Portuguese Protected Areas

This article was downloaded by: [85.245.166.
2] On: 27 November 2011, At: 16:42 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20
Profiling the segments of visitors to Portuguese protected areas

Catarina Marques , Elizabeth Reis & Joo Menezes
a a a b
Department of Quantitative Methods, ISCTE Business School Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon, Portugal
b
Department of Management, ISCTE Business School Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon, Portugal Available online: 08 Jul 2010
To cite this article: Catarina Marques, Elizabeth Reis & Joo Menezes (2010): Profiling the segments of visitors to Portuguese protected areas, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18:8, 971-996 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.497222
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism Vol. 18, No. 8, November 2010, 971996
Proling the segments of visitors to Portuguese protected areas

Catarina Marquesa , Elizabeth Reisa and Jo o Menezesb a
a
Department of Quantitative Methods, ISCTE Business School Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon, Portugal; b Department of Management, ISCTE Business School Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon, Portugal (Received 22 July 2009; nal version received 23 May 2010) This study identies the diversity of domestic visitors to Portuguese protected areas (PPA) based on benet segmentation. The segments of PPA visitors are also compared with other nature-based tourist segments using some empirical benet segmentation literature. Data were collected by means of a self-administered questionnaire and multivariate statistics techniques (principal components, hierarchical and K-means cluster analyses) were applied. Five distinct segments of visitors were identied based on the motivation for their visit and further characterized by the perceived importance of activities, facilities and services, frequency of visit and socio-demographics. Three segments are nature-focused and two are focused on activities or events. Only one segment shows specic interests and motivations associated with ecotourism and similar characteristics to international ecotourists; moreover, the reasons for the visit in one segment are unrelated to any of the motivations of nature-based tourism. Some implications for management are also described. Keywords: tourism in protected areas; nature-based tourism; ecotourism; benet segmentation; visitor segment proles
Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011
Introduction Tourism is one of the fastest-growing economic activities and many countries now recognize its powerful economic and social strength. This is particularly so in Portugal where internal tourism consumption represented 10.4% of GDP in 2007 and receipts from international tourism reached 7.4 billion euros (Instituto Nacional de Estatstica, 2008). Portugal was ranked the 20th tourist destination in the world and received roughly 12.3 million foreign tourists in 2007 (United Nations World Tourism Organization, 2008). While Portugals geographical location and climate is such that most tourists are drawn by the sun and the beach, it also enjoys great geographical, natural and cultural diversity. This has led to the diversication of the tourism supply and increased the relative importance of other motivations for tourism, e.g. nature, cultural touring, business, sports and golf. The Portuguese strategic plan for tourism identied a total of 10 priority products on which the tourism development strategy should be based, one of which is nature-based tourism (Turismo de Portugal [TP], 2006). Nature-based tourism is a growing component of international tourism. Travel motivated by the desire to enjoy, contemplate and interact with nature in Europe has increased at a yearly average of about 7% in recent years (19972004), reaching 22 million trips in 2004 and representing approximately 9% of all recreational trips made by Europeans (TP,
Corresponding author. Email: catarina.marques@iscte.pt
ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 online C 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2010.497222 http://www.informaworld.com
972
C. Marques et al.
2006). Globally, nature-based tourism grew three times faster than the tourism industry as a whole in 2004, with an increase of 1012% per year in the international market (The International Ecotourism Society, 2006). However, the literature presents a dispersed set of estimates (from 1.5% to 25%; Lawton, 2001a; Weaver, 2001a) given the great range of tourist characteristics encompassed. According to Lawton (2001a) and Weaver (2001a) the lower estimates are related to a more conservative view of this tourism sector while the higher estimates denote a more liberal interpretation. Nature-based tourism depends on natural outdoor environments as one of the main attractions or settings for tourist activities (Buckley, 2000). It is a broad term for which some subsets have appeared in the literature (Buckley, 2000, 2008; Eagles, 2001; Fennell, 2003; Newsome, Moore, & Dowling, 2002; Weaver, 2001b), such as ecotourism and nature and adventure tourism. The distinctions between these three concepts are now discussed. First is the ecotourism concept, which has become very popular and is one of the most widely discussed concepts in the tourism literature in recent years. It has been dened in many different ways and is often confused with nature tourism and sustainable tourism. In fact, ecotourism is closer to sustainable tourism since it should be ecologically and socioculturally sustainable, minimizing any undesirable impacts on the natural, cultural or social environment. The ecotourism concept refers to environmentally responsible travel to relatively undisturbed natural and cultural areas that fosters environmental education or learning and appreciation while contributing to conservation and economic development (Bj rk, 2000; Blamey, 1997, 2001; Diamantis, 1999; Fennell, 2001, 2003; Pforr, 2001; o Sirakaya, Sasidharan, & S nmez, 1999; Weaver, 2001a,b; Weaver & Lawton, 2007). Bj rk o o (2000) argues that there must also be cooperation between all stakeholders (tourists, local communities, authorities and tourism business). Because of the wide range of experiences that can be accommodated under the ecotourism denition, some authors have proposed a continuum from soft to hard, the ecotourism spectrum, according to the nature and intensity of the interaction between the tourist and the attraction, as well as their behaviors, motivations and attitudes (Weaver, 2001a, 2002, 2005; Weaver & Lawton, 2002). This justies the above-mentioned variety of estimates. According to the ecotourism spectrum framework, the two opposite poles correspond to extreme ecotourist types: the hard and the soft ecotourist. Characteristics that are commonly attributed to these poles have been identied by Weaver (2001a, 2002) and Weaver and Lawton (2002). Hard ecotourists have a high level of commitment to environmental issues and are supportive of enhancement sustainability. They engage in specialized ecotourism and long trips with small groups, and prefer physically active and challenging experiences with emphasis on the personal experience. They expect few, if any, services and are more likely to make their own travel arrangements. In contrast, soft ecotourists exhibit a more moderate level of environmental commitment and tend to be satised with achieving steady state sustainability. They are likely to participate in ecotourism as just one activity within a multipurpose itinerary, so their trips are often short, in larger groups, and they expect a high level of services. They rely on travel agents and tour operators to arrange their travel, prefer physically passive experiences and comfort and the emphasis is put on interpretation. Not all the ecotourism denitions in the literature refer to the concept of soft ecotourism due to the fact that the tourist motivations and the wide range of people involved in the experience are not considered conducive to environmental sustainability or learning outcomes (Weaver & Lawton, 2001). However, Weaver (2001c) argues that soft ecotourism is also legitimate since the three core dimensions (nature-based, learningfocused and environmentally and socioculturally sustainable) of the ecotourism denition are fullled.
973
The second concept of nature tourism1 refers to the observation or contemplation of fauna, ora or landscape scenery (Buckley, 2008). Hence, it shares only some of the ecotourism requirements: it relates to nature, its attractiveness and the visitors experience in natural settings, whereas ecotourism also encompasses the sociocultural attractiveness. The third concept is that of adventure tourism. The purpose of adventure tourism is to expose individuals to experiences that often involve perceived risk or controlled danger related with personal challenges (Morrison & Sung, 2000; Swarbrooke, Beard, Leckie, & Promfret, 2005). However, as Weber (2001) notes, this does not necessarily involve a natural environment or exotic settings. In fact, nature-based tourism includes adventure tourism if the natural environment is used as the setting for adrenalin-based or outdoor sporting activities (Buckley, 2006). In addition to these subdivisions, different combinations have emerged for the naturebased tourism market. Eagles (2001), for example, suggested at least four submarkets, using a motivation-based segmentation: ecotourism, wilderness use, adventure travel and camping. Fennell (2003) and Buckley (2000) proposed composite terms, also known by hybrids, in an attempt to reect the overlap which tourist products contain; for example, a product may contain both natural and cultural attractions as well as adventurous elements. Buckleys (2000) classication is based on major trends in the nature-based tourism sector: the appearance of a sector incorporating Nature, Eco- and Adventure Tourism, otherwise known as NEAT. The NEAT have grown mainly in and around national parks and protected areas, thus generating increasing interest in the economics and management of these areas (Buckley, 2000). The rising number of visitors to national parks is pressuring park management agencies to invest in park infrastructure, management and education, as a complement to the management of the conservation of their natural resources, which is their main mission. Consequently, park management agencies need to dene management strategies to develop their sustainable tourism, notably in marketing and operations areas. This involves looking at the park tourism market not only as a tool for communication and dissemination of conservation values but also as a potential source of revenue and a major management issue. The rst step in the planning of nature-based tourism is the analysis of tourism demand (Seaton & Bennett, 2000). Different demand requirements and expectations are critical when dening the supply. If planners and managers acknowledged the nature-based tourism market and the travel motivations of different segments, they would become more aware of their implications in managing park visitors and would develop appropriate tourism planning and marketing strategies.
Studys aim and scope Though not one of the worlds hotspots for biodiversity, in the European context Portugal has some interesting natural landscapes in parks, nature reserves and other areas of natural interest. However, tourism in protected areas is still in its early stages with some limitations, mainly in visitor facilities and services. In recent years, there has been increasing demand for activities in nature2 but there is a lack of information on the characterization of visitors and their motivations. As yet, Carneiro, Costa and Crompton (2006) is the only study conducted identifying the motivations behind the decision to visit two of the most-visited protected areas.
974
C. Marques et al.
The structural demand for nature-based tourist experiences in Portugal is almost exclusively domestic (96%) (TP, 2006); it has developed in a somewhat dispersed manner despite its already important economic impacts at the local level. Most foreign visitors travel to Portugal for other reasons and are only attracted to the practice of some kind of nature-based tourism experience once in the country (secondary demand) (TP, 2006). The current research shows the need for the segmentation and characterization of the domestic market of Portuguese protected areas (PPA). This is an important instrument to identify target markets, set up added value products without losing sight of conservation priorities and also to dene marketing and communication strategies. It is a rst step in the structuring of the tourism supply in PPA, i.e. the service development strategy that will also be offered to the international market. In short, the aim of the present study is to provide structured information on the characterization of demand by addressing the following key research questions:
(1) What are the actual PPA market segments? What is the prole of each segment? What motivates each group to visit protected areas? This paper strives to identify and understand the diversity of domestic visitors to PPA based on benet segmentation. In particular, a prole will be made of visitor segments in an attempt to understand their motivations and the importance they give to aspects such as activities, facilities and services. (2) Are any of the segments of visitors looking for contact with nature linked to a specic activity, e.g. adventure sports and/or activities that require a high degree of concentration or awareness? The main interests and motivations of these visitors are clearly associated with naturebased tourism. These individuals are normally able to adapt their behavior to the fact that they are in a protected area. (3) What similarities are found in the literature between segments of PPA visitors and those of nature-based tourists? Do they have common proles? Are any segments of PPA visitors composed of ecotourists as in other nature-based international markets? Segments of PPA visitors are also compared with those of other nature-based tourists based on the examination of the empirical benet segmentation literature, and segments of PPA visitors are identied with international ecotourist characteristics. These insights into the characteristics of potential foreign visitors to PPA will help structure the PPA tourism supply accordingly. The PPA not only have natural and cultural attractions but may also contain adventurous elements and activities. Therefore, all nature-based tourism subsectors under the title of NEAT will be used in this comparison. Additionally, some comments about the extent to which PPA visitor segments support the hardsoft ecotourism spectrum framework will be noted. This paper is structured as follows. The next section characterizes the PPA network and describes both the background to tourism in PPA and potential activities in these areas. The literature on nature-based tourism segmentation is reviewed in the subsequent section, and emphasis is given to benet segmentation. The methodological approach is then described, and the subsequent section contains a detailed description of the statistical analysis and
975
the results obtained. Discussions of the results and conclusions are presented in the nal section.
Background The Portuguese protected areas network Portugal has an extensive network of protected areas with natural characteristics of very sensitive biodiversity and great cultural wealth. The network plays a crucial role in nature conservation and aims to assure the economic sustainability of the local populations. The number of protected areas in Portugal has increased signicantly in the last decade. Nowadays, the PPA network corresponds to about 667,027 ha, incorporating a national park, 13 natural parks, 9 natural reserves, 5 natural monuments, 2 protected landscapes and 10 classied sites. There are also four protected landscapes of regional interest, and two marine parks have recently been created inside two protected areas. Moreover, 29 sites have been classied in the Natura 2000 Network as Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive together with 60 sites designated under both the Birds and Habitats Directives. In all, the terrestrial areas classied under the Natura 2000 Network and the PPA network correspond to approximately 21.3% of the Portuguese continental surface area (Instituto do Ambiente, 2005). Most protected areas fall into the category of natural parks, which is the most common form of protection in southern European countries (e.g. France, Italy and Spain) due to their specic characteristics: parks embracing living areas, working landscapes and urban areas, closely reecting the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected landscape category (category V; IUCN, 2003). Other PPA of national interest are national parks, natural reserves and natural monuments.3 Within each Portuguese protected area, the land use plan sets out a number of protection levels according to the natural characteristics and respective levels of conservation in their different zones. These levels vary from total protection to complementary protection zones that can sustain heavier use. Consequently, each Portuguese protected area can have different types of visitors in line with the zones varying protection levels. For example, whereas both the Peneda-Ger s National Park and the natural reserves have signicant surface areas e with total protection classication, these zones cover much smaller areas in natural parks. In this context, Lawton (2001b) discusses the compatibility of different forms of tourism and ecotourism within the different protected area categories proposed by the IUCN. The Peneda-Ger s National Park signed the EUROPARCs European Charter for Suse tainable Tourism in Protected Areas in 2002, along with the Serra de S. Mamede Natural Park. Nowadays, another three natural parks are currently candidates in the Charter Process. In addition to this certication, the national park has belonged to the WWF PAN Parks Network since May 2008.
The advent of tourism in Portuguese protected areas Leisure habits in Portugal have been evolving in part not only due to economic, political and social changes in Portuguese society in recent decades but also due to growing concerns about environmental issues. There has been a signicant rise in the number of domestic visitors to natural and rural spaces for tourism and recreation, and to protected areas in particular. People travel daily and at weekends to areas of ecological interest or with beautiful landscapes to engage in activities or enjoy a singular leisure experience. At the same time,
