See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331982531

Nature-Based Tourism, Nature Based Tourism

Destinations' Attributes And Nature Based Tourists'
Motivations

Chapter · March 2019

CITATIONS READS

7 14,331

1 author:

Taki Can Metin

Kırklareli University
25 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mülteci, Sığınmacı, Göçmen ve Vatansızlar İçin İstihdam ve Mekânsal Sorunların Çözümü Amacıyla İdari Yapılanma
ve Fiziksel Altyapı Modeli View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Taki Can Metin on 25 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHAPTER 7
NATURE-BASED TOURISM, NATURE-BASED TOURISM
'(67,1$7,216¶$775,%87(6, AND NATURE-BASED
7285,676¶027,9$7,216

7$.ø&$10(7ø1
ϭϳϰ


NATURE-BASED TOURISM, NATURE BASTED T

7285,60'(67,1$7,216¶$775,%87(6 
MOTIVATIONS OF NATURE-BASED TOURISTS

INTRODUCTION
One of the main resources of tourism is the natural resources. The interest to
the natural resources has been increasing rapidly in the last few years. Due
to the fact that Nature-based tourism movement catches attention in tourism.
The present tourism has been seen rising on ethics such as the basis of
awareness of protecting the nature, the precautions of prevention of
consuming the natural resources. Moving from here, nature-based tourism,
could be described as a tourism type which contains a wide range of
activities, as being performed in the areas that are supposedly different and
purer natural areas, and swimming, diving, hiking, campfire, picnic, taking
photographs, learning, friends or spending time as families, etc. The
important point of this definition, the activities which will take place in the
movement of tourism and the selections of the destinations of the tourist's
subjects or obliges the natural areas.
Among all types of tourism in the World, nature-based tourism, having a
quite high share such as %20, this share is continuously increasing (Center
for Responsible Travel, 2018). In South Africa, nature-based tourism
currently producing the same amount of income as the total income of
farming, forestry, and fishery. In the Worldwide, it is estimated that as a
whole, tourism contains %10 of gross domestic product (GDP). Wildlife
observation and outdoor recreation( mostly focusing on the protected areas)
are the most important and progressing components of creating this income
(Balmford, et. al, 2009). According to World travel and tourism council, in
2016 travel and tourism in total contributed to GDP 7.6 trillion, or 10,2 in
rate, and sector offered employment opportunity to one in 10 people in the
World. According to the World Bank, it is introduced that nature-based
tourism constitutes %10 of GDP in Tanzania, in Namibia %19 of
employment (pubdocs.worldbank.org). In Australia, in 2016, %68 of
international visitors visited Australia for nature-based tourism activities.
The same year the total share of nature-based tourism in the market, %17 in
China, %11 in the UK, %10 in New Zealand and %9 in the USA.
Furthermore, the rate of the tourists who prefer nature-based tourism of 15-
29 age range is the highest rate with %33 of the total. As a consequence of
that, it gives clues of this type of tourism is likely to grow in the future as the
tourists who participate in nature-based tourism are in the tendency to be at

ϭϳϱ



younger ages. In addition to that, when the average expenses of the tourists
who involved in nature-based tourism in Australia 5548$, the average of the
tourists who participated in other tourism movements stated as 3621$. In this
case, it is pointed out the importance of nature-based tourism in terms of
income(www.ecotourism.org.au). On the other hand, due to the reports of
the World Bank, there is a rapid rising demand for the wildlife tourism for
the last 10 years which takes place in nature-based tourism. However, the
World Bank highlighted that it is much more under threat, owing to the
increasing demand and opportunities, natural life and biodiversity, habitat
loss, smuggling and lack of finance(www.worldbank.org).
In nature-based tourism movement, achieving success in two essential points
become the top level domain both in the sustainability of the movement and
increasing the income. The first of these, establishing natural areas regarding
preservation utilization balance. At this point, there are huge responsibilities
on state, local authorities, local community, and tourist on an individual
basis. Taking precautions and making plans in respect thereof, paying close
attention to the cases such as infrastructure and superstructure, will be the
point of exit of the respective responsibilities. The other essential point is
determining the motivation and attractions in nature-based tourism which are
the basic topics of this study. The intercompatibility of the motivations
composing the expectations of the tourists who participate in the movement
of tourism and the attractions fulfilling the issued expectations in the
preferred destinations introduces the most important situation to find a
destination successful. Nevertheless, when this issue approached in nature-
based tourism, there could be some difficult situations. As is known, human
desire and expectations are limitless. Presentation of a motivation in parallel
with a lack of ethical values might cause irremediable destructions in nature.
And consequently, the destination nature-based tourism takes place might
face the danger of extinction of the attractive components in time. For this
reason, it will ensure that nature-based tourists are aware of the possible
damages to the environment, care about the harm given to environment
destinations, it is necessary to provide attributes that create awareness.
Concordantly, with reference to the motivation that tourists have been
learning and discovering new ropes, positioning the attractions in natural
areas expand to develop nature awareness would provide a sustainable
tourism policy for the destination.
In this study, the practice of dimensions and factors related to the motivations
and attractions of nature-based tourism analyzed systematically. Hereat, the
question of what the ideal motivation and attraction for a destination could
be? tried to be sorted out.

ϭϳϲ



DEFINITIONS, SCOPE AND THE CONTEXT OF

NATURE-BASED TOURISM
Different approaches take place in literature related to the terms of nature-
based tourism and ecotourism. While some authors claim that nature-based
tourism and ecotourism as synonym or have the same meaning in
quality(McNeely & Thorsell, 1989), some with regard to the scope consider
nature-based tourism as a broad concept inclusive activities such as
ecotourism, adventure tourism, nature tourism; including consumption of
resources, protection of nature and also culture(Roxana, 2012). While in
another approach, ecotourism and nature-based tourism have deep divergent
differences in aspects of quality, it is brought forward that ecotourism has
more responsible conception, on the other hand, it also has common areas
with nature-based tourism activities(Nyaupane, 2007; Buckley, 1994). In the
view of such approaches, it would be beneficial to take a look at the
definitions for nature-based tourism.
According to Eadington and Smith (1992) in consequence of the troubles and
satisfaction created by the types of mass tourism, such tourism types
appeared in coherence with natural, social and common values, ensuring
interaction and shared experience between local and nonlocal people.
Nature-based tourism is the sharpest one of these types of tourism. On the
other side, Laarman and Durst (1987), say that the travels related to nature,
in other words, nature-based tourism is a type of tourism which unites
together education, recreation, and mostly adventure. Apart from these
definitions, some researchers formalize their definitions of nature-based
tourism with the concern for the harm given to nature. Hence, Lucas (1984)
mentions that nature-based tourism has low effects on the environment, but
high social and economic benefits. Beside, Cater et al., (2017) values nature-
based tourism within the other types of tourisms and the characteristics of
their concepts. Accordingly, the relation between nature-based tourism and
other types of tourism has been pointed at pattern 1.

