ARTICLE IN PRESS

0261-5177/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.to

�Tel.: +61 7

E-mail addr

Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Conceptualizing special interest tourism—frameworks for analysis

Birgit Trauer�

School of Tourism and Leisure Management, University of Queensland, Ipswich Campus, 11 Salisbury Road, Ipswich, Qld 4305, Australia

Received 8 July 2003; accepted 21 October 2004

Abstract

To advance understanding of Special Interest Tourism (SIT), this paper will explore the complexities of this phenomenon in the

early 21st century. First, a look at what is ‘‘out there’’, both from a supply and demand perspective, will serve to paint a broad

picture at macro-level. The paper will present a discussion of the SIT phenomenon at the macro-level within a triangular relationship

of supply, demand and media. Then, a more specific look at SIT attempts to clarify the ambiguity of the term. Finally, a look at

micro-level from the consumer’s perspective will introduce the concepts of enduring and situational involvement, and the nature of

the product. Proposed frameworks are presented to provide structure and possible directions for future research and as a means of

progressing conceptual development.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Special interest tourism; Adventure tourism; Tourist experiences; Involvement; Market segmentation; Typologies

1. Introduction

Tourism consumption patterns and the growth of‘‘special interest tourism’’ (SIT) are thought to reflectthe continuously increasing diversity of leisure interestsof the late-modern leisure society (Douglas, Douglas, &Derret, 2001). According to Opaschowski (2001, p. 1),who refers to vacations in the 21st century as ‘‘Dasgekaufte Paradies’’ (the bought paradise), the tourismindustry is increasingly subsuming the identity of an‘‘experience industry’’, with tourists willing to paytourism organizers to help find optimal experienceswithin the limited time available. Furthermore,Opaschowski (2001) suggests that tourists are lookingfor emotional stimuli, they want to buy feelings and notproducts. They want to personally experience theimmaterial qualities, seeking ambiance, aesthetics andatmosphere, looking for an experience full of varyingintimacies, intensities and complexities. The nature ofthe tourism experience exists within a dynamic local toglobal context and thus, as Varley and Crowther (1998,

e front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

urman.2004.10.004

3381 1010; fax: +61 7 3381 1012.

ess: b.trauer@uq.edu.au (B. Trauer).

p. 316) point out: ‘‘successfully providing the creativespace for the consumer’s aesthetic personal projects tounfold is surely the challenge facing the late-modernentrepreneur’’.

According to Read (cited in Hall & Weiler, 1992,p. 5), the phenomenon coined ‘‘SIT’’ emerged as amajor force in the 1980s. However, as Hlavin–Schulze(1998a, b) points out quite succinctly, ‘‘alles schonmal dagewesen’’ (everything has existed before). TheGrand Tour, The Olympics and overland expeditionsspring to mind immediately with regard to theirhistorical context. Douglas et al. (2001, p. 2) state thata multiplicity of terms have emerged, including ‘‘alter-native’’, ‘‘sustainable’’, ‘‘appropriate’’, ‘‘new’’, ‘‘respon-sible’’ and ‘‘ego tourism’’ to capture the underpinningnotions of ‘‘serious leisure and tourism’’. They point outthat there is an underlying ambiguity in all terms,including the new term of ‘‘SIT’’, in that tourismdenotes mass participation while ‘‘special interest’’suggests non-commercialized individual travel.

To advance the understanding of this phenomenon ofSIT in the 21st century, this paper will explore thecomplexities of SIT. First, a look at what is ‘‘out there’’,both from a supply and demand perspective, will serve

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200184

to paint a broad picture at the macro-level. The paperwill present a discussion of the SIT phenomenon at themacro-level within a triangular relationship of supply,demand and media. Then, a more specific look attemptsto clarify the ambiguity of the term. Finally, a look atthe micro-level from the consumer’s perspective willintroduce the concepts enduring and situational involve-ment. Proposed frameworks are presented to providestructure and possible directions for future research.

2. The tourism product—supply

SIT was seen as a ‘‘prime force in the expansion oftourism’’ by Read in 1980 (cited in Hall & Weiler, 1992,p. 5) with the product range having expanded from thatof a boutique product to a mainstream offering.‘‘Special interests’’ can be found on web pages eitherby checking the list of special interests/activities (e.g.sport, wine, culture, painting, adventure, opera, battle-fields), or by geographical area (e.g. Asia, Europe) ofinterest and/or affinity groups (e.g. Seniors, women,gay), with tour operators catering for every specialinterest around the world.

Weber (2001) makes the point, along with Walle(1997), that practitioners appear to have caught on tothe notion of differentiation or specialization byoriginally catering for a relatively small part of themarket (niche market) with very special needs, evenbefore scholars started to consider the concepts indebate. Initially SIT organizations were perceived tohave focused on rather homogeneously consideredgroups of customers such as in adventure tourism,eco-tourism, sport tourism and cultural tourism fortourists seeking the ‘‘hard or specialized’’ end of themarket, being ‘‘serious leisure participants’’ (Weiler &Hall, 1992; Stebbins, 1982). However, it is now apparentthat operators have diversified their offerings to attractthe large market segment of the ‘‘soft’’ or ‘‘novice’’ endof the spectrum, and intervening stages, either based ontheir own expertise within the field of special interest ortheir awareness of the growing latent and salientconsumer demand (Douglas et al., 2001; Morgan andPritchard, 1999).

A constant reciprocal exchange between supply anddemand influences the evolvement, growth and access tonew leisure and tourism experiences (Strasdas, 1994).Technology, time squeeze, space contraction, affluenceand increased availability of leisure equipment andtravel products have impacted on leisure and traveltrends and diversified activities and destinations fromthe ‘‘old’’ to the ‘‘new’’ (Beedie, 2003; Strasdas, 1994).Consequently, it becomes possible to ‘‘re-package’’ inways within which, according to Ewert (1989a, 2000), anenvironment may contain the appropriate mix of new orold activities done in a new way to be optimally

arousing, with the individual believing that (a) she/hehas enough ability to succeed at the task and (b)possessing a positive role in sustaining the quality ofone’s life and promote personal growth. In short, torepeat, experiences are sold on the premise of being lifeenhancing.

3. Special interest tourism demand

Various authors, therefore, point towards people’sdesire for quality of life and escape from the ‘‘pluralisa-tion of lifeworlds’’, and ‘‘rationalization of contempor-ary urban life’’ as major push factors and motivators fortravel (Giddens, 1999; Habermas, 1987; Horne, 1994;Rojek & Urry, 1997). According to the World TourismOrganization (1985, cited in Hall & Weiler, 1992, p. 1),tourism consumption patterns reflect the increasingdiversity of interests of the late-modern leisure societywith ‘‘SIT’’ having emerged, reflecting the new valueswhich include ‘‘increased importance of outdoor activ-ities, awareness of ecological problems, educationaladvances, aesthetic judgement and improvement of selfand society’’. However, this ‘‘self-improvement’’ and‘‘concern for society’’ is questioned. While tourists, forinstance, may aspire to adventure and sport images thatare related to Heros, to Olympians, to environmental orcultural specialists of high achievement, they also mayvisit destinations and participate in activities as a statussymbol (Beedie, 2003; McKercher & du Cros, 2002).Indeed, Morgan and Pritchard (1999) argue thattourism prefixed with specific descriptors, such asecotourism, adventure tourism, cultural tourism and‘‘SIT’’, serve to indicate qualitative difference fromthose of mass tourism, thereby ‘‘promoting socially justforms of tourism’’ that meet tourists’’ needs to engage inmodes of behaviour that, at best, again, enhance senseof self, and at worst, may be ‘‘justified’’ as being sociallyresponsible (Morgan & Pritchard, 1999, p. 53). Simi-larly, Hlavin-Schulze (1998a, b) suggests that individualsincreasingly adjust their needs and desires based onimages of societal behaviour that ‘‘promises’’ societalacceptance. Opaschowski (2001) goes as far as topropose that holidays no longer just facilitate the‘‘traditional’’ escape of tourists from ‘‘dem Alltag’’(daily living), but rather the search for personal lifefulfillment, happiness, ‘‘paradise’’ and has become ahighlight of leisure, part of quality of life. However, ashe points out ‘‘just as paradise does not have a specificplace, so does happiness not have a specific time’’ (p. 7).

According to Wearing (2002, p. 243), the tourist in the21st century is ‘‘searching for new and exciting forms oftravel in defiance of a mass-produced product’’ yetwithout ‘‘actually having to involve themselves inany way’’, a reflection of increasing commodificationand depersonalization within modern and post-modern

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200 185

society (Beck, 1999; Giddens, 1999; MacCannell, 1976).Commodification has changed tourism experiences inthe 21st century from that of the traditional search forthe totally unknown, the utmost challenging anddangerous to that of safety and comfort, to that of‘‘gaze’’ but also embodiement beyond individual’s on-site experience (Cater, 2000; Opaschowski, 2001; Urry,1990). As Smail (1993, p. 63) notes, ‘‘A person is partlybody, certainly, but is also partly environment’’ andthus the tourist interacts with and is influenced by placesvisited and the people met at those places. However, thetourist also brings with him/her images and mythsassociations as portrayed in the multiplicity of mediaand other sources which transform and individualize thetourist experience (Rojek & Urry, 1997). Adventuretourism for instance is regarded by Cater (2000) ascommodification of ‘‘embodied human experiences’’that are marketed and managed to cater for a spectrumof consumers within a framework of myth and dramaticstory line.