976
C. Marques et al.
local communities have begun to realize the economic benets of using protected areas as a source of revenue given the economic value of tourism in these areas. The perception of the emergent demand for protected areas as tourist destinations together with the pressure on the increasing use of preserved spaces by nature-based companies have compelled the Portuguese Government to set rules and restrictions for tourism in protected areas while also promoting forms of visitor occupation that contribute to local development, e.g. offering recreation and leisure activities compatible with the conservation objectives and the resident populations lifestyle. As a consequence, the National Program of Nature Tourism (NPNT)4 was created in 1998 exclusively to develop sustainable tourism in protected areas in accordance with some of the main international recommendations. This program is built on a strategy that articulates tourism and environment by promoting the integration and sustainability of nature conservation, local development, the qualication of the tourism offer and the diversication of tourism activity (Resolucao de Conselho de Ministros, 1998). Specic legislation (Decree Law 47/99) was also approved to dene the concept. It should be noted that the preservation of natural values is required for tourism in protected areas; this is also vital to the sector as conserving nature and landscapes contributes decisively to both Portugals image and the increased value of the tourism supply itself (Institute of the Nature Conservation, 2002).
Activities in protected areas The activities that can be carried out in PPA were specied by the NPNT and categorized into three types: environmental interpretation, nature-based sports and recreational activities. Environmental interpretation activities provide visitors with not only general knowledge of the protected areas heritage in interpretation centers and/or through observation in loco of geological formations, ora, fauna and their habitats but also an understanding of aspects related to the local communities and their lifestyles. Activities such as exhibitions, conferences and environmental education courses are included in this category. Nature-based sports activities are practiced in contact with nature but without damaging nature conservation. This category also includes adventure sports and outdoor games. Examples of accepted adventure sports are hiking, mountaineering, rock climbing, orienteering, caving, mountain biking, ballooning, paragliding, hang gliding, diving, sailing, surng, windsurng, hydrospeed, rafting, rowing and canoeing. Recreational activities are those included in the leisure time occupation of tourists and visitors. Recreation enables the tourism supply to be diversied, integrating these activities with other resources of protected areas, such as gastronomy, arts and crafts and exhibitions of local communities products and traditions. Religious and ethnographic events, thematic tours, shows and other cultural activities all belong to this category. The Governmental Agency for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity, ICNB5 (hereafter also referred to as the PPA management agency because it cares for the Portuguese national protected areas), is responsible for promoting and developing environmental interpretation activities and also for licensing private operators to develop nature-based tourism activities (nature-based sports and recreational activities) in accordance with Portuguese legislation. The supply of activities in each PPA depends on its natural attractions as well as on demand from visitors. Only environmental interpretation activities are available in all of them as they are offered by the ICNB.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism Benet segmentation in nature-based tourism
977
According to Weinstein (1994), segmentation is the process of partitioning markets into smaller and more homogeneous components or segments with similar needs, motivations and/or characteristics and that are likely to exhibit similar behavior, in order to adapt the marketing policy to each or some of the segments. Markets can be segmented in a variety of ways based on physical or behavioral attributes. Physical attributes regularly used in segmentation include socio-demographic characteristics and geography, while behavioral attributes include psychographics, product usage, benets and perceptions or preferences. The choice of segmentation base depends on the purpose of the study as well as the market in question (Wedel & Kamakura, 2000). Benet segmentation examines consumer purchase motivations and is linked to the consumer behavior eld of marketing (Weinstein, 1994). Haley (1968) rst introduced this approach based on the idea that the benets people seek in consuming a product are the basic reasons for the heterogeneity in their choice of behavior, and thus for the existence of market segments. Palacio and McCool (1997) argue that it is an important tool in product development, as it denes their attributes and helps enhance product strengths and overcome weaknesses. In the tourism market, benet segmentation means attempting to establish how the tourist benets from a trip and the services necessary to support this (Seaton & Bennett, 2000); it is a way of identifying a cognitivenormative tourist typology (Murphy, 1985). A few studies have been published on the segmentation of the nature-based tourism market using motivation and expected benets. Palacio and McCool (1997) identied four distinct segments of Belize visitors based on the perceived benets of nature-based experiences: Ecotourists, Nature Escapists, Comfortable Naturalists and Passive Players. They found that Ecotourists and Nature Escapists had similar levels of activity participation but differed in terms of socio-demographic and trip characteristics. The social dimension was also differentiated by Ecotourists, who gave great importance to sharing recreational experiences with friends and family. Like the latter two segments, Comfortable Naturalists were also interested in learning about nature and escaping from everyday life, but to a moderate degree. Passive Players arrived in Belize in large groups, reported the highest ages and had little interest in any of the benet domains; they indicated that the reasons for their visit were unrelated to the Belize nature-based experiences. Bricker and Kerstetter (2002) dened four segments of tourists who made the decision to participate in a nature-based tour in the Fiji Islands. They are labeled Eco-Family Travelers, Culture Buffs, Ecotourists and Eclectic Travelers. The segment differences are based on a variety of factors, including tour satisfaction and their motivation for engaging in an ecotourism experience. With the exception of Culture Buffs, tourists consistently rated the environmental and sociocultural aspects of the experience as important. Moreover, EcoFamily Travelers placed importance on being with family and/or friends; Culture Buffs identied the sociocultural as the only important domain, and all motives were important to Eclectic Travelers. Weaver and Lawton (2002) identied three distinct groups among the overnight guests of two ecolodges in an Australian park based on the authors purported characteristics of hard and soft ecotourism. Results supported the existence of distinctive hard and soft ecotourist market segments, corroborating the fact that there is a softhard continuum spectrum in the ecotourism market. Additionally, they identied a large and distinctive group of Structured Ecotourists who combined hard and soft characteristics. These Structured Ecotourists resemble the Harder Ecotourists in terms of their environmental and ecotourismrelated behavior and attitudes, whereas they resemble the Softer Ecotourists in factors
978
C. Marques et al.
such as multipurpose and short trips, larger groups, services expected and emphasis on interpretation. Weaver (2002) complemented the latter research by examining the Harder Ecotourists and determining how they differed from the other ecotourists sampled, i.e. Softer Ecotourists and Structured Ecotourists. Kerstetter, Hou and Lin (2004) identied three segments among the ecotourists in the coastal wetlands in Taiwan based on the motivations for their visit, and they labeled them Experience-tourists, Learning-tourists and Ecotourists. A behavioral prole was then made for each segment. The Ecotourist segment included those who most valued mixed educational and holistic benets associated with the natural experience. They were the most likely to say they would support local initiatives, but they did not perceive sustainability of local resources as their responsibility. The remaining individuals were more interested in experiencing or learning about the environment rather than engaging in sustainable activities/behaviors. In particular, Experience-tourists did not express any support for, or exhibit, environmental-friendly behavior, and were the most likely to be visiting natural resources purely for adventure. When the above nature-based tourist markets are compared, it is observed that not all the nature-based tourists may be classied as ecotourists, even though they have been sampled in well-known ecotourism settings in all these studies. This conrms the trend in the tourism literature to classify all visitors to nature-based sites as ecotourists, as Ryan, Hughes and Chirgwin (2000) and Palacio and McCool (1997) have noted, perhaps as a result of the varied denitions of ecotourism. Only Kerstetter et al. (2004) found segments in all nature-based tourist subsectors of the term NEAT, i.e. nature, eco- or adventure tourists. The current study focuses on the segmentation of domestic visitors to PPA based on the motivations for their visit. Visitor segments are also proled according to the importance given to park activities, facilities and services, frequency of visits and socio-demographics; and they are compared to those identied in the benet segmentation literature. Two comparisons are made with the PPA segments: the rst is based on the classication of the nature-based tourist markets (in nature, eco- or adventure tourists) and on other tourist typologies presented in the literature review; the second is based on their interest in nature and adventure.
Methodological approach Sampling and questionnaire This study used a survey approach based on a self-administered questionnaire. The target population included those living in the Portuguese mainland aged 15 to 75 years, with economic consumption ability to visit PPA and purchase PPA services. To select potential participants with this prole, specic Portuguese regions were chosen using a number of criteria, mainly from available socioeconomic statistics for NUTS III6 such as income distribution, purchasing power, educational level, concentration of resident urban population and access to information. Given the time and nancial restrictions to conduct the survey, population density and resident population were also considered, thus avoiding regions with great geographical dispersion and a small expected number of interviews respectively. The questionnaire was partitioned into ve sections measuring aspects such as sociodemographic characteristics and psychographics, occupation of leisure time and travel habits, environmental attitudes and several aspects of the PPA characteristics (peoples
979
perceptions of the biological, cultural and economic importance of the PPA and the image they have of them). Respondents who are regular visitors were requested to answer some questions about the parks they visited, their motivations, the level of satisfaction and the importance they assign to several aspects such as park facilities, activities and services. The questionnaire was long (approximately 50 questions over 6 pages) and the time to answer was 20 minutes on average. After pre-testing procedures, a non-probability sampling method, quota sampling, was adopted. This method is often used for targeting the general population in market research studies when no sampling frame, i.e. an exhaustive list of the population members, is available. The strata were dened by region (categories of NUTS III), age groups and gender and the quotas considered proportionally to the population distribution (Instituto Nacional de Estatstica, 2002). A cross stratication was used where each selected element must simultaneously fulll the three criteria. To avoid bias resulting from the interviewers subjective choice, they were also asked to diversify respondents characteristics in terms of place (questionnaires were delivered in public places, e.g. coffee shops, shopping malls and public gardens, and in cultural places such as libraries), day and time of contact, education level and profession. To guarantee the survey quality and reduce costs, a survey coordinator traveled all over the country to train interviewers and manage the survey. Most of the interviewers were students recruited from local universities and polytechnic institutes. The questionnaire was self-administered and delivered by the interviewer (who explained the survey objectives and the questionnaire structure), and collected a few days later. This approach was used to motivate respondents to answer more accurately and, therefore, to increase data quality. The survey took place between April and June 2005. A total of 779 valid responses were obtained with a response rate corresponding to approximately 30% of the total delivered questionnaires. Standard social-demographic variables were used to assess the quality of the sample. The quotas obtained were compared to the population distribution and no signicant differences were found for the distributions of control variables region, age groups and gender indicative of a representative sample for those characteristics.7 However, the sample distribution of the highest level of education variable differs from the population distribution as a result of the difculty in getting answers from those with lower academic qualications. Higher-qualied individuals were much more motivated to collaborate.8 To analyze this bias and its impact on visitor proles, post-survey weighting was applied and comparisons were made to non-weighted estimates for several variables measuring opinions, attitudes and behaviors, based on the mean square error criteria (Kish, 1992). As results showed non-signicant differences between weighted and non-weighted estimates, the latter was used throughout this statistical analysis. Segmentation process Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on the motivation statements, followed by a cluster analysis of the individuals principal components (PC) scores to achieve visitor segmentation. The segments obtained were then named according to the motivations and proled in terms of activity preferences, importance given to park facilities and services, frequency of visit and socio-demographics.9 Principal component analyses PCA was used for data reduction purposes. Three groups of variables10 visit motives, activity preferences and the perceived importance of facilities and services were reduced
980
C. Marques et al.
to a smaller number of composite variables, dimensions or PC. Several criteria were used when deciding the number of PC to extract, in particular: (1) the latent root criterion of retaining PC with eigenvalues greater than 1.0; (2) the scree plot indicating the suitable number of PC that can be extracted before the amount of explained variance becomes too small; and (3) the percentage of variance explained criterion that considers solutions accounting for at least 60% of the total variance as satisfactory. The selected solution assures that all variables have high loadings only on a single factor; all communalities are greater than 0.5 and there is no variable that cross-loads, i.e. loads highly on two or more PC (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2005). In addition, the reliability coefcient to assess the consistency of each dimension, the Cronbachs alpha coefcient, is greater than 0.6 for all dimensions. PC loadings were used to identify the underlying meaning of each dimension. Prior to PCA, a set of measures indicates that the original variables meet the fundamental requirements for PCA: (1) a signicant Bartletts test of sphericity indicating signicant correlations among variables; (2) both overall measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) and the MSA value for each variable exceeding the threshold value of 0.5 to identify correlation patterns between variables; and (3) the number of partial correlations over 0.5 should be minimal, signifying that two variables are not correlated with a larger number of other variables in the analysis. Cluster analysis The clustering process combined a hierarchical method with a nonhierarchical method, the Ward and K-means methods, respectively, to increase the validity of the chosen solution (Reis, 2000). The number of clusters was decided after hierarchical clustering with the Ward method, after which the K-means method was used to develop an optimal individual allocation within each cluster.11 The squared Euclidean distance was chosen as the dissimilarity measure. The clustering variables were examined for each cluster to assign a name which describes its nature. One-way ANOVA or KruskalWallis tests12 and chi-square goodness-of-t tests were used to evaluate differences between groups, both to assess predictive validity and to prole the clusters.13 Analysis and results Visitors socio-demographic characteristics Of the 779 respondents, 401 are visitors to protected areas, i.e. individuals who visit protected areas one or more times per year. Most visitors go to PPA once a year and only 15% are considered regular visitors (Table 1). The distribution of visitors and non-visitors socio-demographic characteristics is presented in Table 2. The results show signicant differences between visitors and non-visitors, summarized as follows: (1) A total of 53% of visitors are female. This percentage is similar within the group of non-visitors. (2) The age distribution of visitors shows a young adult prole as the majority range from 25 to 44 years. Non-visitors present a slightly younger and older distribution, with higher percentages of respondents aged under 25 or over 44 years. (3) This sample shows a high educational level, as already noted, and is even higher within the visitor group. (4) Three quarters of visitors are employed and only 16% are students; the non-visitor group includes a higher proportion of students, retired people and housewives. (5) Approximately two thirds of visitors have a net monthly household income of over