ϭϳϳ



Figure 1. The placement of nature-based tourism in the tourism context

Source: Adapted by Cater et al., (2015)

In the light of the definitions and approaches above, the reason for the
different points of views of the definitions for nature-based tourism might be
the consideration of experience, motivation, and attraction. Another reason
for the different approaches in terms is related to handle this topic according
to essentially accepted responsibilities as protecting nature, providing a
positive contribution to the improvement of nature and positive cultural
interaction. For that reason, the point at definition varies according to the
perspective to this topic and the basic ethics and sense of obligation in
tourism. In principle, in terms of the differences with other tourism types are
related to location. Different locations give chance to gain different
motivational attitude and behaviors. And so the motivations of the tourists
who visit natural areas are in a different frame than the other types of tourism.
The aspects of nature-based tourism should be addressed in three main
dimensions. These are experience, style, and location (Valentine, 1992).
These subjected dimensions loom large while identifying the outlines of
motivations and attractions of nature-based tourism. In table 1, the
dimensions of nature-based tourism are given.

ϭϳϴ



Table 1. Dimensions of Nature-Based Tourism

Experience Style Location
Nature dependency (dependent, Level of infrastructure support Accessibility (remoteness)
enhanced) (field, base) Development contribution (city,
The intensity of interaction Group size and type village)
(dedicated, casual) Cultural interaction factor Ownership (Private,
Social sensitivity (intra-group Willingness to pay government)
Dynamics) Length of visit Fragility (sustainable, capacity)
Duration
Source: Valentine, 1992

The factors composing the motivation of tourists discussed in the literature

DVIDFWRUVµHVFDSHVHDUFK¶RUµGULYLQJWHPSWLQJ¶Basically, the reason of
the desire escape can be said that the desire of tourists for escaping from the
routine, seeking for the senses that they can not reach in routine, in other
words, the desire of realization of the driving factors in their lives. On the
other hand, the pursuit of the tourists could be named due to the desire of
implementation by searching for attractions which are new and relevant to
the expectations. On this basis, the driving factors consist basic sets such as
the triggering the wish for having vacation are the socio-psychologic travel
motive of the individual (Crompton,1979), living the past experiences over
again (Dann,1977). Tempting factors though are the features of the
destinations like the natural areas which attract the tourists to a certain
destination, historic areas or constructions. Tempting factors should sustain
some features which would provide excitement for driving factors (Prayag
and Ryan,2011). In other respects, driving and tempting factors are
composing the primary elements of tourists selection of the destinations. For
instance, if the tourist has an unsocial type of regular life as a result of his/her
business life, the expectations of that person might be craving socializing
with others and experiencing a different type of entertainment than the one
in his/her routine life. Such could spend the holiday by staying in a hotel
known in the destination, in accordance with his/her desires, which provides
abundant in entertainment. Besides, another tourist might wish
accommodation and experience which is different from the past experiences
or far from a human based tourism approach, only with the loved ones, in
nature and in peace. At this point, tourism types will differ according to the
preferred destinations by people, in other words, the driving and tempting
factors they have. Consequently, it can be said that different tourism types
have different motivations and attractions. In addition, different tourism
types have different tempting and driving factors, in one type of tourism
could be found different tempting and driving factors. The subject of this
study, nature-based tourism has significant differential effect on the
motivations and attractions factors in consequence of being a mixture of the

ϭϳϵ



many features related to the other tourism types. Essentially, the motivation
of nature-based tourists depends on how primitive is the place that they want
to stay, or in other words how wild the accommodation is. At this point,
motivations differ according to the service expectations. As a matter of fact,
2¶1HLOOet al.,2010) mentions that the motivation of the relevant tourists is
charmed by advising a combination of environmental quality, accessing, the
quality of assistive facilities and services. Herein, McCool (2002), points at
three main subjects with the approach of constructibility of motivation by
attaining the quality. First of these is mapping and measuring the
expectations and experiences of the visitors, second is linking the relevant
expectations with the attractions, and the third is balancing between natural
surrounding and supportive tourism basis.
In nature-based tourism, the attractions take shape with circumstances of the
supportive factors of tourism in natural areas, besides the factors within the
natural areas. However particularly the quality and quantity of the supportive
factors might variate depending on the expectation of the tourists to explore
and experience the wilderness and comfort. Also, the intrinsic motivators of
the tourists, in other words, the stimulation of driving factors by the attractive
factors in nature, the features of temping factors might differ. Therefore, in
nature-based tourism, the reason of the differentials of tourist motivations
WRWDOO\VKDSHDFFRUGLQJWRWKHWRXULVWV¶XQGHUVWDQGLQJQDWXUHRI$WWKLVSRLQW
this can be said that it is divided into different typologies because of the
values seen as motivations of most people. Kellert (1980) the priorities of
people which determine their motivations towards nature are grouped in this
way:
Naturalist: A priority which sees equal wilderness and open area.
Ecologic: The interest which gives priority to nature as the habitat of
wilderness.
Humanity: Individual animals, especially for domestic animals primary
attention and strong love.
Ethicist: The priority which has anxiety for the treatment that animals are
exposed to.
Scientific: Biological features and physical attractions are the first priority.
Esthetic: Artistic and symbolic features are the first priority.
Pragmatist: Primary priority is for impound and practical values of animals.
Ownership: The priority where the instinct of owning and controlling
animals is dominant.
Negative: The priority is lack of interests to animals, dislike, and avoidance
because of fear.
The typologies above considerable effect the activities selected by the
tourists.

ϭϴϬ



Accordingly, the attractions on the basis of activities need to be shaped in

the directions of the motivation factors of the typologies. On the other hand,
typologies are capable of answering differently to the question of how the
balance will be between nature and substructure of supportive tourism which
is one of the important factors in nature-based tourism. In this sense, it can
be said that the factors in nature-based tourism depending on the attractions
and motivations need to be grouped in a different group systematic. Even
though there are tourists who have different types of typologies in nature-
based tourism; the common motivation of those tourists is to spend their
tourism activity related to nature.