4. Special interest tourism—part of an interdisciplinary

system

Commercial product supply is differentiated uponpatterns of perceived demand segments that in turn arelocated within social and environmental characteristics,both embracing and attracting the participant (Weber,2001). When attempting to come to terms with what SITrepresents, two major interpretation frameworks standout: the psycho-sociological, which comes from theperspective of the tourist, and the economic which isbased on the pragmatic operational approach (Collier,1997; Dreyer, 1995; Pigeassou, 1997). SIT, it issuggested, should be viewed as part of a system, an

Tourism Demand System

ecology

social-economy

technology

Special IntereTourism

Inter-personal

Intra-personal

Provides ‘signs’ of ‘Special Interest

Media

Fig. 1. SIT interac

interdisciplinary system, which comprises the overallenvironment (local to global), the tourist demandsystem, the tourism industry supply system with themedia being conceptualized as a major influencer ontourism in the 21st century, (see Fig. 1). It is the mergingof all these components that make up SIT.

The overall system is representative of political,economical, ecological, technological, and socio-eco-nomical and socio-cultural concerns, at local to globallevel. The tourism industry supply system is made up oftourism places/destinations, the travel and tourismorganizers/operators, travel agents, accommodationbusinesses, transport, and SIT facilities and infrastruc-ture. The tourist demand system consists of theindividual’s financial situation, possession or access tonecessary tourism activity equipment, the cognitivedeterminants (perception, awareness and learning),activating determinants (emotions, needs, motives,attitudes, images), and personal characteristics (involve-ment, perceived risk, values) (Dreyer, 1995). Thedemand side is sub-divided into intra- and inter-personalcomponents that recognize the internal and externalmotivational determinants for demand, including thedesire to gain insight, and to use the resultant ‘‘self-image’’ for peer approval (Celsi, Rose, & Leigh, 1993;Dreyer, 1995; Wearing, 2002).

Narrative reflections recreate myths for and of theindividual, they create meaning and ‘‘help us toremember that we are heroes in a big human adventure’’(Bammel & Bammel, 1992, p. 364). It is not the activityand/or destination itself and the unfolding of theexperience which determine the meaning for theindividual of, for instance, adventure, but rather theindividual’s perception and interpretation, the telling of‘‘tall stories’’ (McIntyre & Roggenbuck, 1998). Thisnarrative extends into adventure, sport or a specific

Tourism SupplySystem

politics

economy

Overall Environment

= local

nationalregional global

st

culture

tive system.

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200186

activity or destination as seen in the purchase ofequipment, wearing of certain clothes and brands ofparticipants’’ chosen peer reference groups. Theirpurchases are an inducement into a cult of ‘‘like-minded’’ activists, a symbol by which they recognizeeach other and the degree of commitment to thatactivity, be that commitment real or only contrived(Celsi et al., 1993). This includes guides and tourismoperators, as the very media that help shape the demandfor a product also help shape the design, presentationand representation of the product by those who supplyit. They too are part of a closed system that fusesrepresentation of places and action with the productionand reproduction of tourism experiences.

5. Image creation/media

Bartram (2001) argues that increased exposure ofhigh-risk leisure in the media may indeed stimulateinvolvement in an activity such as mountaineering,which can evolve into a leisure or tourism career.Tourism brochures, magazines, books, film and televi-sion, all are media for the creation of images thatfashion desires, wants and needs, creating anticipationand a way for tourists to envisage themselves in placeand action. (Ateljevic & Doorne, 2002; Coulter, 2001;Hlavin-Schulze, 1998a; Kim & Richardson, 2003;Markwick, 2001; Nielsen, 2001; Wickens, 2002). Mediapervades every intimate human space and thus caninfluence value creation, beliefs and attitudes (Trauer,2002). It generates a possible cognitive and affectiveresponse—knowledge of, and familiarity with theactivity and places within which it occurs, and anemotive response to those activities. The tourist comesto the tourism location with pre-conceived imageswithin which they have allocated a role to him or herself(Ryan, 2003). The tourist tries to understand and relivethese images by mirroring the representations duringtheir holidays. Thus, tourism provides for a ritual orsacred journey to be performed at places with meaningsimbued by the tourism industry and the wider media(Morgan, 1999; Rojek & Urry, 1997).

Place images are founded on core images withinestablished truths and myths as per historical literatureand only change slowly in yet constantly shifting societalcontexts. On the other hand, these images are alsoexposed to radical image-changes as new ones are beinginvented, disseminated and accepted through stereotyp-ing, differentiation, commercialization and accessibility.Representation of places are collages of images, ofexperiences and metaphors, depicting a range of similesnot only born of authenticity but enriched by ‘‘irrele-vant’’ stimuli through entertainment and spectacle, withthe spectacle becoming more spectacular, thrills morethrilling and the magic of nature more magical (Cloke &

Perkins, 1998; Rojek & Urry, 1997; Urry, 2000;Opaschowski, 2001). Tourism places no longer onlypresent continuity in time and space with historical andbiographical meaning but are instilled with physical andemotional sensations of a consumption-oriented society(Hlavin-Schulze, 1998b; Morgan, 1996, 1999; Urry,2000). Images are interpreted and re-interpreted andgenerate perceived authenticity of place and action. Yet,the modern day tourist is not ignorant of the staging andliminality of holiday experiences. It is the creation andinterpretation of images that are purchased, anticipatedand consumed by the ‘‘experience hungry’’ tourists ofthe 21st century (Schulze, 1993).

Now that a broader context for SIT has beenestablished, the question arises: Apart from the productsavailable and a society demanding special experiences,what is SIT and how can it be defined?

6. Special interest tourism definitions

It is acknowledged that it is difficult, if not evenimpossible, to define tourism, or SIT in this case, in amanner acceptable to researchers across the spectrum oftourism disciplines and research approaches (Butler,1999). However, in their original work on SIT, Halland Weiler (1992, p. 5) proposed SIT to occur when the‘‘traveler’s motivation and decision-making are primarilydetermined by a particular special interest with a focuseither on activity/ies and/or destinations and settings’’.Swarbrook and Horner (1999, p. 38) expanded thisdefinition by pointing out two perspectives of SIT. Theysuggest that the special interest tourist is motivated by adesire to ‘‘either indulge in an existing interest or developa new interest in a novel or familiar location’’. They alsostated that SIT is different to that of activity tourism byproposing that it involves ‘‘little or no physical exertion’’(p. 38). Yet, it is argued, tourism with physical exertionsuch as in sport or adventure should be considered aspecial interest from the tourist’s perspective (Hall, 1992;Morpeth, 2001; Trauer, 1999a, b; Trauer, Ryan, &Lockyer, 2003). Another argument has also been thatSIT is the opposite of mass’’ tourism with the focus onnew forms of tourism that have the potential to meet theneeds of tourists and hosts, including rural tourism,adventure and nature-based tourism, cultural and heri-tage tourism, and festival and event tourism. Douglas etal. (2001, p. 2) accordingly suggest that ‘‘SIT, oralternative tourism’’y.. has ‘‘emerged from concernsfor the delivery of sustainable tourism’’. At the same timethey present a definition of SIT by Derrett (2001, p. xvii)as ‘‘the provision of customized leisure and recreationalexperiences driven by the specific expressed interest ofindividuals and groups’’ (p. 4). It has been recognizedthat the term ‘‘SIT’’ comprises two major indicators: first,‘‘special interest’’, which suggests a need to consider the

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200 187

leisure context; second, ‘‘tourism’’, pointing to thecommercialization of leisure (Trauer, 1999a, b), whichPoon (1997), (cited Douglas et al., 2001, p. 3) relates to as‘‘new tourism’’y.. being ‘‘large-scale packaging of non-standardized leisure services’’. This notion appears in theATC’s publication ‘‘Special Interest Australia’’, describ-ing Australia as ‘‘a land of adventure’’, providing theperfect context for the tourists ‘‘to pursue favouritepastimes and learn new skills’’, being ‘‘excellent value formoney’’, and for the operator ‘‘to capitalize on aworldwide trend towards so-called experiential travel’’(ATC, 1993, p. 2). The publication also entices thetourism operators to join their marketing program to setthemselves apart from other operators.

7. The ‘‘Tourism Interest Cycle’’

Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997) in their attempt toconceptualize and define SIT, reviewed literature withinleisure and tourism, comparing existing typologies andframeworks, including those by de Grazia (1964), Kelly(1983) and Iso-Ahola (1983) in the leisure context, andPlog (1974—psychocentrics/allocentrics), Cohen (1972—explorer/drifter), Gray (1979—sunlust/wanderlust) andDann (1977—push and pull factors) in the tourismcontext. With reference to Murphy (1985) and Mannelland Iso-Ahola (1987), they point out that while theleisure approach highlights the home-based lifestyleactivities, the tourism typologies focus on destinationchoice. Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997) concludedthat neither appeared applicable to the concept of SIT,but pointed out that these were influential in theirdevelopment of a theoretical framework.

To set SIT in a broader overall tourism context,Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997) suggest a ‘‘TourismInterest Continuum’’. Based on Culligan’s framework,they propose that through increasing travel experience,confidence and affluence, a maturation or tourist lifecycle transition from ‘‘safe to more adventurouskinds of travel and holidays’’ occurs, with the tourist‘‘trading up’’ and purchasing social prestige andego-enhancement.

They put forward the notion that the questions atourist would ask in the decision-making process are

�

General Interest Tourism GIT—where would I like togo? � Mixed Interest Tourism MIT—where do I want to go

and what activities can I pursue there?

� SIT—what interest/activity do I want to pursue, and

where can I do it?

According to Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997), the‘‘Dabbler’’ is looking for a change from GIT and MITand, depending on her/his attitude to risk, will be

seeking ‘‘fashionable’’ or ‘‘popular’’ products as ameans of self-expression. On the other hand, for the‘‘Expert’’ the activity is central in her/his overall life andleisure. Hence, the ‘‘Expert’’ in SIT is likely to choosetheir special interest holiday in accordance with theirleisure interests and activities at home.