Table 1. Frequency of visits. % Sometimes (once a year) Often (two or three times per year) Regularly (more than three times per year) Total Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics. Visitors (%) Sex Female Male Age groups 1519 years 2024 years 2534 years 3544 years 4559 years 60 or more years Highest level of education Up to primary school completed Ninth grade completed Secondary school completed BA/B.Sc. Higher education Living with Other adults Other adults and children Other Do you have a car? Yes No Occupation Employed Student Other Net household income (monthly) 400 euros 4011000 euros 10012000 euros 20013500 euros >3500 euros Region (NUTS III) C vado a Ave Greater Oporto T mega a Baixo Vouga Baixo Mondego Pinhal Litoral Oeste Greater Lisbon Set bal Peninsula u Algarve
Signicant
981
63.3 21.9 14.7 100.0
Non-visitors (%) 54.0 46.0 11.6 15.3 20.6 18.0 23.3 11.1 15.3 18.3 32.0 7.4 27.0 59.5 30.4 10.2 69.9 30.1 63.4 21.7 14.9 9.9 39.5 27.2 16.7 6.8 2.4 12.4 17.7 9.3 4.5 4.2 1.3 5.3 24.3 12.2 6.3
Pearson chi-square
52.9 47.1 7.2 12.2 30.9 22.2 21.9 5.5 6.2 15.5 29.9 8.5 39.9 53.3 39.9 6.8 84.1 15.9 75.2 16.2 8.6 6.2 28.9 36.4 19.0 9.5 6.0 7.5 15.7 4.2 4.5 4.7 3.5 6.2 30.4 10.0 7.2
0.095
22.714
27.723
8.881 21.532
19.672
15.264
26.470
at the 0.01 level; signicant at the 0.05 level.
982
C. Marques et al.
1000 euros; half of non-visitors are in the lower income brackets. (6) A total of 56% of visitors live in the urban regions of Greater Lisbon, Greater Oporto and Set bal Peninsula; u this percentage is approximately the same for the non-visitor group (54%). However, less populated and more rural regions present signicant differences. The percentage of visitors in regions with a protected area nearby is higher, indicating that proximity to a protected area might inuence the number of visits. (7) More than half the visitors live with other adults and 40% live with adults and children, a slightly different distribution from the one shown by the non-visitor group. The percentage of visitors owning a car is 84%, while that of non-visitors is 70%. Visitor segmentation A set of 23 motives was used as the basis to segment visitors. PCA was applied to nd the underlying motivation dimensions. Two variables, Health reasons and Environmental education, were excluded from the PCA; the former was excluded because it had the lowest number of signicant correlations with any other variables resulting in a one-variable PC; by contrast, the latter had the highest number of signicant correlations ensuing in high loadings in several PC. Seven dimensions were identied that explain 66.8% of total variance. The selected solution was assessed by varimax rotation. The PC were named as follows: participation in traditional events, enjoyment of nature, sports, social inuence, personal fulllment, proximity and convenience and participation in planned events. Results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. PCA results of motivations for visiting a PPA.a Principal components Participation in traditional events Enjoyment of nature Variables Visit to arts and crafts fairs Participation in religious festivals Participation in traditional games Regional gastronomy Observing fauna and ora Enjoyment of contact with nature Personal, physical and mental harmony Physical wellbeing Photography Adventure sports (active tourism) Participation in competitive sports As a result of family participation As a result of friends/colleagues participation Social contact with friends/family A lifestyle Gives the appearance of good taste Cultural fulllment Close to residence Close to holiday location Participation in corporate events Participation in cultural events Loadings Variance (%) 0.827 0.782 0.718 0.545 0.798 0.737 0.711 0.527 0.524 0.836 0.778 0.823 0.748 0.585 0.791 0.665 0.562 0.906 0.852 0.602 0.560 12.7 Cronbachs alpha 0.762
12.5
0.740
Sports Social inuence
9.8 8.6
0.773 0.641
Personal fulllment Proximity and convenience Participation in planned events

