CAUTHE 2008 Conference

Where the Bloody Hell Are We?

QUALITY TOURISM EXPERIENCES: PERSPECTIVES OF ADVENTURE TRAVEL

PROVIDERS

Gayle Jennings
Young-Sook Lee
Amanda Ayling
Carl Cater
Claudia Ollenburg
Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sport Management
Griffith Business School,
Griffith University,
Gold Coast
E-mail: g.jennings@griffith.edu.au

ABSTRACT

Quality tourism experiences are frequently referred to in tourism industry literature and
discourses, albeit definitions are rarely provided. A study of adventure travel industry providers
using an interpretive social sciences approach was conducted 2007 during peak season at an east
coast Australian tourist destination in order to understand what constituted a quality adventure
tourism experience. Empirical materials were collected using a qualitative methodology and
purposive sampling. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews generated discourses which
were interpreted using successive approximation within a grounded theory tradition. Core
elements of quality tourism experiences for adventure travel providers included experience
delivery, personal and social connectivity, inter-connectivity of entire tourism experiences as
well as provision of combinations of experiences.

KEY WORDS: quality adventure tourism experiences, experience delivery, personal

connectivity, social connectivity, interpretive social sciences, qualitative research

INTRODUCTION

“In the 21st century, quality is not an option for tourism operators,” …
“National tourism organisations all around the world are saying how
important having a quality tourism experience for visitors is becoming. If we
don't meet this expectation we risk being left behind.” (Tourism New
Zealand, 2007)

As the above commentary notes, globally, provision of quality tourism experiences is

recognised as a critical issue for travel, tourism and hospitality industries. While the statement
reflects a New Zealand interpretation, similar comments are germane for Australian contexts,
for example as noted in 2007:

“Australian tourism is a $73 billion industry with inbound tourism equating

to $17 billion and forecasts predict that the value of inbound tourism will
reach $32 billion in 2014.
…
This Government’s is not just interested in meeting these forecasts, but
exceeding them. To do this we will leave no stone unturned in providing a
quality tourism experience right across Australia”. (Australian Department of
Industry, Tourism and Resources, 2005)

1
 CAUTHE 2008 Conference
Where the Bloody Hell Are We?

Despite global discourses acknowledging the importance of the provision of quality tourism
experiences, it is important to note that there is no universal agreed definition of the term
(Jennings, 2006). Those definitions that appear in academic literature are heterogeneous in
nature, see Table 1. Subsequently, given that travel and hospitality providers are at the forefront
of provision of quality tourism experiences; this paper considers part of a research agenda,
which studied quality adventure tourism experiences. In particular, this paper focuses on a study
of adventure travel providers’ perceptions regarding quality adventure tourism experiences and
the consequences of those perceptions for the provision of quality adventure travel experiences.
The research agenda used an emic approach in order to provide deeper understanding of the
nature and consequences quality adventure tourism experiences for adventure travel providers.

The paper focuses particularly on the provision of adventure travel experiences by adventure
travel providers to an adventure youth travel market within a popular Australian east coast
tourism destination. Adventure travel providers are those tourism enterprises, which provide
experiences and accommodation for the adventure youth travel market at the destination
involved in this study. The adventure youth travel market being defined as

“people aged between 18-29 years, who are travelling in Australia outside of family
units, not for business, and not primarily to visit friends or relatives, whose travel includes at
least one overnight stay and purchase of adventure travel products, services, or experiences”.

This latter definition was reconstructed from the definition used by the adventure travel
affiliation. The specific aim of this paper are:

1. To determine the nature of quality adventure tourism experiences as perceived by

adventure travel providers.

TABLE 1
EXAMPLES OF EXTANT WESTERN-BASED LITERATURE RELATING TO
QUALITY TOURISM EXPERIENCES

Quality tourism and hospitality experiences

Theme
[Quality tourism and
hospitality] experiences
Quality [tourism and
hospitality] experience
Examples of extant
literature
Pine and Gilmore (1999, p.
11)
La Salle and Britton (2003)
Definitions and/or
interpretations
Experiences occur when “a
company intentionally uses
services as the stage and
goods as props, to engage
individual customers in a way
that creates a memorable
event”.
“[A] product or service that
when combined with its
surrounding experiences
events goes beyond itself to
enhance or bring value to a
customer’s life. This is the
ideal – to deliver such overall
value that a product
transcends the ordinary to
become extraordinary or even
priceless” (p. 38).