Similar to the GIT, MIT and SIT premise byBrotherton and Himmetoglu (1997), Hall (2003, p.276) applies the concept of ‘‘primary’’, ‘‘secondary’’ and‘‘subsidiary to other interests’’ motives within thecontext of health and spa tourism. This motivationalapproach is also apparent in the various typologies thathave emanated from studies in various SIT segments,such as cultural tourism (Richards, 1996; Craik, 1997),educational tourism (informal to formal) (Arsenault,1998, 2001; Arsenault & Anderson, 1998), bicycletourism (Morpeth, 2001), and wine tourism (Charters& Ali-Knight, 2002). Typologies range from culturallyattracted to culturally motivated tourists (based on amatrix of level of interest and depth of experience)(McKercher & du Cros, 2002), shallow to deep eco-tourists (Acott, La Trobe, & Howard, 1998), and‘‘hard’’ definition related to passive or active participa-tion at an event at competitive level in sport tourism to‘‘soft’’ definition referring to active participation atrecreational level (Gammon & Robinson, 2003). Basedon the above discussion, the following framework issuggested.

The framework not only depicts the ‘‘tourism interestcontinuum’’ as suggested by Brotherton and Himme-toglu (1997), but also highlights the need to acknowl-edge the overlap between MIT and SIT. It alsodistinguishes between the segment of geographical/location nature, the accommodation/transport/themesegment, the affinity group segments, and SIT segmentswith a focus on activity, such as sport, and/or settingsuch as nature or architecture that could be a tourist’shobby or recreational activity. It is argued that thepotential exists for various special interests from withinthe SIT segment (e.g. sport, architecture, culture, opera,education) to be participated in within the other threecategories. For instance, although event and cruisetourism can be the special focus of activity, events andcruises are further specialized by themes and interestssuch as sports events (e.g. World Masters, AmericasCup), classical music events (e.g. Salzburger Festspiele),and health and wellness cruises (Dimmock & Tryce,2001; Douglas et al., 2001). Senior tourism also is arecognized segment of SIT, yet once again, despite theunderpinning stereotypical affinity, a variety anddifferent intensities of interests and activities amongstseniors exists (Ruyss & Wei, 2001).

It is being acknowledged that multi-motivationaldecision-making processes underpin holiday choices(Ryan, 2003). Therefore, not all the time would aprogression have to occur for participants, or a special

ARTICLE IN PRESS

General Interest Tourism (GIT) Or Mass Tourism = Conventional large-scale tourism

Focus: Where can I go on holidays?

Mixed Interest Tourism (MIT) Focus: Where, how and/or with whom can I go on holidays

and what activities can I pursue there?

Geographical LocationSegments:

E.g. Regional tourism, Urban tourism, Rural tourism

Special Interest (Activity/Setting) Segments:E.g. Environmental tourism - Cultural tourism -

Hobby tourism - Health and spa tourism - Sport tourism - Adventure tourism - Wine and food tourism

- Sex tourism

E.g. Adventure

Sub-segments e.g. golf, tennis, sailing, soccer, cycling, kayaking, scuba diving

Sub-segmentse.g. backpacking(bushwalking),mountaineering, whitewater rafting,bicycle-touring,sailing, scuba diving, wildlife safari

Special Interest TourismWhat interest/activity do I want to pursue, and where

can I do it? E.g: Adventure Tourism

E.g. Environmental E.g. Sport

Accommodation,Transport & Event

Segments:E.g. Resort, Cruise and

Exhibition tourism

Sub-segmentse.g. ecotourism, nature-based tourism, wildlife tourism

Affinity Group Segments:

E.g. Senior tourism Women’s tourism

Gay tourism

Fig. 2. SIT Cycle. Based on Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997), Prosser (2001), Ruyss and Wei (2001), Schofield (2001).

General Interest Tourism (GIT)

Mixed Interest Tourism (MIT)

Special Interest Tourism (SIT)

Leisure (home based)

Fig. 3. ‘‘Leisure–Tourism Interest Cycle’’. Based on Brotherton and

Himmetoglu (1997), and Carr (2002).

B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200188

interest always be pursued during holidays. But rather, aproviso is maintained within the suggested frameworkfor individuals to be able to choose other types ofinterest tourism holidays (GIT, MIT) according to theirneeds and wants at various times.

Also, although SIT segments are separated anddiscussed along specific descriptors, it is important tonote that within the realm of tourism overall and SIT inparticular, the segments at all levels are not necessarilymutually exclusive and often overlap (Hall, 1992, 2003).An example would be adventure tourism at SIT level,which includes adventurous sports activities such assailing, mountain biking, and hang gliding (sport beingdenoted by ‘‘competition’’ compared to ‘‘risk’’ inadventure (Kruger, 1995)), and environmental tourismsuch as volunteer research expeditions with Earthwatch(which are not free but have to be paid for by theparticipants) to a remote location (see Fig. 2). The lattercould also be classified as volunteer tourism (Wearing,2002) or also senior tourism or educational tourism ifthis was marketed and facilitated accordingly andperceived as such by the participant/tourist Fig. 3.

8. The ‘‘Leisure-Tourism Interest Cycle’’

It is apparent by the definitions presented that SITis a form of recreation. Kelly (1996, p. 281) arguedthat recreational tourism ‘‘is leisure on the move’’.

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200 189

(Carr, 2002) restates that tourism for pleasure and leisureare interconnected, similar to other authors includingButler (1999), and McKercher and Davidson (1996). Carr(2002, p. 976) describes these areas of academic study as‘‘fuzzy sets with no sharp or accepted boundaries betweenthem’’. He presents a continuum that includes tourist andresidual culture, the latter being that of the homeenvironment. This leads to an extension of the ‘‘TourismInterest Cycle’’ as presented above into that of a‘‘Leisure–Tourism Interest Cycle’’ with a potential cyclicfeed back loop between leisure and tourism. Once again,it is highlighted that a progression would not have tooccur for participants every time, but rather a flexibleframework is suggested that facilitates a progression, notnecessarily one of a hierarchical nature but rather in aflexible cyclical fashion.

9. Serious leisure, recreation specialization and enduring

involvement

As demonstrated and depicted in Fig. 1, there are twoperspectives from which to analyse and define SIT,either from the consumer or the provider perspective.The approach taken in this paper at micro-level is thatfrom the tourist perspective, because just as ‘‘beauty liesin the eyes of the beholder’’, ‘‘special’’ lies in theexperience of tourists. The discussion above emphasizesthat, in order to add to the understanding of SIT andspecial interest tourists’’ experiences, an initial apprecia-tion of leisure and recreation participation is deemed ofvalue.

According to studies of leisure/tourism motivations,people choose to participate in recreational activities tosatisfy multiple needs (Ryan, 2003). In the case of SIT,these can relate to those influencing participation intheir special interest or hobby and/or those of travel andtourism in general. With reference to Stebbins (1982,1999), Bartram (2001, p. 5) states ‘‘Serious leisure is thesystematic pursuit of an amateur, hobbyist, or volunteeractivity, that is sufficiently rewarding despite the costs,such that participants find a career in the acquisitionand expression of its special skills and knowledge.’’Serious leisure requires ‘‘high investment’’ with sus-tained commitment to the development of knowledgeand skills as well as ‘‘communicative interaction with thepeople most important to usy..It is a context for thedevelopment of relationships of trust, sharing, andintimacy’’ (Kelly & Godbey, 1992, p. 350). Apart fromparticipatory, experiential and novelty oriented compo-nents of SIT experiences/products, the shared social orcultural worlds of the travelers can influence the positiveor negative perception of an experience (Arnould, Price,& Tierney, 1998).

The development of a special interest was originallyexamined in the context of recreation specialization in

the mid 1970s by Little (1976) and (Bryan, 1977, 1979,2000), and was defined as

selective channeling of interests and abilities into aspecific area. Typically the participant would bespending a lot of time engaged in activities within thearea of specialization or be infrequently but intenselyinvolved. The participant typically would haveadvanced levels of knowledge, skill and experiencewithin the special interest area and be gainingpleasure from and displaying interest in all areas of

the specialization focus, be it activities, objects and

events (Little, 1976, p. 12). (italics by author).

For example, sport tourists’ level of specialization andinvolvement influence spectators attention to factorsextraneous to the actual sport activity, such as sportadvertising during games and events (Funk & James,2002; Kruger, 1995; Laverie & Arnett, 2000). A holidaycan also be viewed as an event, a personal project thatrequires time, thought and financial commitmentby individuals living in industrialized post-modernsocieties that are time-poor and ‘‘experience hungry’’(Opaschowski, 2001). Today as in the past, ‘‘travel toleisure and travel as leisure is recognized as somethingplanned, hoped for and experienced by those who canafford it’’ (Kelly, 1996, p. 281).

Tourism is part of the overall leisure industry, wherethe investment and desired outcomes in leisure servicesfrequently are of an experiential and emotional nature(Schmidt, 1997). Stern (1997) pointed out that emotion-ally driven consumption with high levels of intangibility,which is characteristic of intense and extended serviceencounters as can be found in tourism generally and SITspecifically, should be viewed beyond behaviouralindicators (e.g. visits to cultural sites) and differentlyfrom rational decision-making processes as applied inthe choice of consumer products or services offunctional nature. This assumption of ‘‘the goal-directedrational actor’’ has also been questioned by Giddens(1999), who suggests that ‘‘the reflexive project of theself’’ is not to be found in behaviour, nor—important asthis is—in the reactions of others, but in the capacity tokeep a particular narrative going’’ (p. 54, cited inKuentzel, 2000, p. 89)yy.which ‘‘must be sustained inthe reflexive activities of the individual as he producesand reproduces the routine activities and order ofeveryday life’’ (Kuentzel, 2000, p. 89).