a Bartletts
8.3 8.1 6.8
0.613 0.788 0.686
test of sphericity is statistically signicant at the 0.01 level; KMO value of 0.790.
983
The previous seven dimensions, together with the standardized variables of Health reasons and Environmental education, were then used as clustering variables. The inclusion of these two variables is justied due to their importance as visit motivation to PPA. Concerning the former, the practice of going on holiday to a thermal spa specically for health reasons is a long-standing tradition in Portuguese society. Thermal spas were built in places of profuse mineral water attributed with healing properties. These sanctuaries of wellbeing are peaceful retreats offering close contact with nature which are now increasingly used in treatments known to be effective in overcoming stress and fatigue. Regarding the latter, PPA are ideal places for implementing programs for Environmental Education as they represent real living laboratories. Direct contact with the natural and cultural heritage, together with the communication of concepts relating to nature conservation and biodiversity, can bring new human values that contribute to conservation and the exercise of citizenship in the environmental context. Two alternative clustered solutions (with four and ve clusters) were identied from the results of the hierarchical analysis and then proled to inspect for the distinguishable characteristics in each cluster. Differences between the two solutions were large enough across the set of clustering variables to justify the choice of the ve-cluster solution, which was retained to use as the initial solution in the non-hierarchical analysis; the correspondence to the segments proposed by practical experience was also better assessed by this solution. Results reveal the existence of ve distinct clusters of visitors to PPA that are quite different in size, ranging from 49 to 125 members (Table 4). The fourth cluster is the biggest, accounting for 31% of visitors. Segments are now labeled according to the clusters mean scores (Figure 1). Segment 1 (19% of visitors) was named Self-centered Visitors because it comprises those visitors motivated by personal fullment aspects and nature enjoyment, regardless of the distance covered. They are the least inuenced by visits of family or friends and they do not visit parks for health reasons, environmental education or sports or to participate in traditional events. In short, these individuals enjoy nature so as to feel well or self-fullled. Segment 2 (about 25% of all visitors), named Occasional Visitors, gives more importance to almost all motivation dimensions. However, their visits are restricted by proximity. These visitors are motivated by sports activities and participation in traditional and planned events. Natural environment and scenery is much less appreciated. These are visitors who look for some event or activity performed nearby. Segment 3 (13%) visit nearby parks inuenced by family and friends and to enjoy the contact with nature. These visitors give the least importance to personal fulllment, health aspects, traditional events and environmental education. Since they visit protected areas as an escape so as to relax and be with family and friends, this segment was labeled Urban Visitors.
Table 4. Segment size. Frequency Segments 1 2 3 4 5 Total 77 97 53 125 49 401 % 19.2 24.2 13.2 31.2 12.2 100.0
984
C. Marques et al.
Figure 1. Distribution of the mean factor scores by segment.
The fourth segment (the largest, accounting for 31% of total visitors) is labeled Excursionists and includes those who visit parks inuenced by family and friends and to achieve personal fullment. They also show interest in traditional events but they are the ones who enjoy nature the least. These individuals visit protected areas so as to feel active. Members of the fth segment are motivated by the enjoyment of the natural environment and scenery. They also visit parks for health reasons, environmental education and personal fullment and as a result of their friends and family visits since they are the most inuenced by others. They are willing to travel large distances to reach the parks as they scored low in the proximity dimension, nding it of least importance. Due to their interest in the natural environment and the high scores for inuence of family/friends, this segment was labeled Sociable Naturalists. This is the smallest group with only 12% of visitors. These ve segments exhibit their main motivation: the Self-centered Visitors, Urban Visitors and Sociable Naturalists are clearly committed to the natural environment; the Occasional Visitors and also the Sociable Naturalists are focused on activities or events. Only the Excursionists visit for reasons unrelated to any of the motivations of nature-based tourism.
Segment characteristics Another two PCAs were applied to nd the underlying dimensions of the variables of activity preferences and the importance of facilities and services. PCA results are shown in Tables 5 and 6. The three dimensions identied for the activities, named Recreational Events/Activities, Environmental Interpretation Activities and Sport and Organized