2
 CAUTHE 2008 Conference
Where the Bloody Hell Are We?

“[A] self-defined term and

that, in order to understand its
meanings, researchers need to
Quality tourism [and
Jennings and Weiler, 2006 interact with the person using
hospitality] experience
the term in order to gain an
insider’s (emic) perspective”
(p. 59)

QUALITY ADVENTURE TOURISM EXPERIENCES: LITERATURE REVIEW

Within tourism related literature, tourist experiences and tourism experiences have been
discussed by Clawson’s (1963) related writings about recreation experiences; Boorstin’s (1964)
discourses on authenticity in tourist experiences; Cohen’s phenomenological tourist experiences
frames (1972 and 1979) as well as MacCannell’s (1973) contemporaneous writings on tourist
experiences and authenticity. Pearce et al, (1982) further extended consideration of traveller and
tourist experiences and authenticity with connections to motivations. The interaction of host and
guest within travel experiences was addressed by Smith (1977) and Smith and Brent’s (2001)
edited books. Ryan (2002) has focussed particularly on the “tourist experience”.

Tourism and tourist experience writings have also focussed on temporality and activity-based
relationships such as Clawson’s (1963), Killion (1992) and some only on activity (McIntosh,
1977; Crompton, 1979). Additionally, Borrie and Birzell (2001) recognized four ways used to
understand tourist and tourism experiences, albeit they framed these as visitor experiences.
Those four ways include meanings-based (Botterill and Crompton, 1996), benefits, satisfaction
(Lounsbury and Polik, 1992), and experience based means (Cohen, 1979; Borrie and
Roggenbuck, 2001).

Morever, Urry (1990, 2002) introduced the notion of “gaze” into considerations of tourist
experiences albeit that his gazes were critiqued by Hollinshead (2004, p.287) especially with
respect to the “normalizing effects of various tourist gazes”. Cultural differences were further
addressed in the writings of Hollinshead (1992), and in Urry’s works (1996), as well as the texts
by Berno (1996) and Lee (2001). Relatedly, other reactions to the perceived homogenising of
tourist travel experiences resulted in gender and embodiment perspectives being introduced into
tourism experience discussions, see for example, Squire (1994) and Swaine and Momsen (2002)
for gender texts; and Cater (2002) and Waitt and Markwell (2006) with respect to embodiment.

As readers would expect, within tourism and hospitality literature, numerous studies have
focused on service delivery and quality service, which have been informed by Parasuraman,
Zeithhaml and Berry (1985, 1991), who pioneered SERVQUAL (1988) Such measurements of
quality are based on western-based constructs of empathy, responsiveness, reliability, tangibles,
assurance. Raajpoot (2004), however, has modified SERVQUAL to develop PAKSERV, which
is able to be used with Asian cultures.

This brief overview has been constructed to emphasise diversity in the perspectives that have
been applied to consider the consideration of quality tourism and travel experiences rather than
to provide an all inclusive review. Based on a review of the literature, the following principles
inform the paper: (1) quality tourism experiences is “a self-defined term and that, in order to
understand its meanings, researchers need to interact with the person using the term in order to
gain an insider’s (emic) perspective” (Jennings and Weiler, 2006, p. 59); and (2) that these
interpretations are contextually situated in a specific time, space, and by participants in specific
social groups (Urry, 1990, 1996, 2002). The next section will discuss the methodology that has
been subsequently applied to this study.

