.

12. The KruskalWallis test is used to compare groups when the normality assumption of ANOVAis not verified.

13. The p-values from these tests should be considered as approximations to the true p-values sincethe clusters are non-random.

14. These suggestions are likely to be implemented. Some actions are being put into practice in orderto fully allow tourism management operations. For example, ICNB, after recent restructuring,has been organized in order to support the PPA management regarding, among other aspects,nature-based tourism. Moreover, Tourism of Portugal (the governmental agency for tourism)finances nature-based tourism activities to be carried out by private operators within the parks;in fact, nature-based tourism is considered a strategic tourism product.

References

Bjork, P. (2000). Ecotourism from a conceptual perspective, an extended definition of a unique tourismform. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2, 189202.

Blamey, R. (1997). Ecotourism: The search for an operational definition. Journal of SustainableTourism, 5(2), 109130.

Blamey, R. (2001). Principles of ecotourism. In D. B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism(pp. 522). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Blangy, S., & Vautier, S. (2001). Europe. In D.B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism(pp. 155171). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Bricker, K.S., & Kerstetter, D.L. (2002). Ecotourists and ecotourism: Benefit segmentationand experience evaluation. Travel and Tourism Research Association. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ttra.com/pub/ uploads /020.pdf

Buckley, R. (2000). Neat trends: Current issues in nature, eco- and adventure tourism. InternationalJournal of Tourism Research, 2, 437444.

Buckley, R. (2006). Adventure tourism. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Buckley, R. (2008). Ecotourism: Principles and practices. Cambridge, UK: CAB International.Carneiro, M.J., Costa, C., & Crompton, J. (2006). A escolha do destino turstico a visitar Motivos de

Visita de Areas Protegidas [The choice of destination to visit Motivation for Visiting ProtectedAreas]. Revista Turismo e Desenvolvimento, 6, 109123.

Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Davies,P. (2004). What is sampling? (Magenta Book Background Papers No. 5). London: Government

Chief Social Researchers Office, Prime Ministers Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office.

Diamantis, D. (1999). The concepts of ecotourism: Evolution and trends. Current Issues in Tourism,2(23), 93122.

Eagles, P. (2001).International trends in park tourism. Paper presented at Europarc 2001 Conference,Matrei, Austria.

Fennell, D.A. (2001). A content analysis of ecotourism definitions. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(5),403421.

Fennell, D.A. (2003). Ecotourism: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2005). Multivariate data

analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Haley, R. (1968). Benefit segmentation: A decision-oriented research tool. Journal of Marketing, 30,

3035.Instituto do Ambiente. (2005). Relat orio do Estado do Ambiente 2005 [Report of the State of

Environment 2005]. Lisbon, Portugal: Author.Institute of the Nature Conservation. (2002). Estrat egia nacional de conservacao da natureza e dabiodiversidade [National strategy of conservation of nature and biodiversity]. Lisbon, Portugal:Author.


26/27


Institute of the Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (ICNB). (2009). Visitors contactsin PPA. Retrieved from http://portal.icnb.pt/NR/rdonlyres/D18F8D54-154C-4B49-BCD8-2E62D1DF8F26/0/visitantescontactaramAP96a07.xls

Instituto Nacional de Estatstica. (2002).Recenseamento da populacao e habitac ao2001 [Populationand housing census 2001]. Lisbon, Portugal: Author.

Instituto Nacional de Estatstica. (2008). Estat sticas do turismo 2007 [Tourism statistics 2007].Lisbon, Portugal: Author.The International Ecotourism Society. (2006). Global ecotourism fact sheet 2006. Retrieved from

http://www.ecotourism.org/webmodules/webarticlesnet/templates/eco template.aspx?articleid=351

International Union for the Conservation of Nature. (2003). 2003 United Nations list of na-tional parks and protected areas. Retrieved from http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/unlist/2003UN LIST.pdf

Kerstetter, D.L., Hou, J.-S., & Lin, C.-H. (2004). Profiling Taiwanese ecotourists using a behaviouralapproach. Tourism Management, 25, 491498.

Kish, L. (1992). Weighting for unequal Pi . Journal of Official Statistics, 8(2), 183200.Lawton, L.J. (2001a). A profile of the older adult ecotourists in Australia. Journal of Hospitality &

Leisure Marketing, 9(1/2), 113132.

Lawton, L.J. (2001b). Ecotourism in public protected areas. In D.B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopediaof ecotourism (pp. 287302). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Morrison, M.A., & Sung, H.H. (2000). Adventure tourism. In J. Jafari (Ed.), Encyclopedia of tourism(p. 11). New York, NY: Routledge.

Murphy, P.E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. London: Routledge. Newsome, D., Moore, S., & Dowling, R. (2002). Natural areas tourism: Ecology, impacts and

management. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.Palacio, V., & McCool, S.F. (1997). Identifying ecotourists in Belize through benefit segmentation:

A preliminary analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(3), 234243.Pforr, C. (2001). Concepts of sustainable development, sustainable tourism, and ecotourism: Def-

initions, principles, and linkages. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 1(1),6871.

Reis, E. (2000). A analise de clusters e as aplicacoes as ciencias empresariais uma visao crtica dateoria dos grupos estrategicos [Cluster analysis and applications to business science a critical

portuguese protected areas

Documents