NATURE-%$6('7285,60'(67,1$7,216¶
ATTRIBUTES
The features of the destinations of nature-based tourism comprise the
attractive factors of the destinations, too. Accordingly, there are surveys
which consider the attractions differently. Laarman and Dust, 1987, describe
nature-based tourism attractions as a tourism activity which combines on
three main factors, education, entertainment, and adventure. Valentine,1992,
talks about the fact that there are three types of activities around nature figure
ZKLFKKDVQ¶WEHHQGDPDJHGUHODWLYHO\7KHVHDUHWKHH[SHULHQFHVUHODWed to
nature, the experiences which are enriched by nature, and experiences when
the natural area is random. According to Jenkins and Pigram, 2003, nature-
based activities are described as an entertainment type, related to the natural
environment from sitting under a tree to participating in a hike in wild and
consisting a lot of activities. Due to the variety of activities and styles, there
are many variances in nature-based tourism. Thus, the activities that tourists
want to participate in nature-based tourism Dunlap and Heffernan,(1975)
consumer ( for instance hunting and fishing), distillation (for example hiking,
camping and nature photography), harassing (for instance driving off-road
vehicle, riding snow motorcycle and mountain bike) separates into three on
this basis.
Attractions are one of the main actors in comprising tourism product. There
are different opinions about the formation and content of the attractions.
Swarbrook (2002) while talking about designating a destination where the
main attraction is an attraction center, Richard (2001) emphasizing that other
than the destination itself, the range of different activities and experiences
determine the main attraction. While identifying the satisfaction of tourists
or expectations, despite the critic role of the quality of experience, in most
of the nature-based practices the focus is on the demand of tourists than the
destinations. Due to the fact that the protected areas are exposed to deep
pressure. On the other hand, nature-based tourism has a contexture that is

ϭϴϭ

focusing and rising on the demands of tourists, originating from the
heterogeneous structure of the tourists and in itself experience-based, and
focusing on the protection and utilization balance. On this wide scale of that
contexture, while being on the side which is concerning directly about the
contents related to QDWUH (botany, geology, mycology) and the hard
ecotourists who are willing to experience those; by watching the nature
remotely trying to get the scenery opportunities, and soft ecotourists who
desire the attractions which provide opportunities to experience taking
photographs are on the other edge of the scale. For that reason, the attractions
which will be determined on the destinations could be said that they take
form depending on the varieties of the experiences taking part in nature.
According to Priskin (2001), the topics such as the time spent in nature, the
type of experience in nature and the reason of travel are directly efficient to
identify the typologies of tourists who participate in nature-based tourism.
Accordingly, in nature-based tourism the attractions take form depending on
the opportunities of tourists experiences that nature provides and the reasons
of travel; for this reason, for the tourists who prefer nature-based tourists, it
could be said that there are quite different attractive factors. For instance, for
a tourist who wants to go to a destination to get the opportunities of scenery
and take photographs, it is most probably expected to provide those to
opportunities in nature. But the same destination might not be providing the
desired opportunity for a tourist who wants to examine different types of
plants and interested in that field. At this point, for nature-based tourism
experiences, it would be right to determine attractions proper for the
heterogenous tourists¶ pattern and then the attractions which differ
accordingly to the typology of the tourists. On a destination, to specify the
basic attractions for the tourists who take part in nature-based tourism, some
information about that destination is needed. Marzuki (2011), thinks that the
presentation of panoramic view and attractions of an area is the result of
running three approaches together. These are ordered as scene analysis,
topography and the expert work which has the other types of information to
get other weather scenes, proving the landscape inventory to identify and
save the natural features and using the Geographical Information System
efficiently.
Marzuki (2011) evaluates the main attractions in nature-based tourism in
three main categories such as physical features, infrastructure, and
accessibility. According to these categories, variants determining the
physical feature are ordered like; existing physical conditions, topography,
development potential, the capacious of rivers, the quality of water, greatness
of waterfalls and cascades, quality of the water in waterfalls and natural
water factor, the grandness of rocks, the quality of rocks, forest reserves and

ϭϴϮ


categories, the quality of flora. The variables that determine infrastructure

are accommodation, food facilities, information centers, toilet, worship area,
signage (signage), parking lot, camping area, electricity, and water. Finally,
variables related to accessibility; (bus, bicycle, airplane, ship, automobile,
etc.) are classified as a type of road (stabilized, asphalt, divided, sea airway
etc.).
Priskin (2001) examined attractiveness for nature-based tourists in four
different categories of assessment. The first of these; evaluations of
attraction. The variables in this category are as follows:
Flora diversity (species diversity grade plant community)
x Natural diversity (landscape characteristics associated with diversity
level)
x Recreation opportunity (activities related to recreational activities such as
a bicycle, forest walk, swimming, hiking)
x Adventure opportunities (activities involving dangerous and risky driving
experiences and various recreational activities)
x Bay or inland water mass (cape, lake or wetland protected by shoreline);
x Rocky coastline (rocky coastal strip cliffs, wave-cut platforms, etc.)
x Sandy beach (flat sandy shoreline, beach);
x Good landscapes (landscapes with a wide viewing area)
x Scientifically interesting places (rock outcrops, deep valleys, natural
reserves with high biodiversity, etc.)
x Geological features (caves, large rocks, tops, limestone columns, etc.)
The second category concerns the assessment of accessibility. Variables
included in this category are considered as a type of road and type of vehicle.
The third category includes the evaluation of supporting infrastructure. The
variables related to this category are listed as follows:
x Toilets (including all kinds of toilets, showers, changing rooms)
x Picnic tables (table with dining chairs)
x Seats/benches (such as simple park benches)
x Barbecue (eating places, fire-resistant areas)
x Dustbin (all types of waste disposal units, recycling stations)
x Access for the disabled (infrastructure elements designed for the disabled
such as ramps)
x Shadow/shelter (Pavilion, shelter and shelter, planted trees)
The final category is assessing the deterioration of the environmental
balance. This dimension, which is dealt with in relation to the environment,

ϭϴϯ

can actually include the elements included in the driving factors such as
return to nature, feeling in the natural environment. Variables of this
category are listed as follows.
Garbage (quantity, type, and density)
x Weeds (infestation grade and species caused by non-indigenous species)
x Disease (the presence of diseases affecting the ecosystem)
x Influence of fire (fires originating from people)
x Erosion (erosion of roads, river erosions caused by visitors)
x Plant breach (by people or physical structures)
x Destruction of dunes (non-natural causes and destruction of tourists)
x Ground pattern erosion (unhealthy appearance of the land)
x Traces in the terrain (vehicles outside the driving experience etc)
x Structures outside tourism-supporting structure (non-touristic
infrastructure and slums etc.)
Attractiveness can often emerge as a result of tourists' own preferences and
by creating their own demand. However, much of the work in the literature
has focused directly on tourist preferences, other than the appeal of the
above-mentioned landscape features and experience opportunities. Indeed,
Hearne and Salinas (2002) have shown the attractiveness of tourists
participating in nature-based tourism activities with five different variables:
infrastructures are rustic, semi-rustic or modern, information (oral or
written), picnic and observation areas, restricted use level (restraint of
vehicle use, protection restrictions on walking paths) and price.
Deng et al., (2002) stated that there are five main components for national
parks and natural areas. These attractions consist of tourism resources, tourist
facilities, accessibility, local communities, and environmental attractions.
The main components are composed of several sub-variables. In Figure 2,
the variables forming natural attractiveness are presented in a hierarchical
structure.