3
 CAUTHE 2008 Conference
Where the Bloody Hell Are We?

METHODOLOGY

Quality tourism experience studies have been critiqued for needing to be more emic in
nature (Arnould and Wallendorf, 1994; Anderick, Bricker, Kerstetter, Nickerson, 2006).
Subsequently, a social constructivist paradigm (see discussions by Lincoln and Guba, 2005)
was used. A social constructivist paradigm also enables multiple interpretations (Lincoln
and Guba, 2005) to be gathered with regard to this paper’s aim which is:

1. To determine the nature of quality adventure tourism experiences as perceived by

adventure travel providers

The complementary methodology was qualitative in nature and included focus groups and in-
depth interviews. The empirical materials generated by these methods were interpreted within a
grounded theory tradition using successive approximation based on the approach used by
Rynehart (2004). Researchers also used reflexive practices and held team dialogue sessions
regarding the fieldwork, especially, empirical material collection since qualitative research is
iterative and emergent when founded on grounded theory principles. Focus groups for adventure
travel providers were held at a neutral central location not associated with offering adventure
travel experiences. Depending on the timing of the focus group, breakfast or afternoon tea was
provided depending on industry preferences. With regard to interviews, locations for these were
determined based on ease of conduct, maintaining anonymity with regard to participation, and
being able to reduce work interruptions. To that end, depending on the choice preference of
providers, interviews were conducted in offices in adventure travel settings, at the researchers’
institution as well as by telephone.

The empirical material generated a range of information which was constantly compared and
interpreted in the process of collection and co-researcher “checked”. This involved successive
approximation to inductively identify common themes, which were framed into root concepts,
thence into higher order concepts. The last phase was framing a grounded theory of quality
tourism experiences for adventure providers. An overview of the root and higher order concepts
developed in this study are presented in Figure 1.

The next section overviews this paper’s quality (adventure) tourism experiences grounded
theory including related higher order concepts. The section concentrates on the grounded theory
representation only rather than a representation of participant voices as this is published
elsewhere. The section also compares perceptions of adventure travel providers during peak and
off-peak seasons regarding their provision of quality adventure travel experiences to adventure
travellers; as well as relating these perceptions to related literature.

GROUNDED THEORY ‘FINDINGS’ AND DISCUSSION

The nature of a quality adventure tourism experience as determined by the grounded theory
processes involves the following higher order concepts: ‘experience delivery’, ‘personal
connectivity’, ‘social connectivity’, ‘inter-connectivity of the entire adventure travel
experience’ and by ‘combining experiences’. Figure One presents the higher order concepts that
emerged from root concepts. This section will consider each of the higher order concepts and
any related literature. Descriptors of the higher order concepts introduce each subsection.

EXPERIENCE DELIVERY

‘Experience delivery’ is the delivery of an experience rather than a good,

product or a service.

4
 CAUTHE 2008 Conference
Where the Bloody Hell Are We?

It may, however, involve the packaging within experience various goods, products and services
because experience delivery was referred to by adventure travel providers as also being
associated with component experiences within overall travel experiences. Additionally,
‘experience delivery’ incorporates a composite of interactions first to last contact point of
experience delivery and links to the higher order concept of the ‘inter-connectivity of the entire
adventure tourism experience’. ‘Experience delivery as a higher order concept is connected to
value for money, standards, attitudes and behaviours, expectations, satisfaction, and Australian-
ness and in identifying these, a strong accord resonates with Tourism Australia’s (2007)
experience seeker, who:

• Are experienced international travellers.

• Seek out and enjoy authentic personal experiences they can talk about.
• Involve themselves in holiday activities, are sociable and enjoy engaging with the
locals.
• Are active in their pursuits and come away having learnt something.
• Are somewhat adventurous and enjoy a variety of experiences on any single trip.
• Place high importance on value and hence critically balance benefits with costs.
• Place high value on contrasting experiences (i.e. different from their day-to-day lives).

Experience delivery has partial linkages to service quality dimensions as expressed by

Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988). However, it is also more than that it is akin to
Rathmell’s (1966) “effort” by providers, as well as placing the experience within both the
travellers’ context and the experience’s spatial, temporal and cultural context, as such,
experience delivery has associations with Schmitt’s (1999) concept of experience. It is also
links to interpretive social science perspectives that lived experiences are always socially
situated and contextualised and are (re)constructed and (re)interpreted through social interaction
so the social component of experiences is critical and influences meanings that are subsequently
attached to the nature of “quality (adventure) tourism experiences”. The Australian-ness of the
experience connects to Brand Australia (Tourism Australia, 2007b), which was launched in the
mid 1990s and trade marked by the Australian Tourist Commission. This branding requires
providers to capture Australian-ness in their experience delivery for adventure youth travellers
so that the latter’s subsequent experiences and expectations are fulfilled with regard to travelling
within Australia. Such branding plays on the emotional levels-affective domains (Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982; Schmitt, 1999; O’Sullivan and Spangler, 1998; Gobe, Gob and Zyman, 2001)
of travellers and providers alike.