The ‘‘Recreation Specialization Loop’’ (see Fig. 4)depicts a comprehensive perspective on recreationspecialization (McIntyre, 1990). It emphasizes theaffective as well as the behavioural and cognitive (suchas previous experience and skill) and the level ofinvolvement an individual has for their special interest.The three sub-components of the personal system ofrecreation specialization, the ‘‘behavioural, cognitiveand affective, or enduring involvement’’, are potentially

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Centrality

Centrality (fourth dimensionadded by McIntyre,

1989, 1990- recreation) Affective System

(Little, 1976)

EnduringInvolvement

Mutuallyreinforcing recreation

specialization

Enduring Involvement (Laurent and Kapferer,1985 -consumer behaviour)(multi-dimensional measure = 3 components)

The Personal System’s Model emphasises the ‘embodiement’

of experiences (‘body, mind andsoul’)

by including the affective as well asbehavioural and cognitive systems

to lifestylethrough productcategory

derived from it

of productcategory

Self-expressionEnjoymentImportance

BEHAVIORAL SYSTEM

Prior Familianity

PERSONAL SYSTEM

COGNITIVE SYSTEM

KnowledgeSkillsSellingAtribuites

Experience

Fig. 4. The ‘‘Recreation Specialization’’ loop. (McIntyre, 1989, 1990, p. 42). Coloured additions and highlights to emphasize major discussion points

in present paper.

B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200190

mutually reinforcing and applicable to any individual(McIntyre, 1989, 1990; McIntyre & Pigram, 1992).However, there are variances depending on activityand/or setting focus (Havitz & Howard, 1995; Trauer,1999a; Trauer et al., 2003) as can be demonstrated in thecase of wine tourists. Some wine tourists indeed may bebehaviourally involved (drinking wine), cognitively in-volved (learning about it), and affectively involved(enduring involvement—e.g. central to a wine connois-seur who pursues his hobby and interest in wine both athome and while on holidays). Yet, another tourist, bychoice or for health reasons, might not drink wine at all,but having grown up in a wine region that tourist mightharbour a strong emotional attachment (affective/endur-ing involvement) with place and product (wine) throughchildhood memories, and might be particularly interestedin the history and production of wine (cognitiveinvolvement). Behavioural measurements such as pastexperience, frequency of use, and cognitive indicatorssuch as knowledge and skill, have been incorporated intorecreation research (e.g. McIntyre, 1989, 1990; Scott &Godbey, 1994; Scott & Scoot Shafer, 2001) and involve-ment in leisure and tourism-related contexts (see Havitz& Dimanche, 1997, 1999). As the recreation specializa-tion loop demonstrates, behaviour, cognition and affec-tive involvement are interlinked. However, as Laurentand Kapferer (1985) pointed out ‘‘involvement does notsystematically lead to the expected difference in beha-viouryy.because, in part, each involvement facet (seebelow) influences specific behaviours differently’’ (cited inIwasaki & Havitz, 1998, p. 262).

The involvement facets of importance and enjoy-ment (attraction), self-expression (identity and social

cohesion) and centrality (lifestyle, work) constitute theconcept of ‘‘enduring involvement’’ (McIntyre, 1989,1990) or the affective component of specialization(Little, 1976). Hall and Weiler (1992, p. 9) discussedthe issue of centrality, with its strong social content inthe context of serious leisure and tourism, referring to itas the ‘‘unique ethos which is represented by a specificsocial world ‘‘composed of special beliefs, values, moralprinciples, norms, and performance standards’’ (Gah-wiler, 1995; Gahwiler & Havitz, 1998). McKercher anddu Cros (2002) also acknowledged the issue of centralityof interest in culture as a main differentiating variable intheir study of ‘‘cultural’’ tourists to Hong Kong,acknowledging that behavioural indicators as in visitsto cultural attractions was not sufficient for marketsegmentation.

10. Casual leisure and situational involvement

Having discussed the ‘‘serious’’ side of leisure andrecreation specialization, it is important to look at theother end of the spectrum, that of ‘‘casual leisure’’. Ithas been defined as ‘‘an immediate and intrinsicallyrewarding, relatively short-lived pleasurable activityrequiring little or no special training to enjoy it’’(Stebbins, 1982, cited in Bartram, 2001, p. 5). This isakin to situational involvement and points to therealization that within commercialized leisure andtourism, particularly within sub-segments such asadventure tourism, little or no training is necessary forthe participants to partake in the experience. The guidesand/or management of the operations take on the

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200 191

responsibility to maximize enjoyment and satisfactionfor customers from across the spectrum of novices toexperts (Cater, 2000; Fluker & Turner, 1998, 2000;Trauer, 1998, 1999a).

Stebbins (1997) points out that those participantspursuing serious leisure are in fact in the minoritycompared to those involved in casual leisure. Thisnotion was supported by various authors in the area ofSIT such as cultural tourism (Craik, 1997) and eco-tourism (Eagles, 1996). This suggests that within SIT amajority of participants in fact are not unlike casualleisure participants who unknowingly ‘‘Often dabble inor play around at an activity pursued as serious leisureby others’’ (Stebbins, 1997, p. 19).

11. Involvement—enduring and situational

Involvement is a multi-dimensional construct and hasbeen interpreted as a process of psychological identifica-tion resulting in varying degrees of behavioural,cognitive and affective investment in an activity,product or situation (Richins & Bloch, 1986; Richins,Bloch, & McQuarrie, 1992; Havitz & Dimanche, 1999;McIntyre, 1989, 1990). Involvement was defined initiallyby Rothschild (1984) as an unobservable state ofmotivation, arousal or interest towards a recreationalactivity, or associated product. It is evoked by aparticular stimulus or situation and has drive properties.

Within consumer theory involvement reflects theextent to which a person associates him or herself withan activity or product, and this has been adopted byresearchers in leisure and tourism embracing the fivedimensions of the multi-dimensional construct ofinvolvement; these being

�

the affective component as in the importance andenjoyment attributed to a product or activity, � the sign or self-expression value as the statements

perceived to be made to others or self about self-identity through purchase and/or participation,

� the added component of centrality (McIntyre, 1989,

1990), that refers to how important to an individualthe activity, product or experience is,

� risk probability, perceived potential of making a

wrong/poor choice,

� risk consequence, perceived importance of negative

consequences in the case of wrong/poor choice(Havitz & Dimanche, 1999).

The first three facets form the underpinnings ofenduring involvement in ‘‘recreation specialization’’ (seeFig. 4) and imply a continuum of varying degrees ofintensity from low level of involvement at one end tohigh levels at the other. Iwasaki and Havitz (1998) notethat, although risk has received a lot of attention in

research with regard to physical risk, particularly in thecontext of adventure recreation and to some extent inadventure tourism (e.g. Ewert, 1989b; McIntyre &Roggenbuck, 1998; Priest, 1992, 1999; Robinson,1992), other sources of risk exist in tourism such associal psychological, financial and temporal (Dimanche,Havitz, & Howard, 1993). The following list is suggested(Sonmez & Graefe, 1998), which highlights the multi-plicity and complexity of risk in tourism within the 21stcentury overall, not just in the context of ‘‘adventuretourism’’:

�

physical risk (physical danger or injury/accident), � health risk (becoming sick, e.g. SARS), � technical risk (e.g. something going wrong with

transport, accommodation),

� political instability risk (involvement in political

turmoil),

� terrorism risk (terrorist attack), � psychological risk (experience not real self, self-

image),

� social risk (travel choice affects others’’ opinion of

self),

� satisfaction risk (no personal satisfaction/dissatisfac-

tion),

� financial risk (not value for money), � time risk (waste of time).

With the above in mind, Iwasaki and Havitz (1998, p.260) argue that there are antecedents to involvement of‘‘individual mediating, individual moderating’’ natureand those of ‘‘social-situational moderating’’ character-istics as follow:

�

Individual mediating facets:J Values or belief, attitudes, motivation, needs or

goals, initial formation of preference, initialbehavioural experiences, competence/skills.

�

Individual moderating facets:J Intrapersonal constraints (e.g.funds, access,

health), anticipation of personal benefits, and/orinitial gain of personal benefits such as satisfactionand health (e.g. Driver, Brown, & Peterson, 1991).

�

Social-situational moderating factors (both at globalor macro and specific or micro-level):J Social support from significant others, situational

incentives, social and cultural norms, interpersonaland structural constraints, anticipation of socialbenefits and/or initial gain of social benefits such asfriendship and family solidarity (e.g. Driver et al.,1991; Unruh, 1979, 1980).

Although theses antecedents have been identified,Iwasaki and Havitz (1998, p. 260/1) point out that aninherent difficulty exists in assessing these antecedenteffects on involvement ‘‘as they rarely increase or

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200192

decrease congruently with each other in terms ofdirection or intensity’’. Yet, if one accepts theseantecedents as overall underpinnings, it is not surprisingthat involvement theory has received a lot of attention inleisure research. Pearce (1993) stresses the importance ofrecognizing the multiplicity of motives existent inindividuals in any social context, not just tourism, andtherefore recommends a dynamic approach to anytheoretical framework. Indeed, individual’s behaviour,according to Cohen’s (1972) emic perspective, should beconsidered in the context of place, social and timespecificity as these would be influential. Similarly,Sharpley (1999) argues that for any theoretical frame-work or typology to be pertinent, a sociologicalperspective that analyses tourists both within a micro-context as well as at the structural macro-level, serves tocontextualize tourist behaviour and experiences in abroader overall life context.