ϭϴϰ


Peripheral
Accessiblity Resources Facilities Local
Attractions
Community
Educationa Recreation Infrastruct
Number Importance Cultural Natural
Internal External l al ure
Cultural Economic Social
Architectur Environme
Connectivi Physical
Distance e ntal
ty
Climatic
Convenien Religion Sanitation Comfort Security Phenomen Water Mountain Fauna Flora
Distance a
ce
From Scientific Scientific
Convenien Historcal Physical
Alternative Humans Value Value
ce
From Aestetic Aestetic
Chemical
Alternative Nature Value Value

Biological Diversity Diversity

Rarity Rarity

Figure 2. The hierarchical structure of variables that make up natural attractiveness

Source: Adapted by Deng vd., 2002, pp. 429

ϭϴϱ



NATURE-%$6('7285,676¶027,9$7,216
Before touching on the factors related to nature-based travel motivation, it is
useful to mention the components of motivation. Pizam, Neumann, and
Reichel (1979) define travel motivation as the sum of a set of needs that
cause a person to participate in tourist activity. The motivation of people in
meeting this set of needs and the attractiveness they believe to meet this
motivation all constitute travel motivation. For this reason, travel motivation
gains functionality by combining driving (motive) and tempting
(attractiveness) factors.
Regardless of tourism diversity in general, tourist motivation can be
examined in three basic theoretical frameworks. The three basic frameworks,
Maslow's (1954) meeting the basic biological and physiological needs, Iso-
Ahola's (1982) as the basic leisure behavior of individuals as a search and
escape model and Crompton's (1979) tension between individuals'
equilibrium and expectations consists of the imbalance theory that reflects
the desire for inhibition. On the other hand, Luo and Deng (2008) refer to
four different incentives or reasons motivating tourists interested in nature.
These are motives for experiencing the environment, incentives to relax and
relax in pleasant surroundings, reasons for maintaining special interests and
skills (diving, fishing, etc.), and reasons for being healthy and fit. Most of
the studies on nature-based tourism motivation deal with different
dimensions and contents that vary according to the activity performed in
nature.
The intense resemblance between studies that reveal the driving factors
(reason and motive) expressed in the context of nature-based tourism
motivation and the studies that examine the preferences of individuals for
outdoor recreation experience and reveal their motivations are striking. The
recreation experience preference scale developed by Driver (1983) covers
the entire dimensions of nature-based tourism motivations and contains more
descriptive dimensions and factors in terms of diversity. The dimensions of
the recreation experience preference scale are given in Table 2.

ϭϴϲ



Table 2. Dimensions of Recreation Experience Preference Scale

Achievement/ Stimulation 1. Reinforcing Self-image 5. Excitement
2. Social Recognition 6. Endurance
3. Skill Development 7. Telling Others
4. Competence Testing
Autonomy/ Leadership 1. Independence 3. Control-Power
2. Autonomy
Risk Taking 1. Risk Taking
Equipment 1. Equipment
Family Togetherness 1. Family Togetherness
Similar People 1. Being with Friends 2. Being with similar people
New People 1. Meeting New People 2. Observing Other People
Learning 1. General Learning 3. Geography of Area
2. Exploration 4. Learn About Nature
Enjoy Nature 1. Scenery 2. General Nature Experience
Introspection 1. Spiritual 2. Introspection
Creativity 1. Creativity
Nostalgia 1. Nostalgia
Physical Fitness 1. Exercise-Physical Fitness
Physical Rest 1. Physical Rest
Escape Personal-Social 1. Tension Release 3. Escape Role Overloads
Pressures 2. Slow Down Mentally 4. Escape Daily Routine
Escape Physical Pressure 1. Tranquility 3. Escape Crowds
2. Privacy 4. Escape Physical Stressors
Social Security 1. Social Security
Escape Family 1. Escaping Family
Teaching-Leading Others 1. Teaching-Sharing Skills 2. Leading Others (Sharing
(Sharing Knowledge/Directing Knowledge/Directing Others)
Others)
Risk Reduction 1. Risk Moderation 2. Risk Avoidance
Temperature 1. Temperature
Source: Driver (1983)

The dimensions and sub-factors listed above can be listed as the reason and
motives of nature-based tourism motivation. However, Luo and Deng (2008)
argue that some of these dimensions are essential elements of nature-based
tourism motivation. According to this, nature-based tourism motivation is
listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Factors of Nature-Based Tourism Motivations
Factor 1: Novelty ± self- Factor 2: Factor 3: Knowledge Factor 4:
development Return to nature and fitness Escape
Experiencing new Viewing scenery Keeping physical fit Being away from the
different things crowds and noise
Introspection Experiencing tranquility Learn more about nature Relaxation
Experiencing excitement To be carefree Enhancing family and
friend affinity
Meeting new and Return to nature
interesting people
Developing skills and
abilities
Source: Luo ve Deng (2008)

ϭϴϳ

According to the recreation experience preference scale developed by
Driver, it can be said that Luo and Deng tried to concentrate on core
motivations which are much more fundamental in nature-based tourism
mobility, which is developed by Luo and Deng as the nature-based tourism
motivation scale.

A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW ON NATURE-

%$6('7285,60'(67,1$7,216¶$775,%87(6$1'
MOTIVATIONS
The literature search on nature-based tourism motivation and attractiveness
has benefited from Google Scholar Search Engine. Some criteria have been
identified to reach work during the scan. These criteria are as follows:
- The survey was conducted with the words "nature-based tourism
motivation" and "nature-based tourism attributes".
- The year in which the survey conducted was not restricted.
- The works of experimental results related to motivation or attractiveness in
the survey are included in the scope of the study.
- Some resources not available in the survey were obtained from the
university database.
- A small number of VWXGLHV FRXOGQ¶W EH UHDFKHG ZHUH GXH WR ODFN RI
availability in the university database or internet links.

ϭϴϴ


Table 4. Literature Review on Nature-Based 7RXULVP'HVWLQDWLRQV¶$WWULEXWHV

Authors Study Year Attributes
Lang, C. T., & O'Leary, J. Motivation, participation, and preference: A multi- 1997 Budget / Convenience /environment
T. segmentation approach of the Australian nature Natural attractions
travel market. Cultural attractions
Change and relax
Water-related attractions
Luxury facilities
Sports
Casinos/amusement park
Family togetherness
Show/tell
Unique cultural groups
Priskin, J. Assessment of natural resources for nature-based 2001 Attractions (Natural settings, opportunities)
tourism:: the case of the Central Coast Region of Access
Western Australia Supporting infrastructure
Level of environmental degradation
Hearne, R. R., & Salinas, Z. The use of choice experiments in the analysis of 2002 Infrastructure (Semi-rustic-modern)
M. tourist preferences for ecotourism development in Information
Costa Rica. Picnic areas and observation aids view
Use restrictions
Price
Deng, J., King, B., & Evaluating natural attractions for tourism 2002 Peripheral Attractions
Bauer, T. Accessibility
Resources (including security)
Facilities
Local community
Kim, S. S., Lee, C. K., & The influence of push and pull factors at Korean 2003 Key tourist resources (including natural resources and other touristic
Klenosky, D. B. national parks. resources)
Information and convenience of facilities
Accessibility and transportation
De Biasio, D. Socio-Economic and Environmental Assessment of 2004 Infrastructure
LRMP Scenario developed by the North Coast Physical features
LRMP Table as of April 2004 Routes
Wildlife viewing