PERSONAL CONNECTIVITY

Personal connectivity is a strong interpersonal connection between industry

providers and associate staff with the adventure youth traveller. This connection
is more than good customer service and more than just being friendly. It is an
authentic interaction which is person to person related rather than business
provider to customer related. It incorporates a strong host-guest relationship
which merges social, cultural and business practices within an authentic, in this
case, Australian context.

Industry personnel expressed the significance of ‘personal connectivity’ as part of quality

(adventure) tourism experiences. This concept was built on root concepts which included, for
example, genuine friendliness, individualised attention, personalised interactions, person to
person connectivity, and feeling valued and accepted.

5
 CAUTHE 2008 Conference
Where the Bloody Hell Are We?

Personal connectivity as implied by travel providers resonates with the intentions of Gilmore
and Pine (2007), who emphasise the need for authenticity in interactions. Previously, Boorstin
(1964), and Urry (1990) commented that tourists were aware they are engaging at times in
hyper-real, pseudo-authentic or inauthentic experiences. These writers purport that tourists
know they are being “duped” and that “tourism is a game” and that it does not matter if tourists
experience front and back stage interactions (see MacCannell, 1973, 1976). However, it is
evident from this study that a number of adventure travel providers are acutely aware that
personal connectivity is critical for the sustainability of their enterprises. As one adventure
travel provider noted:

Person to person connectivity between provider and tourist is critical so that

tourists are provided with an experience, which leaves them thinking that was
the most enjoyable experience that they have had.

This perspective has synergy with LaSalle and Britton’s (2003) earlier statement. Additionally,
as already implied, the consequences of personal connectivity means turning adventure
travellers into “advocates” (Smith and Wheeler, 2002) for adventure travel experiences;
building relationships similar to positive “kinship” interactions (Marconi, 2005), dealing with
customers as markets of one (Gilmore and Pine, 2000) and connecting with adventure travellers
at emotional levels (Gobe, Gob and Zyman, 2001; Kotler, Adam, Brown and Armstrong, 2001).
Emotional engagement, as is personal connectivity, is also linked to social connectivity,
experience delivery, and inter-connectedness of the entire quality tourism experience.

SOCIAL CONNECTIVITY

‘Social connectivity’ refers to the provision of spaces and opportunities for

social interactions between travellers, host community members, and travel
providers as well as various mixes of these.

Both travellers and industry participants acknowledge in their experience accounts the need for
such interactions to be mediated and unmediated, as in, formally and informally brokered
interactions. ‘Social connectivity’ was framed using the root concepts of authentic social
interactions, host and guest interactions, unmediated interactions, mediated interactions, and
belongingness. The difference between personal connectivity and social connectivity is that the
former is person to person related and the latter is constituted of an individual’s interaction
within social groups.

Industry participants recognised the need for social connectivity. Providers noted the need for
social experiences and individual attention, which enabled adventure youth travellers to have a
good time. For the accommodation providers this meant providing facilities such as common
rooms and shared spaces for travellers to congregate and interact, as well as having a range of
activities and facilities to enhance traveller stays. Adventure youth travel providers also
considered quality (adventure) tourism experiences was also linked to “nice” people, friendly
people, connected people, people who impacted on emotional levels and who directly and
indirectly authentically mediated experiences.

Within this higher order concept industry providers noted that adventure travellers had the
potential to become “advocates” for adventure travel providers (Smith and Wheeler, 2002); the
impact of tailoring experiences to markets of one (Gilmore and Pine, 2000), providing
memorable experiences (Pine and Gilmore, 1999; LaSalle and Britton, 2003), and authentically
leveraging experiences using emotions (Gobe, Gob and Zyman, 2001; Schmitt, 1999;

6
 CAUTHE 2008 Conference
Where the Bloody Hell Are We?

O’Sullivan and Spangler, 1998), Additionally, the role of mediated and unmediated interactions
and the significance of informal brokering of tourist experiences (see Jennings and Weiler,
2006) was also acknowledged by adventure youth travel providers. This was further expanded
in the ‘experience delivery’ and ‘inter-connectivity of the entire adventure travel experience’.