The involvement construct provides a profile formarket segmentation, demonstrated originally by Laur-ent and Kapferer’s (1985) study, which reported tendistinct clusters, of which four clusters were alsoreasonably confirmed in the context of tourist motiva-tion in the study by Havitz and Howard (1995). Thesewere ‘‘intrinsic sophisticates, casual pleasure seekers,ambivalent consumers and appearance involvement’’ (p.98). Havitz and Howard (1995) emphasize, however,that market segmentation clusters will vary dependingon sample characteristics, products, activities andclustering procedures. Thus, their study revealed twofurther unique clusters of ‘‘moderately engaged con-sumers and conformist consumers’’.

When testing the enduring and situational involve-ment properties, Havitz and Howard (1995) dataconfirmed the stability over time of the importance-pleasure (attraction) facet, as also presented by McIn-tyre (1989). This is not surprising as leisure andaccordingly holidays are chosen on the premise thatthey will be enjoyable (Kelly, 1983). Yet, the sign andrisk consequence scores varied depending on activitycontext. Research conducted by Dimanche et al. (1993)in the context of tourism resulted in high scores in theimportance/pleasure (attraction) and sign dimensions,which tended to show correlation with repeat behaviour.Risk probability scores on the other hand decreased asparticipants acquired increased behavioural and cogni-tive reference points. This suggests that increasedfamiliarity with chosen activities and settings, includingthose of tourist destinations, facilitate a change in abilityto evaluate more rationally, a change in perception ofrisk, a change in destination choice and/or activitycomplexity, as has been demonstrated within outdoorand adventure recreation research (Ewert, McIntyre,1990; McIntyre & Pigram, 1992). Frequency of partici-pation with a touristic activity, it should be noted here,has been proposed to be the behavioural result of

involvement, and yet, the correlation between these stillrequires further exploration (Havitz & Dimanche, 1997,1999). This is important to recognize in the context oftourism, and adventure tourism in particular, as the riskprobability has shown positive correlation to theattraction and sign facets of involvement profiles. Thus,a focus in research on the involvement dimension of signand risk has been suggested (Dimanche, Havitz, &Howard, 1991; Havitz, 2002; Havitz & Mannell, 2005).

12. The special interest tourism trip cycle

From the above discussion, the following ‘‘SIT TripCycle’’ (see Fig. 5) is suggested.

Tourism and leisure experiences are multi-phasic andevolving across time (Craig-Smith & French, 1994;Leiper, 1990; Stewart, 1998), with the tourist being aparticipant and contributing factor in the developmentand delivery of the experience. The tourism experience,consisting of the anticipation, consumption and memoryphases, is situated within the consumer’s overall lifecontext with the emergence of an enjoyable andsatisfying experience being built across the totaltemporal frame and being interpreted ‘‘within thebroader, narrative context of the consumer’s life’’(Arnould & Price, 1993). Cohen (1972) recognized thisby pointing out that all tourists, to varying degrees,carry with them their values and behaviours establishedin their home environment and culture, which influencetheir perceptions and reactions to new experiences ofother places, activities, people and foreign culture. Atboth levels of the ‘‘discursive’’ and ‘‘practical conscious-ness’’, tourists are immersed in their individual actionand the social structures of their surrounds, that of thetourist and the home culture (Kuentzel, 2000).

Dimanche and Samdahl (1994, p. 125) suggest thatthe need for identity affirmation at a personal level(needs for self-expression and self-affirmation), andaffirmation of social identity (needs for conspicuousconsumption and display—sign value), respectively,influence the choice of leisure activities. The term self-expression is anchored in the context of recreationexperiences within the leisure literature, while the termsign value finds its roots within consumer behaviourliterature with reference to conspicuous consumption ofproducts (Laverie & Arnett, 2000). The above inter-pretation by Dimanche and Samdahl (1994) is similar tothat by Pearce (1993) and Csikszentmihalyi (1975), whoargue that intrinsic motivation fosters individual atten-tion to issues of personal autonomy and travel choice,while extrinsic motivation encourages focus on ‘‘sig-nificant others’’, power structures and social recognitionwith delayed, or post hoc satisfaction being a drivingmotivator. Studies, taking an environmental psycholo-gical perspective for the analysis of leisure experiences

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 5. The ‘‘SIT Trip Cycle’’. EI ¼ enduring involvement, SI ¼ situational involvement. Based on Clawson and Knetsch (1966), Hamilton-Smith

(1987), Leiper (1990), Dimanche and Samdahl (1994).

B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200 193

applied experiential sampling methodology (ESM)during the on-site experience and presented results withvariance in focus and mood (McIntyre & Roggenbuck,1998), which, considering the antecedents of involve-ment (see discussion above), could be associated withintrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well as on-siteinfluences.

Iso-Ahola (1983) pointed to the issue of motivationsbeing re-constructed by participants within post hocresearch, participants possibly attempting to create aculturally acceptable image. This communication to selfand/or others through narratives (stories), expressingsatisfaction and also dissatisfaction feed back intopersonal and social identity, and ultimately self withinthe home environment, and future leisure and travelchoices and behaviour, respectively. The concepts of‘‘post hoc satisfaction’’ (PHS) and ‘‘real-time satisfac-tion’’ (RTS) was considered and operationalized in astudy conducted by Stewart and Hull (1992) with regardto quality park management. PHS appraises therecreation experience evaluated after the on-site activityhas occurred, while RTS is an evaluation of arecreationist’s current state during the recreation/tour-ism experience. The results suggested the need for twodistinct constructs of satisfaction due to the differentialreliance on introspection, differential emphasis onrecall of past experiences, and differential ability to

control the effects of context. However, as the ‘‘SIT TripCycle’’ emphasizes, constant evaluation takes placeduring all phases of travel, including the anticipationand planning phase and once back in the homeenvironment, or travel originating region. The cyclicaccumulative nature of situational involvement andenduring involvement therefore suggest a fusion be-tween RTS and PHS that will influence future leisure/travel choice and behaviour.

The discussion of self asks for clarification ofontology and whether strict symbolic interactionism isseen to be the underpinning theory, or whether it isstructuration theory of ‘‘dualisam’’ as per Giddens(1999), where the ‘‘saturated self’’ (Gergen, 1991) ofpost-modernity is involved in individual action andsocial structure that are ‘‘mutually constitutive ofeach other’’ywhere interaction of the ‘‘reflexive self’’is ‘‘a subset of a broader spectrum of routinizedactivities’’:yy..‘‘to keep a particular narrative going’’(cited in Kuentzel, 2000, pp. 89–91). Holidays indeedare another time and place for ‘‘right of passage’’,another time and place for ‘‘selfhood’’, for the ‘‘reflexiveproject of self’’yy. not in the ‘‘quest for self-improvement or development against the constrainingforces of an external worldy.but to maintain thenarrative in those moments of ambiguity or ‘‘ontologicalanxiety, or to anchor the self across the contingencies of

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200194

time and space’’ (Kiewa, 2001; Kuentzel, 2000, p. 90).Structuation theory recognizes the ‘‘duality’’ of life inpost-modernity (Kuentzel, 2000) and this stance hasbeen taken for the conceptualization presented in thispaper.

13. Frameworks for analysis of special interest tourism

experiences at micro-level

The prior discussion of SIT as being part of an overallenvironmental system at macro-level (see Fig. 1) hasattributed importance to media in terms of imagegeneration and has argued that image affects conceptsof place, of self, and the promotion of desires for certainholiday products and experiences. Level (multi-dimen-sional construct, involvement profile), and kind (EI/SI)of involvement it is argued, are the contributing factorsat micro-level for the individual in the decision-makingprocess, the experience of SIT products, and satisfactionat recollection stage (see Fig. 5).

Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997) theorize a con-tinuum of ‘‘dabbler’’, ‘‘enthusiast’’, ‘‘expert’’ and‘‘fanatics’’, and their study, consisting of a questionnairedistributed to UK Outbound SIT participants andoperators investigating market segmentation and pro-duct grouping, provided tentative evidence. Theirclassifications are not unlike those suggested in thefollowing proposed theoretical framework (see Figs. 6and 7). However, the major contribution of thisextended framework of SIT is its fundamental con-ceptualization of SIT based on the multi-dimensionaland cyclic concept of involvement by considering the

Fig. 6. The ‘‘SIT E

influence of possible enduring involvement in the leisure(home) context and situational involvement withintourism with a potential for a ‘‘career’’ path in SIT.

Additionally, the product complexity dimension isrelated to a specific SIT segment/category, for exampleadventure, which is further refined in Fig. 7 ‘‘TheAdventure Tourism Experience’’. In their conclusion,Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997) sought to refine SITtheorization from the global to the local, or from themacro to the micro, thus providing for more focusedresearch.

As can be seen in Fig. 6, the main cells are formed bya horizontal axis that traces the level of involvement; acontinuum that ranges from low levels of involvement(multi-dimensional) as in ‘‘attraction’’ in a specialinterest focus (e.g. activity, environmental setting, socialcontext), to high levels of involvement as in centralityand commitment. The vertical axis presents a secondcontinuum, that of ‘‘Frequency of SIT product pur-chase/participation’’. Enduring involvement implies atransition from the ‘‘one-off’’ experience into a processof experience repetition during which additional ‘‘skills’’(behavioural, cognitive and social/psychological) arecollected and the nature of the challenge being soughtmight become more ‘‘risky’’ with regard to riskprobability and risk consequence. In terms of this modelthe participant may therefore move along two dimen-sions—these being a transition from lesser to greaterinvolvement considering the various facets of involve-ment (attraction, self-expression and centrality, riskpotential, risk consequence) with a specific activity orsetting (leisure interest), and two, by increasing exposureto travel involvement in SIT.

xperience’’.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 7. The ‘‘Adventure Tourism Experience’’.