Table 5. PCA results for protected area activities.a Principal components Recreational events/activities Variables Activities related to gastronomy Traditional games Religious festivals Art and craft fairs Shows/cultural activities School activities about nature Environmental education courses Photographic activities Organized treks with guide Radical sports Exhibitions/lectures/conferences Loadings Variance (%) 0.820 0.790 0.744 0.712 0.577 0.839 0.718 0.602 0.741 0.734 0.616 29.4
985
Cronbachs alpha 0.851
Environmental interpretation activities Sports and organized activities
18.6 17.0
0.751 0.646
a Rotation
method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization; 65.0% of variance explained; Bartletts test of sphericity is statistically signicant at the 0.01 level; KMO value of 0.892.
Activities, are analogous although not exactly equal to the NPNT classication. For the facilities and services variables, six dimensions were identied: Accommodation and Food Facilities, Information and Services, Observation and Study Sites, Basic Facilities, Reception Facilities and Child Support Services.
Table 6. PCA results for perceived importance of facilities and services.a Principal components Facilities for accommodation and food Information and services Variables Camp sites Picnic sites Accommodation Restaurants/caf s e Availability of charts, maps and information Park rangers Information signposts about nature, historical and cultural sites to visit Organized and signposted trails Maintenance Observatories Viewpoints Local museums Interpretation centers WC Medical posts Recycle bins Security Information centers Car park People who take care of children Child play area Loadings Variance (%) 0.829 0.786 0.704 0.667 0.771 0.737 0.628 0.596 0.524 0.846 0.805 0.741 0.535 0.818 0.723 0.698 0.540 0.778 0.727 0.783 0.627 13.4 Cronbachs alpha 0.811
13.0
0.792
Observation and study sites Basic facilities
12.8
0.835
12.1
0.793
Reception facilities Child support services

a Rotation
9.8 7.7
0.694 0.714
method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization; 68.8% of variance explained; Bartletts test of sphericity is statistically signicant at the 0.01 level; KMO value of 0.863.
986
C. Marques et al.
Table 7. Mean scores for segments on activity dimensions. Segments (1) Self-centered Visitors (2) Occasional Visitors (3) Urban Visitors (4) Excursionists (5) Sociable Naturalists KW Statistic
Signicant
Recreational events/activities 0.0668 0.1859 0.2288 0.0567 0.1601 7.823
Environmental interpretation activities 0.0361 0.0393 0.0217 0.3377 0.7035 37.878
Sports and organized activities 0.2475 0.2881 0.3362 0.0366 0.0888 14.742
at the 0.01 level.
Segment characterization was based on mean scores resulting from all PCAs applied to activity, facilities and services variables (Tables 7 and 8), frequency of visits (Table 9) and socio-demographic variables (Table 10). Members of the rst segment, the Self-centered Visitors, do not value any kind of activity with the exception of environmental interpretation activities, e.g. school activities about nature. With regard to park facilities and services, they consider it important to have information signposts about sites to visit and park cleaning and maintenance. They are among those who visit parks the most: more than half visit once a year, and about a quarter do so more than three times per year. They live mainly in Greater Lisbon, Algarve and Greater Oporto, and their mean age is 36.5 years. The majority has the highest level of education and over 80% are employed. Two thirds have a monthly income ranging from 400 to 2000 euros and 13% over 3500 euros. The Occasional Visitors prefer planned activities in protected areas, e.g. gastronomy and activities associated with popular culture and radical sports. In terms of facilities and services, they attribute great importance to child support services and accommodation and food facilities. More than 60% visit parks once a year and almost a quarter two or three times per year. They are mainly female and the youngest age group and the majority has the lowest level of education. This group has the most students and unemployed people. They have low incomes; over 70% of them have a monthly income of below 2000 euros. They live mainly in Greater Lisbon and Set bal Peninsula and in the North, in Greater Oporto u and C vado. a
Table 8. Mean scores for segments on facilities and services dimensions. Accommodation Information Observation Child and food and and study Basic Reception support facilities services sites facilities facilities services 0.1863 0.1764 0.0897 0.1133 0.2484 7.869 0.0989 0.1594 0.0550 0.0789 0.3020 14.200 0.0620 0.0244 0.0598 0.1952 0.3843 14.386 0.1326 0.0064 0.1791 0.1256 0.0117 0.2887
Segments (1) Self-centered Visitors (2) Occasional Visitors (3) Urban Visitors (4) Excursionists (5) Sociable Naturalists KW Statistic
Signicant
0.0429 0.1239 0.5064 0.1010 0.0425 0.0439 0.2458 0.0588 0.1457 6.887 2.014 23.884
at the 0.01 level.