INTER-CONNECTIVITY OF THE ENTIRE ADVENTURE TOURISM EXPERIENCE

‘Inter-connectivity of the entire adventure tourism experience’ recognises that

quality tourism experiences begin prior to the initial point of contact through to
and inclusive of the point of departure and beyond. This interconnectivity is
directly related to generating lasting memories of a quality adventure tourism
experience.

This higher order concept, ‘inter-connectivity of the entire adventure tourism experience’ was
generated from the root concepts of product and experience knowledge, experience
dissemination channels, first contact to last contact across providers.

Providers noted in focus groups and interviews that the lasting impression of the overall
experience was influenced by episodic events within and between the various phases of travel
experiences. The temporal phases of tourism experiences as described by Clawson (1963) and
Killion (1992) were grounded in expressions by travellers and tourists alike and that the overall
quality of experience was influenced by the quality of the component parts and that this was a
personally determined concept (Pine and Gilmore 1999, 1998; Jennings and Weiler, 2006).
Additionally, industry perspectives emphasised that an overall adventure travel experience
encompassed accommodation provision, adventure travel experiences as well as interactions
with other local businesses and providers and residents themselves. Subsequently, within each
of the component temporal and episodic phases of tourism experiences, there are implications
for wider tourism industry and tourism related industries to ensure that adventure youth travel
experiences are quality tourism experiences.

COMBINING EXPERIENCES

‘Combining experiences’ refers to clustering experiences to facilitate ease of

access and provision of multiple connected experiences, which also provides
choice and balance between challenge, adventure, fun, relaxation as well as
opportunities to socialise.

The root concepts that framed ‘combining experiences’ as a higher order concept include
clustering, ease of access, experiences menu selection, diversity as well as challenge, adventure,
fun and relaxation. Combining, for example, accommodation and adventure experiences, was
associated with quality tourism experiences.

‘Combining experiences’ was also considered by providers to be a way to leverage greater

patronage, overcome travel/access issues by incorporating transportation in the experience
delivery, providing value for money options, value-adding to experiences and also emphasising
the adventure nature of the destination. Some accommodation providers and experience
providers clustered their experiences and included transportation or networked with
transportation providers to overcome access issues. Having a menu of experiences from which
to select was important for adventure travel experiences. Ease of access was also associated

7
 CAUTHE 2008 Conference
Where the Bloody Hell Are We?

with ‘combining experiences’ as well as how components of overall adventure travel

experiences connect to ‘combining experiences’.

Clustering, experience menus and diversity along with ease of access to experiences enable
providers to empower travellers to determine the nature of experiences that they wish to
consume and to tailor the costs of those experiences to match adventure youth travellers
budgets and to deal with them as markets of one (Gilmore and Pine, 2000). In providing
diversity, the experiences generate “a steady flow of fantasies, feelings, and fun” (Holbrook
and Hirschman, 1982, p. 132), which engages travellers’ affective domains and heightens
experiences though the various emotions experienced during the challenges, adventure and fun
of tourism experiences. Again, this resonates with the writings of Gobe, Gob and Zyman
(2001), Holyfield (1999), as well as O’Sullivan and Spangler (1998). Such moments when the
affective domain is engaged can trigger self-actualising moments of flow (Csikszentmihalyi,
1988) subsequently generate feelings of fun. Within these moments, traveller expectations for
such experiences can be matched to anticipated satisfaction levels or exceeded. The combining
of experiences as already noted at the opening of this section is linked to social connectivity
through the sharing of adventure experiences which generate a sense of kinship between
travellers (Marconi, 2005). It also links with experience delivery as well as to the
interconnectivity associated with components of the entire adventure tourism experience.

REFLECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The aim of this study was:

1. To determine the nature of quality adventure tourism experiences as perceived by

adventure travel providers.