B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200 195

Thus, the ‘‘SIT Expert’’ has high involvement in boththe leisure interest and experience in travel and choosesSIT experiences with matching challenges. The ‘‘Novice’’

in SIT, according to Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997)is looking for a change from GIT and MIT and,depending on her/his attitude to risk, will be seeking‘‘fashionable or popular’’ products as a means of self-expression. They called these tourists the ‘‘dabblers’’,not unlike the dabbler as suggested by Stebbins (1997) inthe debate of casual and serious leisure. The ‘‘Novice’’ istrying out a special leisure/recreation interest of highimportance and centrality to the ‘‘Expert/SpecialistInterest Tourist’’ as well as the ‘‘Travelling RecreationExpert/Specialist’’, while being a novice at travel. Thus,the ‘‘Novice’’ is also exploring travel as a new orevolving interest and hence is dabbling in the SIT’’Collector’s’’ expertise of travel.

On the other hand, a ‘‘Collector’’ of SIT experiencesparticipates in a variety of SIT experiences/productssuch as cultural tourism, adventure tourism, sporttourism, etc. The ‘‘Collector’’, unfamiliar with andinexperienced in e.g. adventure tourism, choosing ahighly complex/specialized/’’‘‘hard’’ tourism productmay find him/herself in a risk zone encounteringchallenges beyond their competence in the SIT focus.The ‘‘Travelling Special Interest Expert’’ is the personwho is highly involved (specialist) in the leisure focus buta novice at travelling, possibly taking a ‘‘once in alifetime’’ vacation. These tourists would find themselvesin a ‘‘comfort zone’’ of their specialisation.

14. Adventure tourism experiences

Within the context of adventure recreation, Ewert andHollenhorst (1989) presented a framework where theadventure recreationist moves along a continuum fromintroduction through development to commitment ashe/she gains more experience with the activity. Thisrecreation specialization meant a change in activity andsetting preferences, something addressed by Clarke andStankey’s (1979) recreation opportunity spectrum(ROS) for park management purposes. Through theprovision of a range of recreational settings, the ROSfacilitates satisfaction for a spectrum of users/partici-pants catering for their varying needs, tastes andpreferences. It is the ‘‘fit’’ between individual character-istics and setting (product) attributes that facilitates‘‘peak experience’’ or ‘‘flow’’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975,1990).

Considering individual involvement and specializa-tion attributes and product complexity/nature of theproduct in SIT, the following dimensions are suggestedto serve as a framework for research, design, manage-ment and marketing of engineered experiences withinthe commercial context of tourism.

14.1. Product attributes (ROS/TOS)

�

Product specific e.g.,J Risk (perceived to real/soft to hard in adventure

tourism)

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200196

– competition (play/social to pure sport/seriousorientation in sport tourism),

– formality (informal to formal in educationaltourism and eco-tourism),

– depth of interest (shallow to deep in eco-tourismand cultural tourism).

�

social orientation (programs/courses/family/friends topeers/teams/solo), � environmental/physical orientation (natural/unstruc-

tured to developed/structured),

� local to global (familiarity and proximity to novel and

exotic),

� access (cost, time, equity, low to high).

14.2. Individual attributes—involvement

�

BehaviouralJ Frequency of participation (measures prior experi-

ence with activity, familiarity of setting).

� Cognitive

J Skills, knowledge, setting attributes—low to high,J locus of control/autonomy (perceived to real

competence).

� Affective (EI)

J Importance/enjoyment (attraction),J self expression/sign,J centrality.

� Risk probability

J Choosing one activity/product over other options.

� Risk consequences

J Making poor choices.

The framework brings together two key elements ofthe setting and activity features (tourism product) andthe tourist’s attributes. It demonstrates a multi-dimen-sional and changing relationship along a spectrum fromattraction to centrality with, as an example, an‘‘adventure tourist career’’ path as shown in Fig. 7.

Within adventure tourism there is a ‘‘hard adventure’’product requiring careful preparation (physical, equip-ment, skill requirements and planning) and high levels ofcommitment and experience, as in an expedition toMount Everest. However, the tourist can purchase this‘‘expertise’’ in the commercial context of tourism.Companies further extend their offer for the compara-tively inexperienced under the umbrella of ‘‘soft’’adventure, experiences designed for the novice and thecollector. Market segmentation based on benefitsanalysis implies a need to present multiple products toclientele that purchase ‘‘packages’’ of image and text tofit their needs and desires. The benefit is premised on apromise whereby participation yields satisfaction. Thisrequires high levels of skill in technical expertise andestablishing empathy by the provider/operator withclients, while complying with regulations relating to

safety. The framework implies that satisfaction isderived from competently dealing with perceived risk,and thereby permits product development where ‘‘real’’risk may be as minimal as possible. Yet so long as itoffers an ‘‘adrenalin high’’ from surmounting a chal-lenge, client satisfaction can result.

The understanding and application of the under-pinning aspects at macro- and micro-level proposed inthis paper assist in establishing and maintainingprofessionalism and risk management policies forcreating satisfying and memorable tourism experienceswithin an environment of growing concern for safety,liability and the outcome of a satisfying experience of‘‘extra-ordinaire’’ dimensions.

Fig. 7 presents a refined framework of a specific SITsegment, that of adventure tourism.

Four cells, similar to Fig. 6 ‘‘The SIT Experience’’,can therefore be identified, these being

Collector: A tourist who regularly chooses anadventure tourism products/experiences for his/hervacation, but does not focus on one particular SITsub-segment, e.g. as in adventure tourism: windsurfing,canoeing, caving, skiing expedition, mountaineering,collecting various experiences like in ‘‘wine’’ tasting.

Expert/specialist tourist: On the other hand, for the‘‘Expert/Specialist Tourist’’ the special interest activityis central in her/his overall life and leisure. Hence, the‘‘Adventure Tourist’’ is likely to choose their specialinterest holidays in accordance with their overall leisureinterests and activities.

Travelling expert/specialist recreationist: The ‘‘Travel-ling Expert/Specialist Adventure Recreationist’’ is atourist who is highly involved in adventure during theirleisure time. He/she pursues this mainly in their homeenvironment as a hobby and follows his/her recreationalpassion during holidays as either a once in a lifetimeexperience or only on rare occasions, with little travelexperience overall.

Novice/dabbler: The ‘‘Novice’’ Adventure Tourist is‘‘trailing’’ an adventure tourism experience, beinginexperienced and unfamiliar with adventure experi-ences, having possibly participated in an eco-tourismexperience or a cultural tourism holiday prior to thisvacation. However, the travel exposure is limited andtherefore, the ‘‘Novice’’ is ‘‘dabbling’’ in both the leisureand travel expertise of the ‘‘travelling adventure recrea-tion specialist’’ and the ‘‘collector’’, respectively, and the‘‘Adventure Tourism Expert/Specialist’’ overall.

15. SIT and adventure career path

The frameworks imply a form of recreation-SITcareer path whereby the participant may choose tomove along the 451 line from the exploration as a‘‘novice or dabbler’’ to the ‘‘specialist/expert tourist/

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200 197

traveler’’ cell. That such movement is not automatic is,however, an important proviso. But the possibleexplanation for such movement is explained by thedegree of involvement that the participant begins todemonstrate, a degree in part explained by the evalua-tion of the experiences derived from the consumption ofthe SIT product (product complexity continuum). Thus,the framework indicates an integration of the variablesidentified as being important in this conceptualisation ofSIT. However, it is important to realize, that within thecontext of tourism, the tourist can ‘‘buy’’ the equipment,the time for organizing, the expert knowledge and skillwithin a package with no other investment such as priorexperience or involvement in the activity. Nonetheless,in the zone of exploration the acquisition of skill by theless involved encourages senses of achievement wherebyboth degrees of involvement and abilities to cope withmore challenging environments occurs, and thus a SITcareer might be said to lie along this path.

16. Conclusion

Like any form of modeling, the frameworks presentpotential relationships that are abstractions from reality;yet nonetheless pose questions that elicit more mean-ingful responses. It raises issues relating to identificationof ‘‘inhibitors’’ and ‘‘facilitators’’. In the example ofadventure tourism it includes adventure skill acquisitionin a transition from ‘‘soft’’ to ‘‘hard’’ adventure. While atone level this may be complementary to research aboutparticipation levels in the leisure literature, the model alsoposes questions about the role of media and theimportance of ‘‘signage’’. It attributes a role to the mediawhereby it creates ‘‘images of the familiar’’ so that thetourist perceives themselves not simply experiencing theunfamiliar, but rather as someone taking on a role to actthat which is familiar through image consumption.

It is suggested that the two micro-frameworksincorporate two theoretical concepts within the litera-ture not previously linked—these being the continua ofthe nature of the product/product complexity, e.g. hardand soft adventure, and the role of involvement. Thismicro-framework is in turn contextualized within amacro-framework of the commercial adventure tourismindustry of supply and demand with a specific role beingattributed to media and image creation. Sharpley (1999)argues for analysis of tourist experience at both themicro- and macro-level, thus providing a broader socialcontext. Indeed, the signage of the activity is soimportant that it can be said to provide a linkagebetween the macro- and the micro-frameworks. Theidentification of sign values associated with SIT imageshelps create more enduring relationships with the smallsocial worlds of SIT participants. In the example given,adventure participants thereby moving a person along

the involvement continuum from low to higher andmore enduring levels (attraction to centrality) based onmulti-dimensional measurements. Linking tourist cate-gories and typologies to tourism experiences as a multi-dimensional concept rather than tourists’ behaviouracknowledges that tourists are not homogenous and donot function in isolation from broader sociologicalinfluencers.