Table 9. Frequency of visits by segment. Frequency of visits Segments (1) Self-centered Visitors (2) Occasional Visitors (3) Urban Visitors (4) Excursionists (5) Sociable Naturalists Sometimes (%) 54.5 60.8 69.8 72.8 51.0 Often (%) 23.4 22.7 11.3 21.6 30.6
987
Regularly (%) 22.1 16.5 18.9 5.6 18.4
Activities performed in PPA are seldom preferred by the Urban Visitors. These visitors consider availability of information and services important, in contrast to child support services. A total of 70% visit parks once a year and little over a quarter more than three times per year. They live mainly in Greater Lisbon. Two thirds have no children and 15% live alone. This is the group where individuals have higher education levels as well as higher incomes; over two thirds have an income ranging from 1000 to 3500 euros. The Excursionists give more importance to a number of activities unrelated to nature. Only accommodation and food facilities are considered important, together with some basic facilities such as medical posts, recycle bins and security. About three quarters of these individuals visit the protected areas only once a year, whereas 6% go more than three times a year. More than one third live in the region of Greater Lisbon or Greater Oporto. Those remaining were uniformly distributed across other regions. They are the oldest and those who have the lowest level of education, low incomes (over 70% have an income below 2000 euros, though 11% have over 3500 euros) and the lowest percentage of employed persons. Visitors in the fth segment, the Sociable Naturalists, value environmental interpretation activities and guided organized treks, and value least the other cultural events such as recreational activities. Basic facilities, observation and study sites and information services are considered very important. These individuals visit the protected areas the most: approximately 50% visit them often or with some regularity. Most of them live in Greater Lisbon, Greater Oporto and Set bal Peninsula. It is the second youngest group (the mean age is u 35.5 years) and 18% are students. Over a third possesses higher education and 45% have completed secondary school. They have high incomes; almost two thirds have an income ranging from 1000 to 3500 euros. This is the only segment in which the majority of its members are male (53%).
Discussion and conclusion This study develops a comprehensive analysis of the prole of segments of domestic visitors to PPA, a theme where little empirical research has been conducted to date. Five segments of visitors were identied based on the motivation for their visit and characterized by the perceived importance of activities, facilities and services, visit frequency and sociodemographics. Self-centered Visitors, Urban Visitors and Sociable Naturalists are clearly committed to the natural environment and have the most typical characteristics of nature-based tourism. Hereafter, they are named nature-focused segments. Occasional Visitors and also Sociable Naturalists are focused on activities or events. And, for the
988
C. Marques et al.
Table 10. Socio-demographic characteristics of visitor segments. Segmentsa Gender (%) Female Male Age groups (%) 1519 years 2024 years 2534 years 3544 years 4559 years 60 or more years Age (mean) Highest level of education (%) Up to primary school completed 9th grade completed Secondary school completed BA/BSc Higher education Living with (%) Other adults Other adults and children Other Occupation (%) Employed Student Other Net household income (monthly) (%) 400 euros 4011000 euros 10012000 euros 20013500 euros >3500 euros Region (NUTS III) (%) C vado a Ave Greater Oporto T mega a Baixo Vouga Baixo Mondego Pinhal Litoral Oeste Greater Lisbon Set bal Peninsula u Algarve
a Segment
1 49.4 50.6 5.2 9.1 36.4 19.5 27.3 2.6 36.5 1.3 16.9 18.2 10.4 53.2 55.3 40.8 3.9 84.0 13.3 2.7 2.8 29.6 36.6 18.3 12.7 2.6 6.5 10.4 1.3 5.2 6.5 2.6 6.5 36.4 9.1 13.0
2 58.8 41.2 7.2 15.5 29.9 26.8 15.5 5.2 35.1 8.2 23.7 30.9 7.2 29.9 55.2 36.5 8.3 72.0 18.3 9.7 6.0 32.1 40.5 14.3 7.1 9.3 5.2 22.7 3.1 3.1 1.0 2.1 4.1 26.8 15.5 7.2
3 54.7 45.3 3.8 11.3 39.6 26.4 17.0 1.9 35.6 1.9 5.7 24.5 9.4 58.5 58.5 28.3 13.2 81.1 13.2 4.8 6.4 19.1 36.2 29.8 8.5 5.7 7.5 9.4 0.0 3.8 1.9 7.5 5.7 45.3 7.5 5.7
4 52.0 48.0 9.6 12.8 24.0 19.2 24.8 9.6 37.7 12.0 15.2 32.8 7.2 32.8 52.8 41.6 5.6 67.2 16.8 16.0 9.0 31.5 32.4 16.2 10.8 5.6 9.6 12.8 8.0 4.8 7.2 4.0 9.6 24.8 7.2 6.4
5 46.9 53.1 8.2 10.2 32.7 20.4 24.5 4.1 35.5 0.0 8.2 44.9 10.2 36.7 41.7 54.2 4.2 81.6 18.4 0.0 4.5 25.0 38.6 25.0 6.8 6.1 8.2 24.5 6.1 6.1 6.1 2.0 2.0 26.5 10.2 2.0
Pearson chi-square
2.537
20.799 1.498b
36.302,c
11.442c
19.456,c
13.210
41.663,c
names: (1) Self-centered visitors; (2) Occasional visitors; (3) Urban visitors; (4) Excursionists; (5) Sociable naturalists. b Chi-square statistic of KruskalWallis test. c Categories aggregation was needed to verify the chi-square test assumption of no more than 20% of expected count less than 5. Signicant at the 0.01 level; signicant at the 0.05 level.
989
Excursionists the reasons for the visit are unrelated to any of the motivations of naturebased tourism. Regarding the second research question, it can be concluded that there is domestic demand for contact with nature with specic interests and motivations; however, it is very incipient, as demonstrated by the small size of the Sociable Naturalists segment. This suggests that visits with specic interests to protected areas may be conceived as a tourism product, though it is not yet structured and marketed. Most visits are spontaneous, i.e. the real and effective reasons that justify the visit are not related to the enjoyment of the nature resources and attributes. These are conrmed by the Occasional Visitors and Excursionists segments that account for more than half of visitors. For these, PPA are places of leisure and recreation that are not specically about enjoying nature or naturerelated activities. They may not show strong environmentally responsible behavior as they are very often unaware that they are in a protected area. While varying in their specications due to substantial differences in target populations, questionnaires, sample sizes, sampling and statistical methodologies, and in venue characteristics, similarities were identied among the PPA visitor segments and other nature-based tourist markets within the benet segmentation literature. Figures 2 and 3 present a comparison of all segments, and their description is summarized as follows. First, PPA visitors in the three nature-focused segments differ from the other segments in terms of the benets they seek from nature. Sociable Naturalists may be referred to as ecotourists due to their interest in observing, experiencing and learning about nature, like the Ecotourists of Kerstetter et al. (2004) and Ecotourists and Nature Escapists of Palacio and McCool (1997). By contrast, Urban Visitors and Self-centered Visitors are engaged in an affective experience, one that allows them to admire and enjoy the natural area rather than have a learning experience. These proles are consistent with Ryan et al.s (2000) argument about the differences between people visiting natural areas. Whereas some may enjoy and admire the area in a general context without any motivation other than the
Benefit Segmentation Studies Palacio and McCool (1997) n = 206
Sampled Population General travelers at the Belize international airport
Nature-based Tourists Ecotourists Ecotourists (18%) Nature Escapists (22%) Comfortable Naturalists (33%) Ecotourists (21%) Eco-Family Travelers (25%) Culture Buffs (20%) Eclectic Travelers a (19%) Harder Ecotourists (34%) Softer Ecotourists (27%) Structured Ecotourists (39%) Ecotourists (40%) Nature Tourists Adventure Tourists
Other Type of Tourists Passive Players (27%)
Bricker and Kerstetter (2002) n = 350
Participants in nature-tour of thirtyfour Fiji Island operators
Weaver and Lawton (2002); Weaver (2002) n = 1180
Overnight guests at two ecolodges in the Lamington National Park (Australia) Domestic tourists to one of three chosen Coastal Wetlands in Taiwan Residents in Portuguese mainland
Kerstetter et al. (2004) n = 408 PPA visitor segmentation n = 401