ϭϴϵ


Pan, S., & Ryan, C.
Meng, F., & Uysal, M.
Meng, F., Tepanon, Y., &
Uysal, M.
Marzuki, A., Hussin, A. A.,
Mohamed, B., Othman,
A.G., & Som, A.P.M.
Naidoo, P., Ramseook-
Munhurrun, P., &
Seegoolam, P.
Xu, J. B., & Chan, S.
Lee, S., Quintal, V., &
Phau, I.
Marzuki, A., Khoshkam,
M., Mohamad, D., & Abdul
Kadir, I.
Recreational Activities
Mountain areas and visitor usage±motivations and 2007 Nature/accommodation (including experiences)
determinants of satisfaction: The case of Pirongia Infrastructure
Forest Park, New Zealand
Effects of gender differences on perceptions of 2008 Natural settings
destination attributes, motivations, and travel Quality and convenience
values: An examination of a nature-based resort Nature-based activities
destination. Recreational activities
Activities for children
Resort and related activities
Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and 2008 Friendly services/quality
motivation: The case of a nature-based resort Outdoor activities
Lodging
Natural scenery
Assessment of nature-based tourism in South 2011 Physical features (Quality, conditions, and size of natural settings)
Kelantan, Malaysia Infrastructure (including superstructure)
Accessibility
An assessment of visitor satisfaction with nature- 2011 Responsiveness (visitor satisfaction)
based tourism attractions. Tangibles
Communication (including information)
Assurance (security, accessibility, relaxation site)
Empathy (personal behavior and opportunities for disable visitors)
Natural Resources (Natural settings)
A new nature-based tourism motivation model: 2016 Scenery of nature
Testing the moderating effects of the push Information and convenience
motivation Various activities for fun
Investigating the Push and Pull Factors Between 2017 Nature / conservation
Visitors' Motivations of Fringe and Urban Parks Children / convenience
Facilities
Linking nature-EDVHGWRXULVPDWWULEXWHVWRWRXULVWV¶ 2017 Physical
satisfaction. Environment
Main Facilities
Supporting Facilities
Infrastructure
ϭϵϬ


Table 5. Literature Review on Nature-Based 7RXULVP'HVWLQDWLRQV¶0RWLYDWLRQ

Authors Study Year Motivation
Lang, C. T., & O'Leary, J. Motivation, participation, and preference: A multi- 1997 New experience
T. segmentation approach of the Australian nature Escape and entertained
travel market. Show and tell
Family oriented
Cultural groups interest
Physical challenge and nature
Relax
Kim, S. S., Lee, C. K., & The influence of push and pull factors at Korean 2003 Family togetherness and study
Klenosky, D. B. national parks. Appreciating natural resources and health
Escaping from the everyday routine
Adventure and building friendship
Kerstetter, D. L., Hou, J. Profiling Taiwanese ecotourists using a behavioral 2004 Adventure
S., & Lin, C. H approach Escape
Novelty
Friend and family togetherness
Education
Being in natural setting
Physical health
Conducting a survey
Mehmetoglu, M. Typologising nature-based tourists by activity² 2007 Nature
Theoretical and practical implications Physical activities
Novelty /learning
Mundane everyday
Social contact
Ego/status
Pan, S., & Ryan, C. Mountain areas and visitor usage±motivations and 2007 Relaxation
determinants of satisfaction: The case of Pirongia Social
Forest Park, New Zealand Belonging
Mastery
Intellectual
Beh, A., & Bruyere, B. L Segmentation by visitor motivation in three Kenyan 2007 Escape
national reserves Culture
Personal growth

ϭϵϭ


Meng, F., & Uysal, M.
Meng, F., Tepanon, Y., &
Uysal, M.
Luo, Y., & Deng, J.
Hartley, N., & Harrison, P.
Kruger, M., & Saayman,
M.
Tangeland, T.,
Vennesland, B., &
Nybakk, E.
Mega-fauna
Adventure
Learning
Nature
General viewing
Effects of gender differences on perceptions of 2008 Activities and fun
destination attributes, motivations, and travel values: Family and friends
An examination of a nature-based resort destination. Relaxation experience
Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and 2008 Activities for seeing and doing
motivation: The case of a nature-based resort Relaxation / Familiarity
Family/friend togetherness
Novelty /romance
The New Environmental Paradigm and nature-based 2008 Novelty ± self-development
tourism motivation Return to nature
Knowledge and fitness
Escape
An exploration of motives for attending Australian 2009 Self-esteem
ecotourism locations and their influence on future Relaxation
intentions Social interaction
Self-fulfillment (including enjoy and near nature and learning)
Thrill and excitement
Travel motivation of tourists to Kruger and 2010 Knowledge seeking
Tsitsikamma National Parks: A comparative study Nature experience
Novelty
Activities
Photography
Escape' and relaxation
Park attributes
Nostalgia
Second-home owners' intention to purchase nature- 2013 Risk-taking
based tourism activity products±A Norwegian case Contemplation
study Physical fitness
Enjoyment of nature
Skill development
Social interaction
ϭϵϮ


Wolter, L. Nature-%DVHG7RXULVPLQ0DOORUFD¶V1DWXUDO$UHDV 2013 Social

The Benefits of Tourism for Natural Areas Attraction
Self-fulfillment
Relaxation
Adventure & challenge
Culture
Cheung, TOL; Fok, L The motivations and environmental attitudes of 2014 Travel for novelty
nature-based visitors to protected areas in Hong Travel for recreation
Kong Travel for escape
Chem, M. The Environmental Attitudes, Travel Motivations 2015 Seeking nature-oriented experiences
and Experience Evaluations of Tourists in China Experiencing challenges and novelty
Learning, such as learning about nature, wildlife, and local culture
and history
Participating in environmentally-based activities
Escaping the mundane
Kim, H., Lee, S., Uysal, Nature-based tourism: Motivation and subjective 2015 Enjoying natural environment and escaping from Daily life
M., Kim, J., & Ahn, K well-being Pursuing a new type of travel
Pursuing a healthy life
Pursuing intimacy
Xu, J. B., & Chan, S. A new nature-based tourism motivation model: 2016 Self-enhancement (including novelty, developing skill)
Testing the moderating effects of the push Relaxation and knowledge
motivation Escapism from routine life
Lee, S., Quintal, V., & Investigating the Push and Pull Factors Between 2017 Thrill-seeking (dreams, private experience)
Phau, I. Visitors' Motivations of Fringe and Urban Parks Family / fun