Based on the grounded theory interpretation of the empirical materials generated in the course
of this study, a quality (adventure) tourism experience involves experience delivery, personal
and social connectivity, positive engagements with regard to inter-connecting episodes, events
and components of the entire travel experience as well as combining adventure travel
experience options. This interpretation of quality (adventure) tourism experiences, however,
must be contextualised as having been undertaken in a popular east coast Australian tourism
destination during peak summer February 2007. While the full study included both adventure
youth travel experience providers and adventure youth travellers, this paper has reported only
on the adventure travel industry findings. Interpretations were based on empirical materials
generated through focus groups and semi-structured interviews and interpretative processes of a
constructivist approach using grounded theory. Drawing on the grounded theory interpretations
of quality (adventure) tourism experiences: experience delivery, personal connectivity, social
connectivity, inter-connectivity of entire travel experiences, combining experiences; several
recommendations for adventure travel industries are suggested. These recommendations proffer
strategies to support quality (adventure) tourism experience “delivery”.

INDUSTRY STRATEGIES

For adventure travel providers the following strategies are recommended. Inherent in these
strategies are formative and summative evaluation processes as well as ethical business
practices.

8
 CAUTHE 2008 Conference
Where the Bloody Hell Are We?

EXPERIENCE DELIVERY

The following suggestions are presented in order to complement and add value to established
traditional monitoring and evaluation as well as accreditation processes. The suggestions
include:

• staff self and team evaluations,

• peer reviews and line manager assessments
• development of individual and team staff development activities
• use of mystery adventure travellers
• informal focus group discussions between staff and travellers; as well as
• use of benchmarking to achieve horizontal and vertical comparisons .

PERSONAL AND SOCIAL CONNECTIVITY

Self auditing and feedback mechanisms need to be developed and tailored to specific provider
needs with regard to personal and social connectivity as “provided/delivered” in (adventure)
travel experiences. Strategies include:

• informal and formal consideration of social and emotional capabilities of staff using:
o self reports
o peer reviews
o line manager assessments
o staff development activities with regard to understanding staff’s own and
customers’ emotional intelligence (Goleman, 2005) and social intelligence
(Goleman, 2006).
• quasi-focus groups, that is, “conversation-based working evening-meals” regarding
authenticity of experience as well as any influences from mediated and unmediated
experiences.

INTER-CONNECTIVITY OF ENTIRE TRAVEL EXPERIENCES

The strategies noted for personal and social connectivity, experience delivery as well as
combining experiences should all be considered with regard to understanding how the
interconnectivity of entire travel experiences contributes to/ influences the overall quality of
tourism experiences. In addition, strategies need to be:

• team-based within organisations and between sector enterprises.

• serve to identify team building skills and repertoires that are under-utilised and over-
utilised by team members.
• development of a range of team-building skills and activities.

Moreover, strategies used to address inter-connectivity should be coupled to networks and

associations, in order to build positive inter-connectivity outcomes for travel experiences as well
as to influence the overall quality of tourism experiences for travellers and providers alike.

9
 CAUTHE 2008 Conference
Where the Bloody Hell Are We?

CLUSTERING EXPERIENCES

Action research approaches could be used to develop clustered products, services and
experiences. The establishment of longitudinal benchmark processes with related and divergent
industry sectors and groups would provide comparative platforms and models. These
benchmarking activities should be coupled with coaching, mentoring and peer review strategies.
Furthermore, the use of mechanisms noted in the previous two subsections regarding traveller
feedback, that is, focus groups, interviews, travel diaries, questionnaires and staff feedback and
review mechanisms should also be contemplated.