a
Learning-tourists (34%)
Experiencetourists (26%)
Sociable Naturalists (12%)
Urban Visitors (13%) Self-centered Visitors (19%)
Excursionists (31%) Occasional Visitors (25%)
Total of segments does not equal 100%.
Figure 2. Comparison of benet segmentation within nature-based tourism.
990
C. Marques et al.
Gradational Interest in Nature Interest in Adventure Radical Sports in Nature
Main Motivation in Visit Palacio and McCool (1997) Bricker and a Kerstetter (2002)
Basic or Occasional Interest in Nature
Advanced or Frequent Interest in Nature
Deep or Regular Interest in Nature Ecotourists
Nature Escapists Comfortable Naturalists Ecotourists Culture Buffs Eco-Family Travelers Eclectic Travelers Softer Ecotourists Harder Ecotourists Structured Ecotourists Learning-tourists Urban Visitors Self-centered Visitors Ecotourists Sociable Naturalists Experience-tourists
Weaver and Lawton (2002); Weaver (2002) Kerstetter et al. (2004) PPA visitor segmentation
This study presents little detailed information and so does not allow the degree of interest in nature among Eclectic Travelers and Ecotourists to be differentiated.
Figure 3. Nature and adventure interest by benet segments within nature-based tourism.
immediate satisfaction of being there, others have specic intellectual reasons related with ora, fauna or cultural aspects. Second, in terms of the social dimension and environmental interpretation, Sociable Naturalists resemble the Structured Ecotourists of Weaver and Lawton (2002). Sharing recreational experiences with friends and family also assumes special signicance for the Ecotourists and Nature Escapists of Palacio and McCool (1997) and the Eco-Family Travelers of Bricker and Kerstetter (2002). Third, the socio-demographic prole of the nature-focused visitors is also similar to the ecotourists prole found in Weaver and Lawton (2002): all of them have high incomes and level of education. Fourth, surprisingly and contrary to expectations from practical experience in the Portuguese case, no segment was identied with distinctive adventure characteristics. Although Occasional Visitors gave sports and adventure recreation as the motivation for their visit, this is not a differentiating dimension. A segment with these characteristics appears to be unusual; only Kerstetter et al.s (2004) study found one that highlighted the adventure experience, which means that being physically active is often associated with ecotourism, and more specically with hard ecotourism. Fifth, there is no cultural segment like that of the Fiji Culture Buffs (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2002), although Occasional Visitors identied popular culture, mainly arts and crafts and gastronomy, as their most important domain. Sixth, segments such as Palacio and McCools (1997) Passive Players and PPA Excursionists or Occasional Visitors may be classied as mass tourism markets. However, Weaver and Lawton (2002) have classied the Passive Players as soft ecotourists because soft ecotourism comprises many of the characteristics of mass tourism, as discussed by Weaver (2001a). The Passive Players and the Excursionists show similar proles: they are the oldest and focused on social contacts. Finally, there are different degrees of interest/commitment in nature; this nding is already pointed out in some ecotourism literature related to the hardsoft ecotourism spectrum (Weaver, 2002; Weaver & Lawton, 2002).
991
The NEAT typology proves a more appropriate theoretical framework for PPA visitors as the nature-based tourism product in Portugal is in its early stages. However, it is interesting to analyze the extent to which visitors characteristics supported the notion of the hardsoft ecotourism continuum in an attempt to get a better understanding of their proles when compared to those of the literature. The continuum framework is more general than the NEAT typology, not only because it considers the concept of soft ecotourism but also because the sustainability dimension is understood as a reasonable intent to be sustainable, in line with the current best-practices principles (Weaver, 2001a). Based on this ecotourism conception, the identied nature-focused segments are represented according to the three core dimensions in Figure 4. The remaining two segments are not represented as they would be placed very near the referential origin. Note that the nature-based tourism in the PPA is induced by the park plan to have sustainable practices, which requires all tourism products to be environmentally and socioculturally sustainable. Thus, all PPA visitor segments could somehow be represented in this referential. Likewise, they all fall along the hard to soft continuum because the non-nature-focused segments can also be regarded as soft ecotourists. Figure 5 allows the comparison of the ve segments in the ecotourism spectrum. As mentioned above, Sociable Naturalists distances itself from the other two nature-focused segments due to the stronger level of environmental commitment and the larger number of nature and cultural activities engaged. They expect mainly information and interpretation services and, to a lesser extent, child support services. They are likely to travel all over the country to visit PPA with family and/or friends. Urban Visitors and Self-centered Visitors are close to each other as they expected few services and focus on interpretation. However, the Self-centered Visitors have a higher level of environmental commitment but are less likely to enhance sustainability than Urban Visitors. They are physically passive and their trips are believed to be mentally challenging, whereas Urban Visitors are physically active and engage in shorter trips. In contrast, Occasional Visitors and Excursionists could be considered soft ecotourists as they expect some services; additionally, the former are more likely to be physically active and make short trips while the
Sustainability
Nature-based
Sociable Naturalists Self-centered Visitors Urban Visitors
Learning-focused
Figure 4. Representation of PPA nature-focused segments on the three ecotourism dimensions.
992
C. Marques et al.
The Ecotourism Spectrum
Urban Visitors Self-centered Visitors
Hard
Occasional Visitors Excursionists
Sociable Naturalists
Soft
Figure 5. PPA visitor segments in the ecotourism spectrum.
latter tend to travel in larger groups. These visitors to PPA are not expected to be big spenders as they have the lowest incomes; moreover, they do not demonstrate environmentally responsible behavior. Nevertheless, their visits could be important to maintain some local business and general park structures. Although protected area characteristics in Portugal, as well as in other Mediterranean countries, differ from other sites in the world, they t ecotourists expectations and preferences. This is particularly true for PPA visitor segments with ecotourism characteristics similar to others found in the literature. A possible conclusion is that the diversity of ecosystems and landscapes, culture, traditions and gastronomy in the PPA, where nature interpretation could be connected with local traditions and culture, could attract international ecotourists who generally travel to undisturbed and protected wilderness areas. However, further comprehensive studies are required on responsible foreign travelers to PPA. The PPA management agency interested in the above-mentioned markets should develop infrastructure and appropriate promotion actions either by themselves or by outsourcing. They should adapt or create programs to visit the parks which t the needs and characteristics of these segments, each of which requires differentiated marketing strategies. The ndings provide some insights into the structure of the tourism market in PPA and the following three management implications are noted.14 First, the potential of nature-focused segments is very attractive given their composition (i.e. visitors with more educational qualications and higher monthly incomes) and behaviors. They could be attracted by highlighting the conservation of nature and the landscape, improving information services and facilities (e.g. well-signed trails) and by supplying diverse types of information (e.g. signposts, internet, leaets) about PPA characteristics and attractions. The Sociable Naturalists are more demanding than the other two segments. These visitors could also be attracted by preserving the cultural heritage and improving observation and study sites, providing more nature-related activities and offering child support services. More opportunities for being with family and friends may also attract both this group and the Urban Visitors. Second, the interests of Occasional Visitors could be satised by creating more outdoor activities and popular culture events. They could also be attracted by improving accommodation and food facilities and offering child support services. Finally, some of the interests of Excursionists (e.g. social contacts and participation in popular culture events like art and craft fairs and gastronomy) can be met along with those of the other segments. Like Occasional Visitors, the latter would also benet from some social marketing measures, especially on environmental education, so as to avoid non-environmentally responsible behaviors in PPA. From the short- to mid-term perspective, the PPA management agency should focus on the development and improvement of the general (e.g. infrastructure and information) and specic (activities and experiences) conditions for visitors with no particular interests and motivations, both for domestic and foreign markets visiting Portugal for other reasons.
993
Additionally, from a long-term perspective, the PPA management agency must advance with a structured and more specialized supply to the segments with more specic motivations like Sociable Naturalists and other international ecotourist markets as they can make a great contribution to the development of the countrys international image, positioning Portugal as a destination for ecotourism (TP, 2006). Finally, two limitations must be addressed. First, despite all efforts taken to ensure quota sample representativeness, this proved difcult due to the quota sampling process. Second, as a result of time and nancial constraints, the sample size is small with only 401 visitors. However, these two limitations do not cause a serious distortion in the nal results. With regard to sampling representativeness, the results of the cluster analysis matched the empirical experience almost perfectly, which gives some condence to the underlying structure and its generalization to the population; and the sample dimension issue is not important because the PPA management agency is only interested in identifying managerially useful segments, i.e. those that represent at least 10% of the population. Therefore, a larger sample could identify additional smaller segments for which the development of segment-specic marketing programs may not be justied. Notes on contributors
Catarina Marques is a Doctoral Researcher at the ISCTE Business School of the Lisbon University Institute, Portugal. She is Lecturer in Statistics at the Department of Quantitative Methods. Elizabeth Reis is Full Professor of Statistics and Marketing Research and the Dean of the Research Unit at ISCTE Business School of the Lisbon University Institute. Jo o Menezes is Associate Professor of Business Management at ISCTE Business School of the a Lisbon University Institute and was the President of the Portuguese Government Agency for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity during the period 20042008.
Notes
1. Often used synonymously with nature-based tourism, it is a term used more by analysts than practitioners since it describes the product or principal attraction of ecotourism, without reference to the management issues (Buckley, 2008). 2. The number of overnight stays in lodging facilities managed by the Governmental Agency for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity and the number of visitors who participated in guided tours and/or requested information in protected areas reception centers and headquarters account for more than 209,000 in 2007 (ICNB, 2009). 3. In Portuguese legislation, the four types of protected areas with national interest are national parks, natural parks, natural reserves and natural monuments, which correspond to IUCN categories II, V, IV and III, respectively. 4. In Europe, the terms nature or sustainable tourism are more commonly used than ecotourism (Blangy & Vautier, 2001). 5. ICNB is the acronym for Instituto da Conservacao da Natureza e da Biodiversidade; until 2007 it was known as the ICN. 6. The NUTS (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) is a territory division system within the European Union with the purpose of generating regional statistics. NUTS provides three aggregation levels: NUTS I, NUTS II and NUTS III. The last divides the Portuguese mainland into 28 regions; only 11 of these were chosen in this study: C vado, Ave, Great Oporto, T mega, a a Baixo Vouga, Baixo Mondego, Pinhal Litoral, Oeste, Great Lisbon, Set bal Peninsula and u Algarve. 7. It appeals to the underlying assumption of representativeness in quota sampling: if the sample comprises those who are representative of the target population on certain characteristics by lling quotas, the sample may also match the target population on the quantities or opinions that are being measured (Davies, 2004; Vicente, Reis, & Ferr o, 2001). a
994
C. Marques et al.
8. On this bias, Cochran (1977) argues, The quota method seems likely to produce samples that are biased on characteristics such as income, education, and occupation, although it often agrees well with the probability samples on questions of opinion and attitude. 9. All analyses were performed with SPSS 14.0. 10. Missing values were imputed using the replace with mean method. 11. SPSS uses the agglomeration coefcient as a heterogeneity measure. The allocation of individuals to groups stops when the successive coefcient values between steps show a substantial increase in heterogeneity. 12. The KruskalWallis test is used to compare groups when the normality assumption of ANOVA is not veried. 13. The p-values from these tests should be considered as approximations to the true p-values since the clusters are non-random. 14. These suggestions are likely to be implemented. Some actions are being put into practice in order to fully allow tourism management operations. For example, ICNB, after recent restructuring, has been organized in order to support the PPA management regarding, among other aspects, nature-based tourism. Moreover, Tourism of Portugal (the governmental agency for tourism) nances nature-based tourism activities to be carried out by private operators within the parks; in fact, nature-based tourism is considered a strategic tourism product.
References
Bj rk, P. (2000). Ecotourism from a conceptual perspective, an extended denition of a unique tourism o form. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2, 189202. Blamey, R. (1997). Ecotourism: The search for an operational denition. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(2), 109130. Blamey, R. (2001). Principles of ecotourism. In D. B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism (pp. 522). Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Blangy, S., & Vautier, S. (2001). Europe. In D.B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism (pp. 155171). Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Bricker, K.S., & Kerstetter, D.L. (2002). Ecotourists and ecotourism: Benet segmentation and experience evaluation. Travel and Tourism Research Association. Retrieved from http://www.ttra.com/pub/ uploads /020.pdf Buckley, R. (2000). Neat trends: Current issues in nature, eco- and adventure tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2, 437444. Buckley, R. (2006). Adventure tourism. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Buckley, R. (2008). Ecotourism: Principles and practices. Cambridge, UK: CAB International. Carneiro, M.J., Costa, C., & Crompton, J. (2006). A escolha do destino turstico a visitar Motivos de Visita de Areas Protegidas [The choice of destination to visit Motivation for Visiting Protected Areas]. Revista Turismo e Desenvolvimento, 6, 109123. Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Davies, P. (2004). What is sampling? (Magenta Book Background Papers No. 5). London: Government Chief Social Researchers Ofce, Prime Ministers Strategy Unit, Cabinet Ofce. Diamantis, D. (1999). The concepts of ecotourism: Evolution and trends. Current Issues in Tourism, 2(23), 93122. Eagles, P. (2001). International trends in park tourism. Paper presented at Europarc 2001 Conference, Matrei, Austria. Fennell, D.A. (2001). A content analysis of ecotourism denitions. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(5), 403421. Fennell, D.A. (2003). Ecotourism: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2005). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Haley, R. (1968). Benet segmentation: A decision-oriented research tool. Journal of Marketing, 30, 3035. Instituto do Ambiente. (2005). Relat rio do Estado do Ambiente 2005 [Report of the State of o Environment 2005]. Lisbon, Portugal: Author. Institute of the Nature Conservation. (2002). Estrat gia nacional de conservacao da natureza e da e biodiversidade [National strategy of conservation of nature and biodiversity]. Lisbon, Portugal: Author.
995
Institute of the Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (ICNB). (2009). Visitors contacts in PPA. Retrieved from http://portal.icnb.pt/NR/rdonlyres/D18F8D54-154C-4B49-BCD82E62D1DF8F26/0/visitantescontactaramAP96a07.xls Instituto Nacional de Estatstica. (2002). Recenseamento da populacao e habitacao 2001 [Population and housing census 2001]. Lisbon, Portugal: Author. Instituto Nacional de Estatstica. (2008). Estatsticas do turismo 2007 [Tourism statistics 2007]. Lisbon, Portugal: Author. The International Ecotourism Society. (2006). Global ecotourism fact sheet 2006. Retrieved from http://www.ecotourism.org/webmodules/webarticlesnet/templates/eco template.aspx?articleid =351 International Union for the Conservation of Nature. (2003). 2003 United Nations list of national parks and protected areas. Retrieved from http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/unlist/2003 UN LIST.pdf Kerstetter, D.L., Hou, J.-S., & Lin, C.-H. (2004). Proling Taiwanese ecotourists using a behavioural approach. Tourism Management, 25, 491498. Kish, L. (1992). Weighting for unequal Pi . Journal of Ofcial Statistics, 8(2), 183200. Lawton, L.J. (2001a). A prole of the older adult ecotourists in Australia. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 9(1/2), 113132. Lawton, L.J. (2001b). Ecotourism in public protected areas. In D.B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism (pp. 287302). Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Morrison, M.A., & Sung, H.H. (2000). Adventure tourism. In J. Jafari (Ed.), Encyclopedia of tourism (p. 11). New York, NY: Routledge. Murphy, P.E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. London: Routledge. Newsome, D., Moore, S., & Dowling, R. (2002). Natural areas tourism: Ecology, impacts and management. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications. Palacio, V., & McCool, S.F. (1997). Identifying ecotourists in Belize through benet segmentation: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(3), 234243. Pforr, C. (2001). Concepts of sustainable development, sustainable tourism, and ecotourism: Definitions, principles, and linkages. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 1(1), 6871. Reis, E. (2000). A an lise de clusters e as aplicacoes as ci ncias empresariais uma vis o crtica da a ` e a teoria dos grupos estrat gicos [Cluster analysis and applications to business science a critical e view of the theory of strategic groups]. Temas em m todos quantitativos, 1, 205238. Lisbon, e Portugal: Edicoes Slabo. Resolucao do Conselho de Ministros. (1998). Programa nacional de turismo da natureza (Resolucao de Conselho de Ministros no 112/98 de 25-08-1998) [National program of nature tourism]. Lisbon, Portugal: Author Ryan, C., Hughes, K., & Chirgwin, S. (2000). The gaze, spectacle and ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1), 148163. Seaton, A., & Bennett, M. (2000). Marketing tourism products: Concepts, issues and cases (2nd ed.). London: International Thomson Business Press. Sirakaya, E., Sasidharan, V & S nmez, S. (1999). Redening ecotourism: The need for a supply-side ., o view. Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), 168172. Swarbrooke, J., Beard, C., Leckie, S., & Pomfret, G. (2005). Adventure tourism: The new frontier (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier. Turismo de Portugal. (2006). Plano estrat gico nacional do turismo [National strategic plan for e tourism]. Lisbon, Portugal: Author. United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2008). World tourism barometer June 2008, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.tourismroi.com/Content Attachments/27670/File 633513750035785076.pdf Vicente, P., Reis, E., & Ferr o, F. (2001). Sondagens. A amostragem como factor decisivo de qualidade a [Surveys. Sampling as a decisive factor of quality] (2nd ed.). Lisbon, Portugal: Edicoes Silabo. Weaver, D. (2001a). Ecotourism as mass tourism: Contradiction or reality? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42, 104112. Weaver, D. (2001b). Ecotourism in the context of other tourism types. In D. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism (pp. 7383). Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Weaver, D. (2001c). Ecotourism. Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
996
C. Marques et al.
Weaver, D. (2002). Hard-core ecotourist in Lamington National Park, Australia. Journal of Ecotourism, 1(1), 1935. Weaver, D. (2005). Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 439455. Weaver, D., & Lawton, L.J. (2001). Attitudes and behaviour of ecolodge patrons in Lamington National Park (CRC Sustainable Tourisms Research Report). Gold Coast, QLD, Australia: CRC. Weaver, D., & Lawton, L.J. (2002). Overnight ecotourist market segmentation in the Gold Coast hinterland of Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 270280. Weaver, D., & Lawton, L.J. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tourism Management, 28, 11681179. Weber, K. (2001). Outdoor adventure tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 360377. Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W.A. (2000). Market segmentation, conceptual and methodological foundations (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Weinstein, A. (1994). Market segmentation: Using demographics psychographics and other niche marketing techniques to predict and model customer behavior (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Portuguese Protected Areas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Portuguese Protected Areas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [85.245.166.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Profiling the segments of visitors to Portuguese protected areas