ϭϵϯ

When Table 4 is examined, it can be seen that Priskin's (2001) group of
dimensions as attractiveness in nature-based tourism seems to be most of the
other studies. All of the different attractiveness elements appearing in many
other studies are seen as the sub-factors of size dimension, and Priskin is
considered in the scope of sightseeing, access, supporting infrastructure and
level of environmental degreation. Besides this, in some studies;
accommodation facilities (Lee, Quintal & Phau, 2017; Marzuki vd., 2017;
Xu, Chan, 2016; Marzuki vd., 2011; Meng, Tepanon & Uysal, 2008; Meng
& Uysal, 2008; Pan & Ryan, 2007; Kim, Lee & Klenosky, 2003, Hearne &
Salinas, 2002.), leisure and work areas for children (Lee, Quintal & Phau,
2017, Meng & Uysal, 2008; Kim, Lee & Klenosky, 2003), information
(availability of information center, information and direction signposts)
(Marzuki vd., 2017; Xu, Chan, 2016; Marzuki vd., 2011; Pan & Ryan, 2007;
De Biasio, 2004; Kim, Lee & Klenosky, 2003), security (Deng, King &
Bauer, 2002; Naidoo, Ramseook-Munhurrun & Seegoolam, 2011; Lang, &
O'leary, 1997), price (Hearne & Salinas, 2002; Lang & O'leary, 1997; Meng
& Uysal, 2008), local community (Deng, King & Bauer, 2002) and usage
constraints (Hearne & Salinas, 2002) as sub-factors of attraction dimension
or some dimensions. On the other hand some dimensions such as customer
satisfaction, staff behavior, service, and service quality (Naidoo, Ramseook-
Munhurrun & Seegoolam, 2011; Meng, Tepanon & Uysal, 2008; Meng &
Uysal, 2008; Lang, & O'leary, 1997)and dimension-dependent factors.
On the other hand, when studies on the motivational dimensions in Table 5
are examined, it can be seen that Luo and Deng's (2008) recreational
experience preference scales are based on the motivation of innovation-self-
improvement, nature return, knowledge and physical development,
dimensions, and sub-factors. For example, when there are dimensions such
as the desire to establish new friendships or participate in different activities
in an activity; In the motivation scale developed by Luo and Deng (2008),
both are factors in the dimension of innovation - self-development. Besides,
in some studies, it seems that subjects such as cultural interest in the natural
settlement (Lang & O'leary, 1997; Beh & Bruyere, 2007; Wolter, 2013;
&KHQ  HJR  VWDWXV 0HKPHWR÷OX  QRVWDOJLD SKRWRJUDSK\
(Kruger & Saayman , 2010), risk-taking (Tangeland, Vennesland & Nybakk,


2013) and healthy life search (Kim, Lee & Klenosky, 2003; Kerstetter, Hou
& Lin, 2004, Kim et al., 2015) are included as motivational dimensions.

CONCLUSION
Nature-based tourism appears to be chosen by more and more people
because of the reasons like personal pressure, the negativities at work life, a
routine lifestyle, psychological pursuits, the psychosocial pressure and living
their lives in big metropols away from nature. On the other side, when we
look at the content of the nature-based concept, it is obvious that most of the
academic studies, there is a difference of definition and scope. Most of these
differences seen because the nature-based tourism is evaluated on the basis
of tourist experiences, tourism management and ecology. But because of the
discussions on the concepts like especially ecology ethics, tourism ethics, it
is seen that the concept in question should not be evaluated without
considering these concepts. For that reason, while the nature tourism is the
form of tourism that people get their touristic experiences and motivations
via the sources of nature; it has come up against the fact of exhaustion and
devastation of the sources of nature by people. On the other hand, the
continuity of sources, with the other topics like an adaptation of the people
to the ethical values and yearning for nature, has become a concept which
consists the sustainability concept. While leaving aside ethical values and
looking onto the tourism movement from the eyes of the tourist, while there
is no difference in the pure description, it is seen that it is involving plenty
of other tourism types in the point of the concept. For this very reason, when
looking onto the current tourism movements in the lens of the nature-based
tourism, it is avowable that the nature-based tourism is creating a roof that
holds ecotourism, agricultural tourism, natural life tourism and even hunting
tourism.
The understanding of the definition and extent of the nature-based tourism is
very important for the motivation and attraction of the nature-based tourism.
Because it is avowable the experience types and destination characteristics
that tourist preference or participation can vary on the basis of the definition
and the scope of the concept. For example; while the motivation of a tourist
that attends to agricultural tourism or hunting tourism is consuming a habitat

ϭϵϭ



which is existing in nature restrictedly, a strict ecotourist will have a

motivation of only gaining knowledge about the fauna and flora. Hence the
existing motivations and the existing attractions will mostly differ from one
another. The motivations and attractions can only be revealed by caring
mindset for the ethical values which are shown up when explaining the
nature-based tourism concept.
It has been observed that there are many studies suggesting different
motivational and attractive dimensions and factors as a result of systematic
analysis of academic studies on nature-based tourism motivation and
attractiveness prepared in this study. However, some of these studies are
motivated and attracted as a dimension or sub-dimension factor, and they are
a different dimension and sub-factor in different studies; therefore, they have
not shown very different motivational and attractiveness dimensions and
sub-factors as content. Apart from this, it has been determined that there are
different motivational and attractive dimensions in some studies. When the
dimensions and elements of the motivation and appeal that are revealed in
the whole of the studies are examined, it is thought that Priskin (2001) is of
great importance in terms of attractiveness dimensions, especially in the
preferences of nature-based tourists for the dimension of level of
environmental degradation, as most of the other studies cover the scope of
nature-based tourism attractiveness. In determining the perception of
naturalness or wilderness in the people of this reason; how much change is
made in nature by human influence, whether the infrastructure is destructive
to nature, and whether there is an application or regulation that seems to
depend on the environment. The level of environmental degradation can be
measured in the whole of these elements. On the other hand, in addition to
Priskin's nature-based attractiveness dimensions, important elements such as
accommodation, entertainment and workspaces for children, information
(information center, information and direction signs), security level, price,
local community, and usage restrictions are included in other studies has
been achieved. Accordingly, the development of Priskin's inclusive
attractiveness dimensions for nature-based tourism, including those crucial
elements, would be ideal for nature-based tourism appeal. On the other hand,
when studies on nature-based tourism motivations are considered, it is
understood that Luo and Deng (2008) are similar in nature to nature-based

ϭϵϮ



motivation studies, similar to Priskin's. In this study, the motivation of

nature-based tourism has been taken into consideration in the axis of "New
environmental paradigm". However, it is seen that all the factors related to
the four dimensions revealed in the content of the study were adapted by
Driver (1983) based on recreation experience preference scale. On the other
hand, it can be said that other studies about nature-based tourism motivations
need to be taken into consideration in important and different elements such
as cultural interest, ego/status, nostalgia, photography, risk-taking and search
for a healthy life. It is also seen that all the elements other than the cultural
interest component are again included in the recreation experience
preference scale of Driver (1983). Moreover, it is understood that this scale
includes different dimensions and factors beyond the dimensions and factors
related to nature-based tourism motivations revealed in the existing studies.
From this point, the dimensions and factors of nature-based tourism
motivations can be brought to an ideal situation.
The presentation of the dimensions and sub-factors of nature-based tourism
motivation and attractiveness is very difficult in terms of the scope of nature-
based tourism concept. Despite the fact that different attractiveness or
motivational elements have been revealed in the studies carried out, the
attitudes and expectations of the tourists towards nature have a different
motivation and attractiveness. For this reason, it is very important for the
development of the ideal nature-based tourist motivation and attractiveness
scale that the elements considered as common motivation and attractive by
all the tourists participating in the nature-based tourism movement are
considered as core elements and put into groups in a modular structure in the
motivations and attractiveness of the tourists, .
On the other hand, it is also possible that the motivations and attractiveness
of nature-based tourism are ideally placed for the purposes of studying
dimensions and sub-factors in this study. Accordingly, the attractiveness and
motivations of nature-based tourism are given in Table 6.