It can be claimed that image determines both demandand supply. The above argument has concentratedprimarily upon the nature of the demand, but many ofthose that supply the product do so in the wish tosustain a certain life-style centred on the activity inquestion and the social world (Unruh, 1979, 1980) thatsustains that activity. With reference to the work ofCloke and Perkins (1998, 2002), the model structurestheir observations by establishing potential relationshipbetween experience and commodification in a way notinherent in their work. The frameworks postulate thatquestioning along the dimensions of signage andinvolvement as well as the affective associated withgiven experiences are needed to better understand thenature of the SIT product, or in this case the adventure‘‘product’’. Understanding of involvement profiles andSIT opportunities (ROS) facilitates not only appropriatemanagement to maximize consumer satisfaction, butalso would focus program development, target market-ing and relevant service mix, distribution, pricing andpromotional strategies. Research could apply theinvolvement concepts with regard to activities anddestinations not only to SIT segments such as adven-ture, sport or culture, but more specifically at sub-segment level such as rock-climbing, sky-diving ormountaineering within adventure tourism. The progres-sion from an eclectic mix of SIT experiences to thepursuit of a specific interest such as mountaineeringalready suggests a specialization and career away fromthe general SIT segments (Beedie, 2003). Furtherresearch directions incorporating the involvement con-cept are suggested to also investigate gender, culturaldifferences and age differences for international market-ing and equity issues.

References

Acott, T. G., La Trobe, H. L., & Howard, S. H. (1998). An evolution

of deep ecotourism and shallow ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, 6(3), 238–252.

Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (1993). River magic: extraordinary

experience and the extended service encounter. Journal of

Consumer Research.

Arnould, E. J., Price, L. L., & Tierney, P. (1998). Communicative

staging of the wilderness experience. The Service Industry, 18(3),

90–115.

Arsenault, N. (1998). A study of educational travel and older adult

learners, participant types and program choices. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Quebec.

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200198

Arsenault, N. (2001). ‘‘Canadian ed-ventures’’, learning vacations in

Canada: an overview. Ottawa: Canadian Tourism Commission.

Arsenault, N., & Anderson, G. (1998). New learning horizons for older

adults (lifelong learning) (part two) (leisure and lifelong learning)

(cover story). The Journal of Physical Edcuation, Recreation and

Dance, 69(3), 27.

Ateljevic, A., & Doorne, S. (2002). Presenting New Zealand;

tourism imagery and ideoloy. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3),

648–667.

Australian Tourist Commission (ATC). (1993). Special interest

Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Bammel, G., & Bammel, L. L. (1992). Leisure and human behavior.

Dubuque, IA: WmC, Brown Publishers.

Bartram, S. A. (2001). Serious leisure careers among whitewater

kayakers: a feminist perspective. World-Leisure-Journal, 43(2),

4–11.

Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Beedie, P. (2003). Adventure tourism. In S. Hudson (Ed.), Sport and

Adventure Tourism (pp. 203–239). London: Haworth Hospitality

Press.

Brotherton, B., & Himmetoglu, B. (1997). Beyond destinations—

special interest tourism. Anatolia: an International Journal of

Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(3), 11–30.

Bryan, H. (1977). Leisure value systems and recreational specializa-

tion: the case of trout fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research, 12,

229–241.

Bryan, H. (1979). Conflict in the great outdoors. Alabama: University

of Alabama, Bureau of Public Administration.

Butler, R. W. (1999). Understanding tourism. In E. L. Jackson, &

T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies, prospects for the twenty-

first century (pp. 97–116). State College, Pennsylvania: Venture

Publishing, Inc.

Carr, N. (2002). The tourism-leisure behavioural continuum. Annals of

Tourism Research, 29(4), 972–986.

Cater, C. (2000). Can I play too? Inclusion and exclusion in adventure

tourism. The North West Geographer, 3, 50–60.

Celsi, L. R., Rose, R. L., & Leigh, T. W. (1993). An exploration of

high-risk leisure consumption through skydiving. Journal of

Consumer Research, 30, 2–23.

Charters, S., & Ali-Knight, J. (2002). Who is the wine tourist? Tourism

Management, 23(2), 311–319.

Clarke, R. N., & Stankey, G. H. (1979). The recreation opportunity

spectrum: a framework for planning, management and research

(General Technical Report PNW-98). USDA Forest Service.

Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. L. (1966). Economics of outdoor recreation.

Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

Cloke, P., & Perkins, H. C. (1998). Cracking the canyon with the

awsome foursome: representations of adventure tourism in New

Zealand. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 16,

185–218.

Cloke, P., & Perkins, H. C. (2002). Commodification and adventure in

New Zealand tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 5(6), 521–549.

Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social

Research, 39, 164–182.

Collier, A. (1997). Principles of tourism, a New Zealand perspective.

New York: Longman.

Coulter, R. A. (2001). Interpreting consumer perceptions of advertis-

ing: an application of the zaltman mataphor elicitation technique.

Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 1–21.

Craig-Smith, S., & French, C. (1994). Learning to live with tourism.

Melbourne, Australia: Longman.

Craik, J. (1997). The culture of tourism. In C. Rojek, & J. Urry (Eds.),

Tourism cultures transormation of travel and theory (pp. 113–136).

London: Routledge.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San-

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow—the psychology of optimal experi-

ence. New York: Harper & Row.

Dann, G. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of

Tourism Research, 14, 184–194.

de Grazia, S. (1964). Of time, work, and leisure. New York: Anchor

Books.

Derrett, R. (2001). Special interest tourism: starting with the

individual. In N. Douglas, N. Douglas, & R. Derret (Eds.), Special

interest tourism (pp. 1–28). Brisbane: Wiley.

Dimanche, F., Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1991). Testing the

involvement profile (IP) scale in the context of selected recreational

and tourist activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(1), 51–66.

Dimanche, F., Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1993). Consumer

involvement profiles as a tourism segmentation tool. Journal of

Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1(4), 33–51.

Dimanche, F., & Samdahl, D. (1994). Leisure as symbolic consumpi-

tion: a conceptualization and prospectus for future research.

Leisure Sciences, 16, 119–129.

Dimmock, K., & Tryce, M. (2001). Fesitvals and events: celebrating

special interest tourism. In N. Douglas, N. Douglas, & R. Derret

(Eds.), Special interest tourism (pp. 355–379). Brisbane: Wiley & Sons.

Douglas, N., Douglas, N., & Derret, R. (Eds.). (2001). Special interest

tourism. Melbourne, Australia: Wiley.

Dreyer, A. (1995). Grundlagen des marktgeschehens im sporttour-

ismus. In A. Dreyer, & A. Kruger (Eds.), Sporttourismus, manage-

ment und marketing-handbuch. Muenchen: R. Oldenbourg Verlag.

Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. L. (1991). Benefits of leisure.

State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Eagles, P. F. (1996). Issues in tourism management in parks: the

experience in Australia. Australian Leisure, 29–36.

Ewert (1989a). Models and theories in outdoor adventure pursuits. In

A. Ewert (Ed.), Outdoor adventure pursuits. Scottsdale, Arizona:

Publishing Horizons Inc.

Ewert, A. (1989b). Why people climb: the relationship of participant

motives and experience level to mountaineering. Journal of Leisure

Research, 17, 241–250.

Ewert, A. (2000). Outdoor adventure recreation and public land

management: current status and emerging trends. Paper presented

at the tenth annual world congress on adventure travel and

ecotourism, anchorage.

Ewert, A., & Hollenhorst, S. (1989). Testing the aventure model:

empirical support for a model of risk recreation participation.

Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 124–139.

Fluker, M., & Turner, L. (2000). Needs, motivations, and expectations

of a whitewater rafting experience. Journal of Travel Research,

38(4), 380–389.

Funk, D. C., & James, J. (2002). The psychological continuum model: a

conceptual framework for understanding an individual’s psycholgi-

cal connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4, 119–150.

Gahwiler, P. (1995). Consumer loyalty in a membership-reliant leisure

organisazation, a social world perspective, Unpublished Masters of

Arts, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.

Gahwiler, P., & Havitz, M. E. (1998). Toward a relational under-

standing of leisure social worlds, involvement, psychological

commitment and behavioural loyalty. Leisure Sciences, 20, 1–23.

Gammon, S., & Robinson, T. (2003). Sport and tourism: a conceptual

framework. Journal of Sport Tourism, 8(1), 21–26.

Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self. Dilemmas of identity in

contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.

Giddens, A. (1999). Modernity and self-identity, self and society in the

late modern age (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Gray, H. P. (1979). International travel: international trade. Lexington,

MA: Heath Lexington Books.

Hall, M. (1992). Review: adventure, sport and health tourism. In

B. Weiler, & C. M. Hall (Eds.), Special interest tourism

(pp. 141–158). London: Belhaven Press.

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200 199

Hall, M. (2003). Spa and health tourism. In S. Hudson (Ed.), Sport and

adventure tourism (pp. 273–292). London: Hayworth Hospitality

Press.

Hall, M., & Weiler, B. (1992). Introduction. What’s special about

special interest tourims? In B. Weiler, & C.M. Hall (Eds.), Special

interest tourism. Bellhaven Press.

Hamilton-Smith, E. (1987). Four kinds of tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research, 14, 322–344.

Havitz, M. E. (2002). In B. Trauer (Ed.), Pers. comm., Waterloo

University, Ontario, Canada.

Havitz, M. E., & Dimanche, F. (1997). Leisure involvement revisited:

conceptual conumdrums and measurement advances. Journal of

Leisure Research, 3, 1–18.

Havitz, M. E., & Dimanche, F. (1999). Leisure involvement revisited:

drive properties and paradoxes. Journal of Leisure Research, 31,

122–149.

Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1995). How enduring is enduring

involvement in the context of tourist motation? Journal of Travel

and Tourism Marketing, 4(3), 95–100.

Havitz, M. E., Mannell, R.C. (2005). Likelihood of flow experiential

outcomes as a result of enduring and situational involvement

in leisure and non-leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research,

in press.