Journal of Sustainable Tourism Vol. 18, No. 8, November 2010, 971996

Proling the segments of visitors to Portuguese protected areas

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Corresponding author. Email: catarina.marques@iscte.pt

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Journal of Sustainable Tourism Benet segmentation in nature-based tourism

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

63.3 21.9 14.7 100.0

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

at the 0.01 level; signicant at the 0.05 level.

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Sports Social inuence

Personal fulllment Proximity and convenience Participation in planned events

8.3 8.1 6.8

0.613 0.788 0.686

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

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

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Cronbachs alpha 0.851

Environmental interpretation activities Sports and organized activities

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Observation and study sites Basic facilities

Reception facilities Child support services

Recreational events/activities 0.0668 0.1859 0.2288 0.0567 0.1601 7.823

Environmental interpretation activities 0.0361 0.0393 0.0217 0.3377 0.7035 37.878

at the 0.01 level.

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

at the 0.01 level.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Regularly (%) 22.1 16.5 18.9 5.6 18.4

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Downloaded by [85.245.166.2] at 16:42 27 November 2011

Benefit Segmentation Studies Palacio and McCool (1997) n = 206

Sampled Population General travelers at the Belize international airport

Other Type of Tourists Passive Players (27%)

Bricker and Kerstetter (2002) n = 350

Participants in nature-tour of thirtyfour Fiji Island operators

Weaver and Lawton (2002); Weaver (2002) n = 1180

Kerstetter et al. (2004) n = 408 PPA visitor segmentation n = 401

Sociable Naturalists (12%)

Urban Visitors (13%) Self-centered Visitors (19%)

Excursionists (31%) Occasional Visitors (25%)

Total of segments does not equal 100%.

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

Basic or Occasional Interest in Nature

Advanced or Frequent Interest in Nature