REFERENCES

Anderick, K., Bricker, K.S., Kerstetter, D., and N.P. Nickerson. (2006). Connecting Experiences
to Quality: Understanding Meanings Behind Visitors’ Experiences. In Jennings, GR and
Nickerson, N (eds.) Quality Tourism Experiences, Burlington, MA: Elsevier, Chapter 5,
pp. 81-98.
Arnould, E.J. and Wallendorf, M. (1994, November). Market-oriented Ethnography:
Interpretation Building and Marketing Strategy Formulation. Journal of Marketing
Research, 31, 484-504.
Australian Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources. (2005). Decipher to develop
national tourism accreditation portal, Media Release by The Hon. Fran Bailey,
MP. Downloaded 15 September, 2007 URL:
http://minister.industry.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=08
552CC0-65BF-4956-B1BC8D8C53D29ED3
Berno, T. (1996). Cross-cultural Research Methods: Content or Context? A Cook Island
Example. In R. Butler and T. Hinch (Eds.). Tourism and indigenous peoples. London:
International Thomson Business Press, pp. 376-395.
Boorstin, D. (1964). The Image: a Guide to Pseudo Events in America. New York: Harper
and Row.
Borrie W.T., and R. Birzell. (2001). Approaches to Measuring Quality of the Wilderness
Experience. In W.A. Freimund and D.N. Cole (Eds.). Visitor Use Density and
Wilderness Experience: Proceedings; 2001 June 1-3; Missoula, MT. Proc RMRS-P-
20, (pp. 29-38). Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station.
Borrie, B., and J. Roggenbuck. (2001). The Dynamic, Emergent, and Multi-Phasic Nature of
On-Site Wilderness Experiences. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(2), 202-228.
Botterill, D., and J. Crompton. (1996). Two Case Studies: Exploring the Nature of the
Tourist’s Experience. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(1), 57-82.
Bricker, K.S. and Kerstetter, D. (2006) Saravanua ni naua: Exploring Sense of Place in the
Rural Highlands of Fiji. In Jennings, GR and Nickerson, N (eds.) Quality Tourism
Experiences, Burlington, MA: Elsevier, Chapter 6, pp. 99-111.
Cater, C. (2002). Beyond the Gaze: The Reflexive Tourist and the Search for Embodied
Experience. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bristol, United Kingdom.
Clawson, M. (1963). Land and water for recreation: Opportunities, problems and policies.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39, 164-
182.
Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13, 179 - 201.
Crompton, J. (1979). Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4),
408-424.

10
 CAUTHE 2008 Conference
Where the Bloody Hell Are We?

Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1988). The future of flow. In Csikzentmihalyi, M and Csikzentmihalyi, I.

Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 365-383.
Gilmore, J.H. and B.J. Pine. (2000). Markets of One: Creating Customer-Unique Value through
Mass Customization. MASS: Harvard Business School Press
Gobe, M., Gob, M. and S. Zyman. (2001). Emotional branding: The new paradigm for
connecting brands to people. Allworh Press.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships. New York:
Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional Intelligence. Bantam Books.
Holbrook, M.B., & Hirschman, E.C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption:
Consumer fantasies, feelings and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-140.
Hollinshead, K. (1992). ‘White’ gaze, ‘red’ people-shadow visions: the disidentification of
‘Indians’ in cultural tourism. Leisure Studies, 11(1), 43-64.
Hollinshead, K. (2004). Symbolism in tourism: Lessons from “Bali 2002” – Lessons from
Australia’s dead heart. Tourism Analysis, 8, 267-295.
Holyfield, L. (1999). Manufacturing adventure: The buying and selling of emotions.
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28(1), 3-32.
Jennings, GR (2006) ‘Quality Tourism Experiences – An Introduction’, in Jennings, GR and
Nickerson, N (eds.) Quality Tourism Experiences, Burlington, MA: Elsevier, Chapter
One. Pp.1-21.
Jennings, G.R. and Weiler. B. (2006). Mediating Meaning: Perspectives on Brockering Quality
Tourism Experiences. in Jennings, GR and Nickerson, N (eds.) Quality Tourism
Experiences, Burlington, MA: Elsevier, Chapter 4, pp. 57-78.
Killion, G.L. (1992). Understanding tourism. Study Guide. Rockhampton: Central Queensland
University.
Kotler, P., Adam, S., Brown, L., Armstrong, G. (2001). Principles of Marketing. Pearson –
Prentice Hall, Frenchs Forest, Australia.
LaSalle, D., and T. Britton. (2003). Priceless: turning ordinary products into extraordinary
experiences. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Lee, Y.S. (2001) Tourist gaze: Universal Concept? Tourism, Culture & Communication, 3(2), 93 – 99.
Lincoln, Y.S. and E.G. Guba. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging
confluences. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative
research, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 163-188.
Lounsbury, J., and J. Polik. (1992). Leisure needs and vacation satisfaction. Leisure Sciences,
14(1), 105-119.
MacCannell, D. (1973). ‘Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings.’
American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589 – 603.
MacCannell, D. (2002). The ego factor in tourism. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1),
146ff (6 pgs).
McIntosh, R.W. (1977). Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies. Colombus, OH: Grid.
Marconi, J. (2005). Creating the Marketing Experience: New Strategies for Building
Relationships with your Target Market. South-Western Educational Publishing.
O’Sullivan, E.L. and K.J. Spangler. (1998). Experience Marketing: Strategies for the New
Millennium. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing,
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and L.L. Berry. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service
Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and L.L. Berry. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multi-Item Scale for
Measuring Customer perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1) 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and V.A. Zeithaml. (1991). Refinement and Reassessment of the
SERVQUAL Scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(1), 39-48.