Hlavin-Schulze, K. (1998a). Alles schon mal dagewesen? Reisen in der

postmoderne. Tourismus Journal, 2, 273–282.

Hlavin-Schulze, K. (1998b). Man reist ja nicht um anzukommen. Reisen

als kulturelle praxis (One does not travel to get there. Travel as

cultural practice). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

Horne, D. (1994, April, 17–18, 1993). The un-accidental tourist—how

to be a more intelligent and useful traveller and save the world. The

Australian Magazine (pp. 10–16).

Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1983). Towards a social psychology of recreational

travel. Leisure Studies, 2, 45–56.

Iwasaki, Y., & Havitz, M. E. (1998). A path analytic model of the

realtionships between involvement, psychological commitment and

loyalty. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(2), 256–280.

Kelly, J. R. (1983). Leisure identities and interactions. London: Allen

and Unwin.

Kelly, J. R. (1996). Leisure. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kelly, J. R., & Godbey, G. (1992). Today’s leisure as a market

commodity. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Kiewa, J. (2001). Control over self and space in rockclimbing. Journal

of Leisure Research, 33(4), 363–382.

Kim, H., & Richardson, S. L. (2003). Motion picture impacts

on destination images. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1),

216–237.

Kruger, A. (1995). Einfuehrender ueberblick in die thematik des

sporttourismus. In A. Dreyer, & A. Kruger (Eds.), Sporttourismus:

management-und marketing-handbuch. Muenchen: R. Oldenbourg.

Kuentzel, W. F. (2000). Self-identity, modernity, and the rational

actor in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(1),

87–92.

Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. (1985). Consumer involvement profiles: a

new practical approach to consumer involvement. Journal of

Advertising Research, 25(6), 48–56.

Laverie, D. A., & Arnett, D. B. (2000). Factors affecting fan

attendaqnce: the influence of identity salience and satisfaction.

Journal of Leisure Research, 32(2).

Leiper, N. (1990). Tourism systems. An interdisciplinary perspective.

Palmerston North: Massey University.

Little, B. R. (1976). Specialization and the varieties of environmental

experience: emperical studies within the personality paradigm. In S.

Wapner, S. Cohen, & B. Kaplan (Eds.), Experiencing the

environment (pp. 81–116). New York: Plenum Press.

MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: a new theory of the leisure class.

London: Macmillan.

Mannell, R. C., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological nature of

leisure and tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3),

314–331.

Markwick, M. (2001). Postcards from malta; image, consumption,

context. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 417–438.

McIntyre, N. (1989). The personal meaning of participation: enduring

involvement. Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 167–179.

McIntyre, N. (1990). Recreation involvement, the personal meaning of

participation. Unpublished Ph.D., University of New England,

Armidale.

McIntyre, N., & Pigram, J. J. (1992). Recreation specialization

reexamined: the case of vehicle-based campers. Leisure Sciences,

14, 3–15.

McIntyre, N., & Roggenbuck, J. (1998). Nature/person transactions

during an outdoor adventure experience: a multiphasic analysis.

Annals of Leisure Research.

McKercher, B., & Davidson, P. (1996). Differences between tourism

and recreation in parks. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3),

563–575.

McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural tourism: the partnership

between tourism and cultural heritage management. New York: The

Hawthorne Hospitality Press.

Morgan (1996). The leisure product. Marketing for leisure and tourism.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Morpeth, N. (2001). The renaissance of cycle tourism. In N. Douglas,

N. Douglas, & R. Derret (Eds.), Special interest tourism

(pp. 212–229). Melbourne, Australia: Wiley.

Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: a community approach. London:

Methuen.

Nielsen, C. (2001). Tourism and the media, tourist decision making,

information, and communication. Melbourne: Hospitality Press.

Opaschowski, H. W. (2001). Tourismus im 21. Jahrhundert, das

gekaufte paradies. Hamburg: B.A.T. Freizeit-Forschungsinstitut

GmbH.

Pearce, D. (1993). Fundamentals of tourist motivation. In Tourism

research, critiques and challenges (pp. 113–133).

Pigeassou, C. (1997). Sport and tourism: the emergence of sport into

the offer of tourism. Between passion and reason. An overview of

the French situation and perspectives. Journal of Sport Tourism,

4(2), 16–29.

Plog, S. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity.

Cornell Hotel Restaurant and Administration Quaterly, 55–58.

Poon, A. (1997). Global transformation: new tourism defined. In

L. France (Ed.), The earthscan reader in sustainable tourism.

London: Earthscan Publications.

Priest, J. C. (1992). Factor exploration and confirmation for the

dimensons of an adventure experience. Journal of Leisure Research,

24, 127–139.

Priest, J. C. (1999). The adventure experience paradigm. In J. C. Miles,

& S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 159–162). State

College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Prosser, G. (2001). Regional tourism. In N. Douglas, N. Douglas, &

R. Derrett (Eds.), Special interest tourism (pp. 86–112). Brisbane:

Wiley.

Richards, G. (1996). The scope and significance of cultural tourism. In

G. Richards (Ed.), Cultural tourism in Europe (pp. 19–46). Oxon,

UK: CAB International.

Richins, M. L., & Bloch, P. H. (1986). After the new wears off: the

temporal context of product involvement. Journal of Consumer

Research I, 12.

Richins, M. L., Bloch, P. H., & McQuarrie, E. (1992). How enduring

and situational involvement combine to create involvement

responses. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 143–153.

Robinson, D. W. (1992). A descriptive model of enduring risk

recreation involvment. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(1), 52–63.

Rojek, C., & Urry, J. (1997). Touring cultures. London: Routledge.

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200200

Rothschild, M. (1984). Perspectives on involvement: current

problems and future directions. Advances in Consumer Research,

11, 216–217.

Ruyss, H., & Wei, S. (2001). Senior tourism. In N. Douglas, N.

Douglas, & R. Derrett (Eds.), Special interest tourism

(pp. 407–431). Brisbane: Wiley.

Ryan, C. (2003). Recreational tourism: demand and impacts (2nd ed.).

Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Schmidt, C. (1997). Service quality measurement in the leisure

industry: have we gone far enough? Paper presented at the

ANZALS.

Schofield, P. (2001). Urban tourism and small business. In N. Douglas,

N. Douglas, & R. Derret (Eds.), Special interest tourism

(pp. 432–450). Brisbane: Wiley.

Schulze, G. (1993). Die erlebnisgesellschaft, Kultursoziologie der

Gegenwart. Frankfurt.

Scott, A., & Godbey, G. (1994). Recreation specialization in the social

world of contract bridge. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(3),

275–295.

Scott, & Scott Shafer, S. (2001). Recreational specialization: a critical

look at the construct. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(2), 319–344.

Sharpley, R. (1999). Tourism, tourists and society. Cambridge: ELM

Publications.

Smail, D. (1993). The origins of unhappiness—a new understanding of

personal distress. Harper Collins.

Stebbins, R. A. (1982). Serious leisure: a conceptual statement. Pacific

Sociology Review, 25, 251–272.

Stebbins, R. A. (1997). Casual leisure: a conceptual statement. Leisure

Studies, 16, 17–25.

Stebbins, R. A. (1999). Serious leisure. In E. L. J. A. T. L. Burton

(Ed.), Leisure studies, prospect for the twenty-first century. State

College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.

Stern, B. B. (1997). Advertising intimacy: relationship marketing and

the services consumer. Journal of Advertising, Winter.

Stewart, W. P. (1998). Leisure as multiphase experience: challenging

traditions. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(4), 391–400.

Stewart, W. P., & Hull, R. B. I. (1992). Satisfaction of what? Post

hoc versus real-time construct validity. Leisure Sciences, 14,

195–209.

Strasdas, W. (1994). Auswirkungen neuer freizeittrends auf die umwelt.

Aachen: Meyer & Meyer Verlag.

Swarbrook, J., & Horner, S. (1999). Consumer behaviour in tourism.

Oxford: Butterworth and Heinemann.

Trauer, B. (1998). The sport tourism phenomenon in contemporary

society. Unpublished paper, University of Waikato, Hamilton.

Trauer, B. (1999a). Conceptualising adventure tourism and travel, placed

in the Australian context. Unpublished research project, University

of Waikato, Hamilton.

Trauer, B. (1999b). What’s special about special interest tourism? The

special interest tourist. Unpublished research project, University of

Waikato, Hamilton.

Trauer, B. (2002). Leisure education and the mindful and caring

tourist. Paper presented at the leisure education conference: past

lessons: future prospects, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Trauer, B. B., Ryan, C., & Lockyer, T. (2003). The south pacific

masters’ games—competitor involvement and games development.

The Journal of Sports Tourism, 8(4), 270–283.

Unruh, D. R. (1979). Characteristics and types of participation in

social worlds. Symbolic Interaction, 2, 115–129.

Unruh, D. R. (1980). The nature of social worlds. Pacific Sociological

Review, 23(3), 271–296.

Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze. London: Sage.

Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies. London: Routledge.

Varley, P., & Crowther, G. (1998). Performance and the service

encounter: an exploration of narrative expectations and relation-

ship management in the outdoor leisure market. Marketing

Intelligence & Planning, 16(5), 311–317.

Walle, A. H. (1997). Pursuing risk or insight: marketing adventures.

Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 265–282.

Wearing, S. (2002). Re-centring the self in volunteer tourism. In

G. M. S. Dann (Ed.), The tourist as a metaphor of the social world

(pp. 237–262). Wallingford, Oxon: CABI Publishing.

Weber, K. (2001). Outdoor adventure tourism. A review of research

approaches. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 360–377.

Weiler, B., & Hall, C. M. (1992). Special interest tourism. Bellhaven

Press.

Wickens, E. (2002). The sacred and the profane. A tourist typology.

Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 834–851.