ϭϵϯ



Table 6. Attractiveness and motivation elements in nature-based tourism

Attractiveness Motivations
Topographic features of nature Improving relationship with family and
Recreational Opportunities friendliness
Landscapes Opportunities Ego / Status
Transportation Nostalgia
Routes Risk-taking
Supporting infrastructure elements Seeking a healthy life
Accommodation facilities Cultural interest
Level of environmental degradation Experience new and different things
Entertainment and work areas for children Observation
Information Experiencing Excitement
Security Meeting new and interesting people
Price View the scenery
Local community Tranquility
Usage constraints Be free in personal care
Return to nature
Stay in physical form
Learn more about nature
Stay away from crowds and noise
Relaxation

Table 7 shows that nature-based tourism attractiveness match up to which

motivations in the axis of motivation and attractiveness shown above.
Table 7. Motivation-attractiveness matching in nature-based tourism
Motivations Attractiveness
Cultural interest Local community
Ego / Status Recreational opportunuties, transportation,
accomodation, price
Nostalgia Topographic features of nature, recreation
opportunities, landscape areas, level of
environmental degradation
Risk-taking Topographical features of nature, recreation
opportunities, usage restrictions
Seeking a healthy life Topographic features of nature, recreational
opportunities, level of environmental
degradation
Experience new and different things (Novelty) Topographic characteristics of nature,
recreation opportunities, landscapes
opportunities, transportation, routes,
supporting infrastructure elements,
accommodation, level of environmental
degradation, Information, local community,
usage restrictions
Observation Topographic features of nature, recreation
opportunities, landscapes opportunities, routes,
level of environmental degradation, usage
restrictions
Experiencing excitement Nature's topographic features, recreation
opportunities, landscapes opportunities, routes,
usage restrictions

ϭϵϰ



Meeting new and interesting people Recreation opportunities, accommodation,

supportive infrastructure elements, local
community
View the scenery Topographical features of nature, recreation
opportunities, landscapes opportunities, routes,
level of environmental degradation, use
constraints
Tranquillity Topographical features of nature, landscapes
opportunities, accommodation, supporting
infrastructure elements, level of environmental
degradation, security, usage restrictions
Be free in personel care Accomodation facilieties
Return to nature Topographical features of nature, recreation
opportunities, landscapes opportunities,
accommodation, level of environmental
degradation, usage restrictions
Stay in physical form Topographic features of nature, recreation
opportunities, routes, usage restrictions
Learn more about nature Topographic features of nature, recreation
opportunities, landscapes opportunities, routes,
level of environmental degradation,
Information, usage restrictions
Stay away from crowds and noise Topographic features of nature, landscape
opportunities, transportation, usage restrictions
Relaxation Topographical features of nature, recreation
opportunities, landscapes opportunities,
accommodation, supporting infrastructure
elements, level of environmental degradation,
Improving relationship with family and friendliness Recreation opportunities, supporting
infrastructure, accommodation, entertainment
for children and workspaces

Developing dimensions and sub-factors of attractiveness and motivations in

Table 7 and supporting them in empirical studies will contribute to which
motivations match up to nature-based tourism attractiveness in a
complementary framework. Consequently, supporting research is very
important for nature-based tourism to have such a trend.

REFERENCES
Balmford, A., Beresford, J., Green, J., Naidoo, R., Walpole, M., & Manica,
A. (2009). A global perspective on trends in nature-based
tourism. PLoS biology, 7(6), e1000144, 1-6
Beh, A., & Bruyere, B. L. (2007). Segmentation by visitor motivation in
three Kenyan national reserves. Tourism Management, 28(6), 1464-
1471.
Buckley, R. (1994). A framework for ecotourism. Annals of tourism
research, 21(3), 661-665.

ϭϵϱ



Cater, C. I., Garrod, B., & Low, T. (2015). The encyclopedia of sustainable
tourism. CABI.
Center for Responsible Travel, The Case for Responsible Travel: Trends &
Statistics 2017, Retrieved from 04.08.2018
https://www.responsibletravel.org/docs/The%20Case%20for%20Res
ponsible%20Travel%202017_Final%20for%20Release.pdf
Chen, M. (2015). The Environmental Attitudes, Travel Motivations and
Experience Evaluations of Tourists in China. Master of Science
Dissertation The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School
College of Health and Human Development, 1-104
Cheung, L. T., & Fok, L. (2014). The motivations and environmental
attitudes of nature-based visitors to protected areas in Hong
Kong. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World
Ecology, 21(1), 28-38.
Crompton J L (1979) Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 6(4): 408-424.
Dann G (1977) Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 4(4):184-194.
De Biasio, D. (2004). Socio-Economic and Environmental Assessment of
LRMP Scenario developed by the North Coast LRMP Table as of
April 2004. Volume I: Socio-Economic Analysis, North Coast Land
and Resource Management Plan Table and BC Ministry of Sustainable
Resource Management, 1-127.
Deng, J., King, B., & Bauer, T. (2002). Evaluating natural attractions for
tourism. Annals of tourism research, 29(2), 422-438.
Driver, B.L. (1983). Master list of items for Recreation Experience
Preference scales and domains. Unpublished document. USDA
Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station.
Dunlap, R. E., & Heffernan, R. B. (1975). Outdoor recreation and
environmental concern: An empirical examination. Rural Sociology,
40(1), 18.
Eadington WE, and Smith VL (1992) The emergence of alternative forms of
tourism. In: Smith VL, and Eadington WE (eds) Tourism Alternatives:
Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons: 3.
Hartley, N., & Harrison, P. (2009). An exploration of motives for attending
Australian ecotourism locations and their influence on future