11
 CAUTHE 2008 Conference
Where the Bloody Hell Are We?

Pearce, P. and M.L. Caltabiano. (1982). Inferring travel motivations from travellers’
experiences. Journal of Tourism Research, 17, 337-352. (1982)
Pine, J., and J. Gilmore. (1998). Welcome to the Experience Economy. Harvard Business
Review, 76(4), 97-105.
Pine, J., and J. Gilmore. (1999). The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business
is a Stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Raajpoot, N. (2004). Reconceptualizing Service Encounter Quality in Non-Western
Context, Journal of Service Research, 7(2), 181-201.
Ryan, C. (Ed.). (2002). The tourist experience: An introduction (second edn.). London:
Thomson Learning.
Rynehart, R.L. (2004). Foruming: a theory of influencing organisational change. Unpublished
PhD. Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia.
Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential Marketing: How to Get Customers to Sense, Feel, Think, Act
and Relate to Your Company and Brands: New York: Free Press.
Smith, S. and J. Wheeler. (2002). Managing the Customer Experience: Turning Customers into
Advocates. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Smith, V. (Ed.) (1977). Host and Guests: the Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania.
Smith, V. and M. Brent. (2001). Hosts and Guest Revisited: Tourism Issues in the 21st Century
(Tourism Dynamics). Elmsford, NY: Cognizant Communication.
Squire, S.J. (1994). Gender and tourist experiences: Assessing Women’s Shared Meaning for
Beatrix Potter. Leisure Studies, 13(3), 195-209.
Swaine, M.B. and J.H. Momsen. (2002). Gender/Tourism/Fun (Tourism Dynamics). Elmsford,
NY: Cognizant Communication.
Tourism Australia. (2007a). Experience seekers. Downloaded 15 September, 2007, URL:
http://www.channelate.australia.com/experience_seekers.htm
Tourism Australia. (2007b). Brand Australia Industry Toolkit. Downloaded 15 September 2007.
URL: http://www.tourism.australia.com/Marketing.asp?sub=0413&al=2119
Tourism New Zealand. (2007). Quality Strategy for Tourism New Zealand Events. Downloaded
15 September, 2007, URL: http://www.newzealand.com/travel/trade/trade-news-
events/trade-news/quality-strategy-for-tourism-new-zealand-events.cfm
Uriely, N., Yonay, Y., and Simchai, D. (2002). Backpacking experiences: A type and form
analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (2), pp. 520-538.
Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze, leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Urry, J. (1996). Sociology of time and space. In Turner, B.S. (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion
to Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 369-395.
Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze, (second edn.). London: Sage.
Waitt, G. and K. Markwell. (2006). Gay Tourism: Culture and Context. Binghamton, NY:
Haworth Hospitality Press.

12
 CAUTHE 2008 Conference
Where the Bloody Hell Are We?

Quality (Adventure) Tourism

Experiences

Higher Order Concepts

Inter-
Experience connectivity of
Personal Social Combining
Delivery entire travel
Connectivity Connectivity Experiences
experiences

Root Concepts

Value for Money Genuine friendliness Authentic social Product and experience Clustering
Standards Individualised attention interactions knowledge Ease of Access
Attitudes and behaviours Personalised interactions Host and guest interactions Experience dissemination Menu selection
Expectations Person to person Unmediated interactions channels Diversity
Satisfaction connectivity Mediated interactions First contact to last contact Challenge, adventure,
Australian-ness Feel valued and accepted Belongingness across providers fun and relaxation

FIGURE 1.
ROOT CONCEPTS AND HIGHER ORDER CONCEPTS ASSOCIATED WITH QUALITY ADVENTURE TOURISM EXPERIENCES

13