ϭϵϲ



intentions. In ANZMAC 2009: Sustainable Management and

Marketing: Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy
Conference. Monash University.
Hearne, R. R., & Salinas, Z. M. (2002). The use of choice experiments in the
analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development in Costa
Rica. Journal of environmental management, 65(2), 153-163.
Iso-Ahola, S. (1982). Towards a Social Psychology of Tourism Motivation:
A Rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9: 256±261.
Jenkins, John and Pigram, John (2003) Encyclopedia of Leisure and Outdoor
Recreation. United Kingdom: Routledge.
Kellert, S. R. (1980). Activities of the American public relating to animals.
Phase II. Government Reports, Announcements and Index, National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), US Department of
Commerce, 80(20).
Kerstetter, D. L., Hou, J. S., & Lin, C. H. (2004). Profiling Taiwanese
ecotourists using a behavioral approach. Tourism management, 25(4),
491-498.
Kim, H., Lee, S., Uysal, M., Kim, J., & Ahn, K. (2015). Nature-based
tourism: Motivation and subjective well-being. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 32(sup1), S76-S96.
Kim, S. S., Lee, C. K., & Klenosky, D. B. (2003). The influence of push and
pull factors at Korean national parks. Tourism management, 24(2),
169-180.
Kruger, M., & Saayman, M. (2010). Travel motivation of tourists to Kruger
and Tsitsikamma National Parks: A comparative study. South African
Journal of Wildlife Research-24-month delayed open access, 40(1),
93-102.
Laarman, J. G., & Durst, P. B. (1987). Nature travel in the tropics. Journal
of Forestry, 85(5), 43-46.
Lang, C. T., & O'leary, J. T. (1997). Motivation, participation, and
preference: A multi-segmentation approach of the Australian nature
travel market. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 6(3-4), 159-
180.
Lee, S., Quintal, V., & Phau, I. (2017). Investigating the Push and Pull
Factors Between Visitors' Motivations of Fringe and Urban
Parks. Tourism Analysis, 22(3), 389-406.
Lucas, P. H. C. (1985). How protected areas can help meet society's evolving
needs. In National parks, conservation, and development. The role of

ϭϵϳ



protected areas in sustaining society. Proceedings of the World

Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, 11-12 October
1982 (pp. 72-77). Smithsonian Institution Press.
Luo, Y., & Deng, J. (2008). The New Environmental Paradigm and nature-
based tourism motivation. Journal of Travel research, 46(4), 392-402.
Marzuki A., Hussin, A.A., Mohamed, B., Othman, A.G., Som, A.P.M.
(2011). Assessment Of Nature-%DVHG 7RXUÕVP ,Q 6RXWK .HODQWDQ
0DOD\VÕD7RXUÕVPRV $Q ,QWHUQDWÕRQDO 0XOWÕGÕVFÕSOÕQDU\ -RXUQDO 2I
7RXUÕVPSS-295
Marzuki, A., Khoshkam, M., Mohamad, D., & Abdul Kadir, I. (2017).
Linking nature-EDVHG WRXULVP DWWULEXWHV WR WRXULVWV¶
satisfaction. Anatolia, 28(1), 96-99.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.
McCool, S. (2002). Sustainability of nature-based tourism. Missoula, MT,
The University of Montana, 1-16.
McNeely, J. A., & Thorsell, J. W. (1989). Jungles, Mountains, and Islands:
How Tourism can Help Conserve the Natural Heritage. World Leisure
& Recreation, 31(4), 29-39.
Mehmetoglu, M. (2007). Typologising nature-based tourists by activity²
Theoretical and practical implications. Tourism management, 28(3),
651-660.
Meng, F., & Uysal, M. (2008). Effects of gender differences on perceptions
of destination attributes, motivations, and travel values: An
examination of a nature-based resort destination. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 16(4), 445-466.
Meng, F., Tepanon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2008). Measuring tourist satisfaction
by attribute and motivation: The case of a nature-based resort. Journal
of vacation marketing, 14(1), 41-56.
Naidoo, P., Ramseook-Munhurrun, P., & Seegoolam, P. (2011). An
assessment of visitor satisfaction with nature-based tourism
attractions. International Journal of Management and Marketing
Research, 4(1), 89-98
Nyaupane, G. P. (2007). Ecotourism versus Nature-based Tourism: Do
Tourists Really Know the Difference?. Anatolia, 18(1), 161-165.
O'Neill, M. A., Riscinto-Kozub, K. A., & Van Hyfte, M. (2010). Defining
visitor satisfaction in the context of camping oriented nature-based
tourism²the driving force of quality!. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 16(2), 141-156.

ϭϵϴ



Pan, S., & Ryan, C. (2007). Mountain areas and visitor usage±motivations
and determinants of satisfaction: The case of Pirongia Forest Park,
New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(3), 288-308.
Pizam, A., Y. Neumann, and A. Reichel. (1979). Tourist Satisfaction. Annals
of Tourism Research, 6: 195±197.
3UD\DJ*5\DQ&7KH5HODWLRQVKLS%HWZHHQWKHµ3XVK¶DQGµ3XOO¶
Factors of a Tourist Destination: The Role of Nationality ± An
Analytical Qualitative Research Approach, Current Issues in
Tourism,14,(2): 121±143
Priskin, J. (2001). Assessment of natural resources for nature-based tourism::
the case of the Central Coast Region of Western Australia. Tourism
Management, 22(6), 637-648.
Retrieved 28.07.2018 from
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/137751449520243805/ENR-2015-
Nature-Based-Tourism.pdf
Retrieved 28.07.2018 from
https://ecotourism.org.au/assets/Uploads/Manifesto-v5.0.pdf
Retrieved 28.07.2018 from
https://worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2018/03/01/growing-wildlife-
based-tourism-sustainably-a-new-report-and-qa (
Richards, G. (2001). Cultural Attractions and European Tourism.UK: CABI
Publishing.
Roxana, D. M. (2012). Considerations About Ecotourism and Nature-Based
Tourism-Realities and Perspectives. International Journal of
Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 1(5),
215.
Swarbrooke, J. (2000). Sustainable Tourism Management. Wallingford:
CABI International.
Tangeland, T., Vennesland, B., & Nybakk, E. (2013). Second-home owners'
intention to purchase nature-based tourism activity products±A
Norwegian case study. Tourism Management, 36, 364-376.
Valentine, P. S. (1992). Review: nature-based tourism. In B. Weiler, & C.M.
Hall (Eds.), Special interest tourism (pp. 105-127). London, England:
Belhaven.
Wolter, L. (2013). Nature-%DVHG7RXULVPLQ0DOORUFD¶V1DWXUDO$UHDV7KH
Benefits of Tourism for Natural Areas. Springer Science & Business
Media.

ϭϵϵ

 

Xu, J. B., & Chan, S. (2016). A new nature-based tourism motivation model:
Testing the moderating effects of the push motivation. Tourism
management perspectives, 18, 107-110.

&RQWULEXWRU¶VELRJUDSK\
7DNL&DQ0HWLQLVDQDVVLVWDQW3URIHVVRUDW.ÕUNODUHOL8QLYHUVLW\'HSDUWPHQW
of Recreation Administration. His interest topics are recreation planning,
geographic information systems, recreation management, leisure theories,
nature-based tourism, wildlife and ecologic design for outdoor recreation.

ϮϬϬ


V i e w p u b l i c a t i o n s t a t s